HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-06-17; City Council; 14218; Child Care Ordinance\D m
- - w-l
CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL
AB#
MTG.
] 4, a,8 TITLE:
6/17/97 CHILD CARE ORDINANCE
DEPT. PLN %‘+ ZCA 93-Ol/LCPA 97-03 CITY MGR e
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 9 7- 496 APPROVING a Negative Declaration
and Local Coastal Program Amendment, LCPA 97-03, addressing child day care regulations and
INTRODUCE Ordinance No.N~- 404 APPROVING ZCA 93-01.
Item Exdanation:
On May 21, 1997, the Planning Commission approved (6-O) a resolution recommending approval of
ZCA 93-01 to the City Council. This zone code amendment creates a new chapter of the zoning
ordinance to address the provision of small and large family day care homes as well as child day
care centers. The proposed action addresses revisions to child care regulations as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Updates current regulations with regard to small and large family day care homes to
provide consistency with State law;
Provides development standards for child day care facilities;
Allows child day care centers in certain zones as a permitted use and in other zones
as a use approved by administrative permit;
Permits child day care centers in industrial zones with approval of a condition use
permit;
Requires new master plans to reserve a site for child day care centers; and
Amends the zoning ordinance to revise current child day care requirements and
presents these regulations as a new Chapter (21.83) of the zoning ordinance to
create a more user-friendly document for potential child day care providers.
When the proposed ZCA was reviewed by the Planning Commission there were no concerns
expressed regarding most of the ordinance; however, there was lengthy discussion regarding child
care in industrial zones. Staff had proposed that child day care centers be “employer-sponsored” or
limited to children of employees of a sponsoring company so that parents could evacuate their
children from the vicinity in case of emergency. The Commission indicated that they believed child
day care centers should be accessible to all companies and employees if evacuation could be
conducted safely. Discussion also focused on whether the evacuation should be handled
exclusively by the child day care center or with the assistance of parents working nearby.
In response to comments from the public and Planning Commission, staff revised language
addressing child day care centers in industrial zones. Child day care centers are now proposed to
be available to anyone regardless of where the parent works. Centers could be operated as a
separate commercial entity, could be shared by more than one business, or a business could limit
enrollment to only children of its employees. Emergency evacuation is now proposed to be handled
by the child day care provider without assistance of parents. These issues are further addressed in
the attached memo, dated May 27, 1997.
Environmental Review
On May 21, 1997, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Negative Declaration
issued by the Planning Director. At that time it was determined that impacts to both air quality and
traffic may be incrementally reduced by providing the opportunity for child day care closer to home
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA:I‘L NO. ) 4 i &I &
and work, thereby reducing average daily car trips. In addition, mitigation measures were included
in the proposed ordinance to create a safe environment for child day care centers in the industrial
zones. Future day care centers proposing to locate in industrial zones will be required to perform
additional environmental review which may further mitigate impacts. Environmental review of this
project indicates that all impacts have been reduced to a level of insignificance.
Fiscal Impacts:
If adopted, the proposed zone code amendment will have a minor fiscal impact with regard to fees
for child day care centers. In an effort to reduce fees as much as possible to encourage the
provision of child day care facilities in the City, staff has streamlined and expedited the discretionary
review process. The requirement for a Conditional Use Permit has been reduced in many zones
and replaced by an Administrative Permit. A fee of $250 (estimated cost of service approximately
$570) is proposed for an Administrative Permit to reflect the reduced requirement for staff review.
This fee is less than the actual cost of providing the service but is proposed as a means of
encouraging and supporting child day care in the City. The existing fee amounts of $125 for a Large
Family Day Care Permit (estimated cost of service approximately $450) and $2,500 for a Conditional
Use Permit are proposed to remain as existing. Fees charged by other cities for large family day
care homes and child day care centers can be found on Exhibit “B”.
Exhibits:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
City Council Resolution No. 93 - qq6
City Council Ordinance No. rVS- !+f0?
Memo to City Manager, dated May 27, 1997
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4092, 4093 and 4094
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated May 7, 1997 and May 21, 1997
Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated May 7 and May 21, 1997.
d
RESOLUTION NO. 97-496
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT FOR A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT
ADDING CHAPTER 21.83 TO THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL
CODE AND AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE TO ADDRESS THE PROVISION OF
SMALL AND LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES AND
CHILD DAY CARE CENTERS.
CASE NAME: CHILD DAY CARE ORDINANCE
CASE NO: ZCA 93-O 1 /LCPA 97-03
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the
Planning Commission did, on May 7, 1997 and May 21, 1997 hold a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law to consider a Negative Declaration and Local Coastal Program
Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 17th day ’
of June , 1997, held a duly advertised public hearing to consider said Negative
Declaration and Local Coastal Program Amendment and at that time received the
recommendations, objections, protests, comments of all persons interested in or opposed to
ZCA 93-01 and LCPA 97-03; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City Council APPROVES City Council Resolution No. 97-496
and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set
forth in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4092,4093, and 4094 on
file with the City Clerk and made a part hereof by reference are the
findings and conditions of the City Council.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
16
17 (SEAL)
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
COUNCIL of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the 17th day of June ,
1997, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Nygaard, Kulchin, and Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
. ,
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-409
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE 21 OF THE
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER
21.83 AND AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 21
TO REGULATE SMALL AND LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE
HOMES AND CHILD DAY CARE CENTERS.
CASE NAME: CHILD CARE ORDINANCE
CASE NO.: ZCA 93-Ol/LCPA 97-03
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby ordain as
follows:
SECTION I: That Title 21, Chapter 21.04 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended by amendments to Sections 21.04.086, 21.04.140, 21.04.146 and 21.04.147 and the
additions of new Sections 2 1.04.170, and 21.04.149 to read as follows:
“2 1.04.086 Child Dav Care Center.
“Child Day Care Center” means a facility, other than a family daycare home which
provides non-medical care, protection and supervision for children under 18 years of age for
periods of less than 24 hours per day. “ Child Day Care Center” includes preschools, nursery
schools, employer-sponsored day care facilities and before and after-school recreational
programs, but does not include public or private elementary schools.”
21.04.140 Educational Institution or School.
“Educational Institution or School means an institution of learning for minors, whether
public or private, which offers instruction in those courses of study required by the California
Education Code or which is maintained pursuant to standards set by the State Board of
Education. This definition includes a nursery school, kindergarten, elementary school, junior
high school, senior high school or any special institution of higher education, including a
community or junior college, college, or university.”
21.04.146 Family Day Care Home.
“Family Day Care Home means a detached single family dwelling which regularly
provides non-medical care, protection, and supervision of 14 or fewer children, in the provider’s
own home, for periods of less than 24 hours per day, while the parents or guardians are away.
The actual number of children permitted in a Family Day Care Home is based on age
composition as determined by the State of California, Department of Social Services. Family
Day Care Homes include Large or Small Family Day Care Homes.”
21.04.147 Family Dav Care Home, Large.
“Large Family Day Care Home” means a detached, single family dwelling which
provides family day care for 7 to 14 children, inclusive, including children under the age of 10
years who reside at the home as defined by Section 1596.78 of the California Health and Safety
Code and permitted by the licensing agency.
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
21.04.148 Familv Day Care Home. Small.
“Small Family Day Care Home” means a detached, single family dwelling which
provides family day care for eight or fewer children, including children under the age of 10 years
who reside at the home as defined in Section 1596.78 of the California Health and Safety Code
and permitted by the licensing agency.
21.04.149 Employer-sponsored Child Day Care Center.
“Employer-sponsored Child Day Care Center” means any Child Day Care Center at the
employer’s site of business and operated directly or through a provider contract by any person or
entity having one or more employees, and available exclusively for the care of that employer, and
of the officers, managers, and employees of the employer.
21.04.170 Director.
“Director means the Director of Planning.”
SECTION II: That Title 21, Chapter 21.07, Section 21.07.020 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code is amended by the additions of Subsections 21.07.020( 15) and (16) to read as
follows:
2 1.07.020 Permitted uses and structures.
(15) Small Family Day Care Homes;
(16) Large Family Day Care Homes, subject to the provisions of Chapter 2 1.83.
SECTION III: That Title 21, Chapter 21.08 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended by the additions of Subsections 2 1.08.0 10 (11) and (12) to read as follows:
“21.08.010 Permitted uses.
(11) Small Family Day Care Homes;
(12) Large Family Day Care Homes, subject to the provisions of Chapter 21.83.”
SECTION IV: That Title 21, Chapter 21.09 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended by the addition of Subsections 21.09.020(8) and (9) to read as follows:
“2 1.09.020 Permitted uses.
(8) Small Family Day Care Homes;
(9) Large Family Day Care Homes, subject to the provisions of Chapter 21.83.”
SECTION V: That Title 21, Chapter 21.10, of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended by the amendments of Subsections 2 1.10.0 10 (11) and (12) to read as follows:
“21.10.010 Permitted uses.
(11) Small Family Day Care Homes;
-2- b
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
(12) Large Family Day Care Homes, subject to the provisions of Chapter 21.83 .”
SECTION VI: That Title 21, Chapter 21.16, of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended by the addition of Subsections 2 1.16.0 1 O(9) and (10) and Section 2 1.16.0 18 to read as
follows:
“21.16.010 Permitted uses.
(9) Small Family Day Care Homes;
(10) Large Family Day Care Homes, subject to the provisions of Chapter 2 1.83.”
“21.16.018 Child Day Care Centers by administrative permit.
Child Day Care Centers may be permitted by administrative permit, subject to the
provisions of Chapter 2 1.83.
SECTION VII: That Title 2 1, Chapter 2 1.18 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended by the addition of Section 2 1.18.043 to read as follows:
“2 1.18.043 Child Day Care Centers permitted by administrative permit.
A. Child Day Care Centers may be permitted by administrative permit, subject to the
provisions of Chapter 2 1.83.
SECTION VIII: That Title 2 1, Chapter 2 1.20, Section 2 1.20.0 10 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Subsections 21.18.020(6) and (7) to read as
follows:
“21.20.010 Permitted uses and structures.
(6) Small Family Day Care Homes;
(7) Large Family Day Care Homes, subject to the provisions of Chapter 2 1.83.”
SECTION IX: That Title 2 1, Chapter 21.2 1, Section 2 1.2 1.040 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Subsection 21.21.040(3) to read as follows:
(3) Child Day Care Centers, subject to the provisions of Chapter 2 1.83.
SECTION X: That Title 21, Chapter 2 1.22, Section 21.22.010 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Subsection 21.22.010(6) and (7) to read as
follows:
-3- 7
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
“21.22.010 Permitted uses.
(6) Small Family Day Care Homes;
(7) Large Family Day Care Homes, subject to the provisions of Chapter 21.83.
SECTION XI: That Title 21, Chapter 2 1.24, of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended by the repeal of Subsection 21.24.020(5)and the addition of Subsections 21.24.010(7)
and (8) and 21.24.027 to read as follows:
“21.24.010 Permitted uses.
(7) Small Family Day Care Homes;
(8) Large Family Day Care Homes, subject to the provisions of Chapter 21.83.”
“2 1.24.027 Child Day Care Centers by administrative permit.
A. Child Day Care Centers may be permitted by administrative permit, subject to the
provisions of Chapter 21.83.”
SECTION XII: That Title 21, Chapter 21.26, Section 21.26.010 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Subsection 21.26.010(3 1) to read as
follows:
“21.26.010 Permitted uses.
(3 1) Child Day Care Centers, subject to the provisions of Chapter 2 1.83.”
SECTION XIII:f That Title 21, Chapter 21.27 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended by the addition of Section 21.27.021 to read as follows:
“21.27.02 1 Child Day Care Centers by administrative permit.
Child Day Care Centers may be permitted by administrative permit, subject to the
provisions of Chapter 2 1.83”.
SECTION XIV: That Title 2 1, Chapter 2 1.27, of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended by the addition of Section 21.27.021 and the amendment of Section 21.27.040 to read
as follows:
“21.27.021 Child Day Care Centers by administrative permit.
Child Day Care Centers may be permitted by administrative permit, subject to the
provisions of Chapter 21.83. Application for administrative permit shall demonstrate site design
compatibility with surrounding development.”
-4- s
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
“21.27.040 Site Development plan reauired.
Approval of a site development plan processed according to the provisions of Chapter
21.06 shall be required for any development in the 0 zone except Child Day Care Centers.”
SECTION XV: That Title 21, Chapter 21.30., is amended by the addition of
* Section 21.30.011 to read as follows:
“21.30.011 Uses and structures permitted by conditional use permit.
Child Day Care Centers are permitted by conditional use permit, subject to the provisions
of Chapter 21.50 and 21.83.
SECTION XVI: That Title 21, Chapter 21.32, of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended by the amendment of Subsection 21.32.010(l) to read as follows:
“21.32.010 Conditional uses.
(1) Any use permitted in the C-M zone, except Child Day Care Centers, except that a
dwelling conforming to the yard requirements of the R-3 zone shall be permitted on the same lot
on which a factory is located, and which dwelling is used exclusively by a caretaker or
superintendent of such factory and his family.”
SECTION XVII: That Title 21, Chapter 21.34, Section 21.34.030 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of Subsections 21.34.030(4) to read as
“21.34.030 Permitted uses and structures
(4) Child Day Care Centers, subject to the provisions of Chapter 21.83.
SECTION XVIII: That Title 21, Chapter 21.37, Section 21.37.020 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Subsection 21.37.020(7) and (8) to read
as follows:
“(7) Small Family Day Care Homes;
(8) Large Family Day Care Homes, subject to the provisions of Chapter 21.83.”
SECTION XIX: That Title 21, Chapter 21.38, of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended by the amendment of Section 21.38.020 to read as follows:
21.38.020 Permitted uses and structures.
“In the P-C, planned community zone, the permitted uses and structures shall be
-5- 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
established by a master plan of development approved in accordance with this Chapter which
may include any use found to be necessary and desirable for a community planned in accordance
with the purposes of this Chapter, provided that such permitted uses and structures shall be
consistent with the general plan and applicable specific plans. Any such master plan which
includes a residential component shall include graphic plans and text to reserve a site within the
master plan area for a Child Day Care Center of reasonable size for a period of five years from
the date of issuance of the first building permit. Prior to approval of a master plan, the property
may be used as permitted by Chapter 21.07 for the E-A exclusive agriculture zone. After
approval of a master pan, such agricultural uses may be continued if the master plan so
provides.”
SECTION XX: That Title 21, Chapter 21.44, Section 21.44.050 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Subsection 21.44.050(a)(4)(E) to read as
follows:
21.44.050 General reauirements.
(El Up to 50 percent of the parking facilities required by this Chapter for a church
may be jointly utilized by an on-site, accessory, Child Day Care Center provided there is no
substantial conflict in the principal operating hours of the church and Child Day Care Center.
SECTION XXI: That Title 21 is amended by the addition of Chapter 2 1.83
to read as follows:
Chapter 21.83
CHILD CARE
Sections:
21.83.010
21.83.020
21.83.030
21.83.040
21.83.050
21.83.060
21.83.070
21.83.080
Purpose
Definitions
Exclusions
Use Chart
Requirements for Large Family Day Care Homes
Child Day Care Centers
Child Day Care Centers by Administrative Permit
Development Standards for Child Day Care Centers
21.83.010 Purpose
The purposes of the Child Care Development Regulations are to:
A. Recognize that affordable, quality, licensed child care is critical to both the well-
being of children and parents as well as the economic vitality of the City;
B. Provide a comprehensive set of guidelines to ensure a safe child care environment
and to maintain compatibility between child care facilities and surrounding land uses;
C. Ensure that the needs of children for adequate care are balanced with the rights of
property owners;
-6-
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
D. Facilitate the establishment of child care facilities as a permitted use within
certain zones;
E. Enhance provider awareness of City requirements;
F. Authorize Child Day Care Centers in P-M and C-M Zones as conditionally
permitted uses and subject to specified standards; and,
G. Implement State law with regard to the provision of child care facilities. As stated
in Health and Safety Code, Section 1597.40: “Family Day Care Homes must be situated in
normal residential surroundings so as to give children the home environment which is conducive
to healthy and safe development. It is the public policy of this State to provide children in a
Family Day Care Home the same home environment as provided in a traditional home setting.”
It is the policy of the State that Small and Large Family Day Care Homes do not constitute a
change of occupancy of residentially zoned and occupied properties for purposes of local
ordinances as well as local building and fire codes. Traffic and noise generated by Child Day
Care Homes are considered to be of normal residential levels which may be reasonably restricted
but not used as a basis for permit denial. Conditions, covenants and restrictions (CC&Rs)
restricting or prohibiting Child Care Homes in residential neighborhoods were voided by Health
and Safety Code Section 1597.40(c). Judgments on the quality of child care are the
responsibility of parents, the provider, and the licensing agency.
21.83.020 Definitions
For the purposes of this chapter, the terms used herein relating to the provision of child
care services are defined as follows:
A. “Acutely Hazardous Materials” means substances which have the greatest
potential to pose a hazard to public health and the environment in the event of accidental release.
These substances are identified in California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95.
B. “Threshold Planning Quantities” means the amount of specific Acutely Hazardous
Materials which, if accidentally released into the environment, are likely to cause acute health
effects resulting in significant injury to or death of humans.
C. “Child or Children” means a person or persons, under 18 years of age being
provided care and supervision in a child care facility;
D. “Child Day Care Center” means a facility other than a Family Day Care Home
which provides non-medical care, protection, and supervision for children under 18 years of age
for periods of less than 24 hours per day. Child Day Care Centers include preschools, nursery
schools, Employer-Sponsored Child Day Care Facilities, and before and after-school recreational
programs, but do not include public or private elementary schools.
E. “Employer-sponsored Child Day Care Center” means any Child Day Care Center
at the employer’s site of business and operated directly or through a provider contract by any
person or entity having one or more employees, and available exclusively for the care of that
employer, and of the officers, managers, and employees of the employer.
F. “Family Day Care Home” means a single family dwelling which regularly
provides non-medical care, protection, and supervision of 14 or fewer children, in the provider’s
own home, for periods of less than 24 hours per day, while the parents or guardians are away.
The actual number of children permitted in a Family Day Care Home is based on age
composition as determined by the permitting agency. Family Day Care Homes include either of
the following:
1. “Large Family Day Care Home”, means a detached, single family
dwelling which provides family day care for 7 to 14 children, inclusive, including children under
-7- ii
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
I
I . i the age of 10 years who reside at the home as defined in Section 1596.78 of the California Health
and Safety Code and as permitted by the licensing agency;
2. “Small Family Day Care Home”, means a detached, single family
dwelling which provides family day care for 8 or fewer children, including children under the
age of 10 years who reside at the home as defined in Section 1596.78 of the California Health
and Safety Code and as permitted by the licensing agency.
G. “Provider” means a person or entity who operates a Child Day Care Center or a
Large Family Day Care Home and is licensed by the County of San Diego to provide child care
services. I
21.83.030 Exclusions I
The requirements of this chapter do not apply to the following:
A. Any child day care home providing care for the children of only one family in
addition to the provider’s own children;
B. Any cooperative arrangement between parents for the care of their children by one
or more of the parents where no payment for the care is involved;
C. Any arrangement for the receiving and care of children by a relative;
D. Any public recreation programs conducted by a public entity specified in and
meeting the requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 1596.792(g); or recreation
programs conducted for children by a Boys’ Club, a Girls’ Club, the Brownies, the Cub/Boy/Girl
Scouts, the Campfire Girls or similar such organizations as determined by State regulations
issued pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 1596.793; and,
E. Any public or private schools operating before or after-school recreational
programs or Child Day Care Centers. I
21.83.040 Use Chart I
Zones in which Small and Large Family Day Care Homes and Child Day Care Centers
are shown on the following use chart. Permitted, administrative, conditional, and prohibited are
authorized as follows: , I “P” Indicates that the use is permitted in the zone.
“A” Indicates that the use is permitted subject to approval of an administrative permit.
“C” Indicates that the use is permitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit.
“X’ Indicates that the use is prohibited in the zone.
. < * ;1 h dz$ g,i;,* )r^ --i& I a** y” -iP<$*.
RA, RE, EA
R-l
R-2
R-3,
RD-M, RP
RT, RW,
RMHP
0
’ - :?‘;ji;kbI$F&IILY ; : <;~$HIIXDAY,;. ” I *_ x
$~s~l +~~~<~e~E‘k& ,g~i _ vzFde a2 $. ix- c &CARE 94;‘ s-p: ~j “r. 2’ (14 or Fewer” Children) : z3e _* r* %- CENTER, +
P(l) X
P(1) X
P(l) 1 x
P(l) ~ A(2)
P(l) X
X , A(2)
-8- /n.
. I
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-l, c-2 X X
PM, CM X X
M, PU, OS, X X
1 P(3)
I c
ox LC, TC, CT
VR,PC (4) (4) 1 (4)
l------ Permitted only when the Large Family Day Care Home is located on a lot occupied by a detached, single
family dwelling on a lot of 7,500 square feet or more by ministerial approval without a public hearing and
subject to the provisions of Section 2 1 J3.050 of this Chapter.
2------ Permitted subject to the provisions of Sections 21.83.070 and 21.X3.080 of this Chapter. i
3------ Permitted subject to the provisions of Section 21.X3.080 of this Chapter and the requirements of any
controlling document (e.g., Site Development Plan). 4----- Permitted subject to the standards of the controlling document (Village Redevelopment M ‘aster Plan and
Design Guidelines or designated Master Plan) and the provisions of Section 21 S3.080 of this Chapter.
21.83.050 Requirements for Large Family Day Care Homes I
All Large Family Day Care Homes shall comply with the following development requirements:
A. The applicant shall obtain all licenses and permits required by State law for
operation of the facility and shall keep all State licenses or permits valid and current.
B. Applicants who reside on rented or leased property shall provide proof of written
notice to the landlord or owner of the property that they intend to operate a Family Day Care
Home on the rented or leased premises in accord with Section 1597.40 of the California Health
and Safety Code.
C. The facility shall comply with all zoning standards otherwise applic a ble to other
_ single family residences, however, the use of a detached, single family dwelling for the purposes
of this section shall not constitute a change of occupancy for purposes of Title 18 of this Code.
D. The facility shall comply with all standards relating to fire and life safety
applicable to single family residences established by the State Fire Marshal contained in Title 24
of the California Code of Regulations as amended from time to time.
E. The subject site shall not be located closer than 1,200 lineal feet from any other
Large Family Day Care Home on the same street. In addition, Large Family Day Care Homes
shall not be located on either the “bulb” of a cul-de-sac street or on a panhandle lot.
F. An outdoor play area which satisfies the requirements of the State of California,
Community Care Licensing Division shall be provided in the rear yard and shall be ehclosed by a
natural barrier, wall, solid fence, or other solid structure a minimum of five feet in ‘height. The
provider shall ensure that outdoor piay times do not begin until after 9:00 a.m. an& end before
5:00 p.m. The provider shall stagger the number of children playing outdoors at any one time to
reduce noise impacts on surrounding residences. I
G. All outdoor play areas shall be adequately separated from vehicular circulation
and parking areas by a strong fence such as chain link, wood or masonry.
-9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
H. Required garages shall be prohibited for use as a Family Day Care Home and
shall be utilized for parking two of the applicant’s onsite vehicles during the daily operation of
the day care home rather than parking the vehicles on the street or in the driveway.
I. The applicant shall designate the onsite driveway as the official drop-off and pick-
up area for children and shall notify parents of this requirement. Said driveway shall remain free
and clear of parked cars.
J. The applicant shall require that employees park in locations which will not
inconvenience nearby residents. To disrupt the neighborhood as little as possible, best efforts
shall be made by the applicant to require employees to park as close as possible to the Family
Day Care Home.
K. Large Family Day Care Home Providers shall make written application to the
Director and shall include all materials deemed necessary by the Director to show that the
requirements of this section are met. The Director shall grant the permit without a hearing if all
the requirements of this section are satisfied. The decision of the Director shall be made within
15 working days of the receipt of a complete application and provided to the applicant in writing.
The decision of the Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 10 calendar
days of the date of the written decision of the Director. The appellant shall pay the cost of the
appeal. Any appeal shall be filed in accordance to the procedures set forth in Section 21.
54.140; the appellant shall pay the fee applicable to single family dwellings.
21.83.060 Child Day Care Centers
A. Child Day Care Centers are permitted in accordance with Section 21.83.040
subject to the following limitations:
1. In the PM and CM zones, with a conditional use permit in accordance with
Section 2 1.83.080 and subject to the following provisions:
(a> The applicant shall conduct an evaluation of the health and safety
. risks associated with the proposed Child Day Care Center. The evaluation shall include a survey
of all businesses within 1,000 feet of the proposed Child Day Care Center to determine the nature
and quantity of hazardous materials in use nearby. If the conditional use permit is granted,
thereafter, the Provider shall conduct similar annual evaluations and disclose results to the Fire
Chief and Planning Director. The evaluations must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Fire
Chief and Planning Director that the occurrence of the following within 1,000 feet of the Child
Care Center presents no significant health or safety risks to the occupants:
(1) Use or storage of Acutely Hazardous Materials in amounts
above the threshold planning quantities (TPQs);
(2) Use or storage of more than 10,000 gallons of flammable
liquids; or
(3) Use or storage of more than 1,500 pounds of flammable
compressed gas.
(b) Prior to enrollment of the child in the Child Day Care Center, the
Provider shall, in writing, inform the child’s parents that their child(ren) may be subject to health
and safety risks due to the presence, use and discharge of hazardous materials (including Acutely
Hazardous Materials above the TPQs) in the area. Parents shall also be informed that the
Provider may be required to retain custody of their children for extended time periods during an
emergency.
(4 Prior to occupancy, the Provider shall prepare and obtain approval
by the Fire Chief of an emergency operating plan which prescribes procedures to be followed
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
during the existence of the Child Day Care Center which ensure the following:
(1) That children can be evacuated from the building within
five minutes and relocated to a predetermined refuge area(s) within 10 minutes of emergency
notification; and
(2) Quarterly exercise of the plan.
(4 The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to
discontinue operation of the Child Day Care Center immediately upon the discovery of the
existence of hazardous materials as described in Section 21.83.060Al(a) above when such
materials are found by the Fire Chief and Planning Director to present a health and safety risk to
children attending the Child Day Care Center. The applicant shall have 90 days to mitigate, to
the satisfaction of the Fire Chief, the impacts created by the use of said hazardous materials. If
impacts are not mitigated within 90 days, the conditional use permit for the Child Day Care
Center shall become null and void. The applicant shall agree to indemnify and hold the City of
Carlsbad and its officers, employees, and agents free and harmless from any claims, actions,
damages, costs, or expenses arising from exposure of children to hazardous substances as a result
of the presence of the former in or near the Child Day Care Center. The Fire Chief or Planning
Director are hereby authorized to enter into the agreement on behalf of the City.
(e> The applicant shall submit a conversion plan at the time of
application which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and the Fire Chief
that the Child Day Care Center could be converted to a use permitted within the zone if the
conditional use as a Child Day Care Center is discontinued.
(f) Upon acceptance of a complete application and payment of the
required fees, the Planning Director shall process the application in accordance with Chapter
21.52 except that notices shall be given to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject
property.
2. As a permitted use on developed church or school sites, except in
industrial zones, and subject to the provisions of Section 21.83.090 below.
3. In the R-3, RD-M, RP and 0 zones, with an administrative permit, subject
to the provisions of Sections 21.83.070 and 21.83.080.
4. In the HO, C-l and C-2 zones, as a permitted use subject to the provisions
of Section 2 1.83.080.
21.83.070 Child Day Care Centers by Administrative Permit
Child Day Care Centers may be approved by administrative permit in zones specified therefore
in Section 21.83.040 of this Chapter. The owner of the subject property shall make written
application to the Director. Such application shall include all materials deemed necessary by the
Director to show that the requirements of Section 21.83.080 are met. If the site is in the Coastal
Zone, the application shall also constitute an application for a Coastal Development Permit.
A. The Director shall give written notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the
subject property of pending development decision after the application is complete, at least
fifteen working days prior to the decision on the application as follows:
1. Contents. The notice shall include all requirements of Section 21.54.061
of this code, including a notice of a public comment period of at least 15 working days sufficient
to receive and consider comments submitted by mail prior to the date established for the
decision. The notice shall also include a statement that a public hearing shall be held upon
ll- .,J
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
request by any person and a statement that failure by a person to request a public hearing may
result in the loss of that person’s ability to appeal approval of the administrative permit by the
Director to the Planning Commission. \
B. The Director may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the permit. The
Director may waive a public hearing on an administrative permit if notice has been provided
accordance with subsection (A)( 1) of this section and a request for a public hearing has not been
received by the city within 15 working days from the date of sending the notice. If a request for
a public hearing is received, a public hearing before the Director shall be held in the same
manner as a Planning Commission hearing. In either event, the Director’s decision shall
based upon the requirements of, and shall include, specific factual findings supporting whether
the project is or is not in conformity with the requirements of Section 21.83.080.
The Director’s decision shall be made in writing. The date of the decision shall
the date the writing containing the decision or determination is mailed or otherwise delivered
the person or persons affected by the decision. If the matter includes a Coastal Development
Permit, unless the decision is appealed to the Planning Commission, the Director shall provide
notice of final action in accordance with Sections 2 1.20 1.160 and 2 1.20 1.170 of this code,
addition to the Director’s written decision.
C. The Director’s decision shall be final unless the decision is appealed by an
interested person to the Planning Commission. The written appeal shall specifically state the
reason or reasons for the appeal and the manner in which the decision of the Director is in error.
The decision of the Director shall be afftrmed by the Planning Commission unless the appellant
shows by a preponderance of evidence that the decision of the Director is in error, inconsistent
with State law, the general plan, this zoning ordinance or any policy of the city. The appeal shall
be filed in writing with the secretary of the Planning Commission within 10 calendar days after
the date of the Director’s decision. The decision by the Planning Commission on appeals of the
Director’s decision shall be final. If the matter includes a Coastal Development Permit, the
Director shall give notice of final action on the appeal in accordance with Sections 21.201.160
and 21.201.170.
21.83.080 Develonment Standards for Child Day Care Centers
All Child Day Care Centers shall comply with the following development standards:
A. The applicant has or will obtain all licenses and permits required by State law for
operation of the facility. The applicant shall keep all State licenses or permits valid and current.
B. The center shall meet all zoning standards otherwise applicable to the project site.
C. Indoor and outdoor play areas which satisfy the requirements of the County of
San Diego Daycare Licensing Agency shall be provided. The outdoor play area shall be adjacent
to the center and accessible through the center itself. The outdoor play area shall be enclosed by
natural barrier, wall, or fence a minimum of five feet in height. If located adjacent to
residentially-zoned property, the separating barrier, wall, or fence shall be of solid construction.
Said outdoor play area shall not be allowed in any required front, side or rear yard setbacks and
shall be located and designed so as to reduce noise impacts on adjacent properties.
D. The outdoor play space shall be viewable directly from the interior of the structure
by having windows at strategic points so that the yard area can be seen from the inside of the
child care center.
E. Each Child Day Care Center shall have a direct source of natural light which shall
be located so as to maximize the ability for children to see out of windows.
,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
F. Notwithstanding Chapter 21.44, parking shall be provided at one space/employee
plus one space for each 10 children, minimum. Such parking shall not be located in any required
front yard setback. An adequate on-site loading/unloading area shall be provided which can be
easily accessed from the Child Day Care Center without crossing any driveways or streets. This
area may be counted towards the required parking. Clearly designated pedestrian walkways shall
be provided.
1. Up to 50 percent of the parking facilities required by Chapter 21.44 for a
church may be jointly utilized by an on-site, incidental, Child Day Care Center provided there is
no substantial conflict in the principle operating hours of the buildings or uses for which the joint
use of off-street parking facilities is proposed.
G. Signs shall be permitted in accordance with the underlying zone as provided in
Chapter 2 1.4 1.
H. Any additional conditions regarding safety and access deemed necessary or
desirable by the City Engineer, Planning Director, or Principal Building Inspector.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its
adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be
published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within
fifteen days after its adoption. (Notwithstanding the proceeding, this ordinance shall not be
effective within the City’s Coastal Zone until approved by the California Coastal Commission.)
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council held on the d:y of , 1997 and thereafter.
. . .
. . .
.*,
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
-13-
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the day of 1997, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-14-
EXHIBIT 3
MAY 27,1997
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: Planning Director
ZCA 93-01, CHILD CARE ORDINANCE - INDUSTRIAL ZONES
This memo is intended to supplement the staff report by providing background information
regarding discussion and decisions made at the Planning Commission hearings on proposed
requirements for child day care centers in industrial zones.
Background
In concurrence with Council direction, staff prepared the Child Care Ordinance permitting child
care centers in the industrial zones with a conditional use permit. Provisions were included to
create a reasonably safe environment for children and to maintain compatibility with nearby
industrial uses. The proposed regulations establish industry as the prominent land use in the
industrial areas and child care as the dissimilar land use. The dissimilar land use (child care) is
allowed as long as no conflict is created and the responsibility for maintaining compatibility is
seen as belonging to the child day care center.
Staff proposed allowing child day care centers, as an Employer-sponsored Child Day Care
Center subject to the following regulations:
1. A health risk analysis provided by the sponsoring company, which surveys nearby
businesses and demonstrates that no acutely hazardous materials above certain
quantity levels are used or stored within 1,000 feet of the child day care center;
2. An evacuation plan which demonstrates that children can be safety evacuated
from the center within 5 minutes and relocated to a safe area within 10 minutes;
3. A one minute emergencv notification of parents; so that they could begin assisting
in the evacuation of their children;
4. An acknowledgment indicating that parents are aware that their children may be
subject to exposure of health and safety risks due to the presence, use and
discharge of hazardous materials in the area;
5. A legal agreement from the sponsoring company consenting to discontinue
operation of the center immediately upon discovery of the existence of hazardous
materials as outlined in the ordinance. The sponsoring company would have 90
days to mitigate the impacts or the conditional use permit for the child day care
center would become null and void; and
6. A conversion plan, submitted with the CUP application by the sponsoring
company, which demonstrates that the child care facility could be converted to a
use permitted within the zone should the child care facility discontinue as a
permitted use.
‘ZCA 93-Ol- CHILD CARk ORDINANCE - INDUSTRIAL ZONES
MEMO TO CITY MANAGER
MAY 27,1997
Planning Commission Revisions
Discussions at the Planning Commission meeting focused on the question: If children can be
safely evacuated from a child day care center, why shouldn’t child day care centers in industrial
zones be accessible to anyone rather just the employees of a sponsoring company? Related to
this issue, was the staff requirement for a one minute warning to parents to alert them to
emergency situations so they could begin assisting in the evacuation of their children from the
immediate vicinity. The Planning Commission agreed with the public comment that emergency
evacuations could be more efficiently handled by trained child day care center employees and
that a one minute warning for parents was unrealistic.
Staff considered these concerns and revised the scope of the proposed regulations regarding child
day care centers in the industrial zones by allowing child day care centers in the industrial zones
to be accessible to any child regardless of where parents are employed. Revisions reflect the
revised position that trained child day care center employees m safely evacuate children to a
safe refuge area where parents can then remove them from the vicinity of the emergency. This
also eliminated the need of a one minute warning for parents.
Provisions were also strengthened to require the applicant to submit annual follow-up evaluation
reports demonstrating that the 1,000 foot buffer area remains free of hazards. Staff additionally
proposed that the parents be made aware that should an emergency occur, the child care provider
may be required to maintain custody of their children for an extended period. The additional
disclosure requirements will permit parents to make an informed decision regarding the safety of
their children and therefore, staff proposed that the evacuation during an emergency be
accomplished by the provider, without the assistance of parents.
Revised regulations include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Child Day Care Centers (vs. “Employer-sponsored Day Care Centers) are permitted in
the PM and CM zones with a conditional use permit.
Modification of Item No. 1 on previous page. An initial evaluation of health and safety
risks of businesses within 1,000 feet, performed by the provider, and repeated on an
annuaE basis, to determine the nature and quantity of hazardous materials in use nearby.
The requirement for a one minute warning (Item No. 3 on previous page) has been
deleted.
Inclusion of hold harmless language.
Staff supports the revised regulations and believes that child care can be safely accommodated in
the industrial zones while industry still maintains its place as the prominent position.
30
EXHIBIT 4
1 II PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4092
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ZONE
CODE AMENDMENT TO ADD CHAPTER 21.83 TO TITLE 21
OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMENDING
VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 21 TO REGULATE SMALL
AND LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES AND CHILD
DAY CARE CENTERS.
CASE NAME: CHILD CARE ORDINANCE
CASE NO.: ZCA 93-Ol/LCPA 97-03
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of May 1997, and the
10
II 21st day of May 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said I 11
12
request, and
13
14
15
16
17
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative according
to Exhibit “ND” dated April 3, 1997, and “PII” dated March 3,.1997, attached
hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findiws:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and considered
Negative Declaration dated April 3, 1997, the environmental impacts therein identified
for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of
the project. Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, the Planning Commission
finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the
environment and thereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration.
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
2.
3.
4.
The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration dated April 3, 1997,
reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
That because no development is proposed as part of this zone code amendment, and
because future project will be individually reviewed to evaluate environmental impacts,
no impacts are anticipated to geologic resources, water resources, air quality,
transportation/circulation, biological resources, energy and mineral resources, hazards,
noise, public services, utilities and services, aesthetics, cultural resources, or recreation.
That the proposed zone code amendment will incrementally contribute to improving air
quality and traffic circulation by creating the opportunity for child care facilities near the
home or work place thus potentially reducing the number of daily traffic trips of parents.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of May 1997, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioners Compas, Heineman,
Monroy, Noble and Savary
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Welshons
ABSTAIN: None
ROBOT NIELSEN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOtiMIL&R
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4092 -2-
NEGATIW DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: Citywide, in the City of Carlsbad
Project Description: Zone code amendment revising child care regulations and
presenting these as a new section of the Zoning Ordinance.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within thirty (30) days
of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Adrienne Landers in the Planning
Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4451.
DATED: APRIL 3,1997
CASE NO: ZCA 93-Ol/LCPA 97-03
CASE NAME: CHILD CARE ORDINANCE
PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 3,1997
MICHAEL J. I-I&!ZMII%BR
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (619) 438-11610 FAX (619) 438-0894 d 3 @
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: ZCA 93-O l/LCPA 97-03
DATE: March 3. 1997
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Child care Ordinance
2. APPLICANT: Citv of Carlsbad
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: n/a
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: n/a
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A zone code amendment to add a new chanter to the zoning
ordinance and to amend chapters and sections of the zoning ordinance to address the provision of
small and large family daycare homes and child care centers.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning
0 Population and Housing
0 Geological Problems
cl Water
Ix] Air Quality
q Transportation/Circulation q Public Services
q Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
EJ Hazards cl Cultural Resources
cl Noise cl Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03128196
.
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
El
cl
cl
cl
cl
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Planner Signature I Date
Al Planning Director%&gnakuke Date I
2 Rev. 03/28/96 4ad
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
l A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
l “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
l “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
l “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
l Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but &I potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed pfoject, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
l When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
l A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03128196 ab
l If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
l An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 03/28/96 27
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
4
b)
c>
4
e)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (Source 1,2,3)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (Source 1,2)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(Source 1,2,3,4)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (Source 1,2, 3,4)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (Source 1,2,3,4)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Source 2,3,4)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (Source 2,4)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (Source 2,4)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
a)
b)
c>
d)
e>
f)
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (Source 1,2,4)
Seismic ground shaking? (Source 1,2,4)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source
~2~4) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Source 1,2,4)
Landslides or mudflows? (Source 1,2,4)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or till? (Source 1,
234)
8) Subsidence of the land? (Source 1,2,4)
h) Expansive soils? (Source 1,2,4)
9 Unique geologic or physical features? (Source 1,2,4)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (Source 1,2,4)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (Source 1,2,4)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (Source 1,2,4)
Potentially Significant Impact
q
q
q
cl
q
q
cl
q
q q q
cl q q
Cl q q
q
q
0
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
cl
q
q
q
q
cl
q
q
a q q
q q cl
q q cl
q
0
q
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
q
q
q
cl
q
q
q
q
q q 0
cl q q
q q 0
cl
q
Cl
NO
Impact
Ix] ’
Ix1
[XI
[XI
ixl
lxl
.[xI lx
El
(xl
lxl
5 Rev. 03/28/96 2%
_-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
g)
h)
9
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (Source 1,2,4)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (Source 1,2,4)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (Source 1,2,4)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(Source 1,2,4)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source 1,2,4)
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (Source
1,2,4)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
4
b)
c>
4
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (Source 1, 3,
4) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source 1, 3,
4) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (Source 1,2,4)
Create objectionable odors? (Source 1,2,4)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a>
b)
cl
4
d
f)
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source 1,
294) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (Source 1,2,4)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(Source 1,2,4)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(Source I, 4,6)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(Source 1,2,4)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(Source 1,2,4)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Source 1,2,4)
proposal result in:
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (Source 1,2,4)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(Source 1,2,4)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
III
Cl
q
cl Cl
Cl
0
q
cl
cl
q
cl
q
cl
q
cl
q
q
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
q
q
0
q
Cl 0
Ixi
lx
Cl
cl
lxl
q
Cl
cl
cl
q
q
cl
q
Less Than
Significan
t impact
q
0
q
cl
cl 0
q
Cl
q
cl
q
cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl
0
q
No
Impact
lxl
lxl
[XI
lzl
El
Ix1
cl
q
Ix1
Ix1
cl
Ix]
Ix1
lxl
(XI
El
Ix1
Ix)
El
6 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
cl
d)
e>
VIII.
a>
b)
c)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source 1,2,4)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(Source 1,2,4)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Source 1, 2,
4)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(Source 2,4)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (Source 2,4)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (Source 2,4)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (Source 3,4)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (Source 2,3,4)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (Source 2,3,4)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (Source 2,3,4)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (Source 2,3,4)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source j, 2,4)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source 1,
234)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (Source 2,4)
b) Police protection? (Source 2,4)
c) Schools? (Source 2,4)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(Source 2,4)
e) Other governmental services? (Source 2,4)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (Source 2,4)
7
Potentially Significant
Impact
q
q
q
0
q
q
Cl
q
q
0
cl
cl 0
q cl cl cl
cl
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
cl
Cl
q
Cl
q
q
q
q
El
Cl
q
q q
q Cl cl cl
q
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
q
q
q
Cl
q
Cl
q
0
q
cl
q
Cl Cl
q q 0 Cl
Cl
No
Impact
txl
lxl
IXI
IXI
lxl
El
El
Ix]
q
[XI
lxl
IXI El
lx El lxl IXI
[XI
q q cl El
Rev. 03128/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
c)
d)
e>
f)
g)
XIII.
a>
b)
cl
XIV.
a>
b)
c)
d)
e)
Communications systems? (Source 2,4)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (Source 2,4)
Sewer or septic tanks? (Source 2,4)
Storm water drainage? (Source 2,4)
Solid waste disposal? (Source 2,4)
Local or regional water supplies? (Source 2,4)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (Source 1,
274) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (Source
1,274) Create light or glare? (Source 1,2,4)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (Source 1,2,4)
Disturb archaeological resources? (Source 1,2,4)
Affect historical resources? (Source 1,2,4)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Source 1,
234) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (Source 1,2,4)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
XVI.
a)
b)
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (Source 2,4)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Source 2,4)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
8
Potentially
Significant Impact
cl
cl
cl
El
cl
0
Cl
cl
0
Cl
Cl
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Cl
cl
0
cl
Cl
cl
0
Cl
Cl
cl
0
Cl
Cl
Cl
cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Less Than Signitican
t Impact
Cl
El
0
0
El
cl
0
cl
cl
Cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl
0
0
Cl
No
Impact
[XI
lxl
Ix1
Ix1
El
IXI
Ix)
[XI
El
IXI
lxl
[XI
!x
Ix]
IXI
El
El
El
Rev. 03128196 31
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, 0 Cl Cl IXI
either directly or indirectly?
cl
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c> Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
Rev. 03/28/96 39
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The proposed project includes a zone code amendment revising child care regulations in the City
and presenting these requirements as a new section of the Zoning Ordinance - Chapter 2 1.83 - of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
LAND USE AND PLANNING:
The proposed zoning changes will have an impact on existing zoning regulations by creating a
comprehensive set of standards for the establishment of child care facilities in various zones
throughout the City. The adverse impacts of these changes are not significant.
The proposed zone code amendment updates the City’s zoning ordinance to be consistent with
State law concerning family child care facilities in residential dwellings. The maximum number
of children permitted in small family day care homes would be increased from 6 to 8; the
maximum number of children permitted in large family day care homes would be increased from
12 to 14. Such facilities would not be permitted in apartments, stacked flat condominiums, or
small-lot condominiums. This is not expected to have significant impact on reducing child care
availability in Carlsbad since no currently licensed, large family day care homes are in
apartments and it is likely that most apartments already restrict this type of use.
The proposed ordinance allows child care centers as a conditional use in residential and office
neighborhoods where there may be issues of land use compatibility. This process will allow the
imposition of conditions to ensure compatibility with surrounding developments while still
permitting child care in a neighborhood setting. The proposed ordinance also allows child care
in commercial zones as a permitted use which should make it easier to establish a child care
center in these zones and may result in more child care centers in these areas. This is a change
in zoning standards, but is not in conflict with existing zoning, since child care centers have been
found to be compatible with commercial development.
The proposed amendment will also allow child care centers as an ancillary use to existing or
proposed businesses located in the City’s industrial zones. Industrial land uses (with respect to
child care) are seen as having priority in the industrial zones with child care centers assuming the
responsibility for maintaining compatibility. Provisions have been included in the proposed
ordinance to minimize land use impacts to surrounding properties and to provide a safe
environment for children (see discussion under “Hazards”, page 13). The proposed regulations
will not create significant land use impacts.
POPULATION AND HOUSING:
The proposed zoning revisions will not result in a change in the location, distribution, density or
growth rate of the population in Carlsbad. The number of people in industrial, commercial and
residential zones would not be significantly influence by whether child care facilities are allowed
or not.
10 Rev. 03/28/96 33
A.
GEOPHYSICAL:
The proposed zone code amendment will have no significant effect on the earth’s topography or
soils. Child care facilities are most likely to be proposed in developed areas of the City on
previously-graded sites.
WATER QUALITY:
The proposed zone code amendments will have no significant adverse effect on water quality or
supply. The General Plan indicates that available water supplies are adequate for the buildout of
the City, including child care facilities.
AIR OUALITY:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveied. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with
development;
Measures to reduce vehicle tips through the implementation of Congestion and
Transportation Demand Management;
Provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit
services;
Conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and
Participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-O 1, .by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
Since the proposed zone code amendment is a regulatory document only and does not include
development proposals, no air quality mitigation measures are required at this time. Applicable
and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures will be incorporated into the design
of future child care facilities or will be included as conditions of future project approval.
11 Rev. 03/28/96 34
Please refer to “Hazards”, page 13, for discussion of potential hazards, including airborne
hazards, to children attending child care facilities located in industrial areas.
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include:
1.’
2.
3.
4.
5.
Provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with need;
Measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and
Transportation Demand Management;
Provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes,
additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems;
Conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and
Participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted.
The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City
streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. Since the
proposed zone code amendment is a regulatory document and does not propose development, no
mitigation measures are required at this time. The applicable and appropriate General Plan
circulation mitigation measures will be incorporate into the design of future child care facilities
or will be included as conditions of future project approvals.
Regional-related, circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
Since the proposed zone code amendment is a regulatory document only and does not include
development proposals, no traffic/circulation mitigation measures are required at this time.
Applicable and appropriate General Plan traffic mitigation measures will be incorporated into the
design of future child care facilities or will be included as conditions of future project approval.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
.
BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS:
As legislative actions, the proposed code changes will not affect plant or animal life land use and
will not impact the amount or location of development in Carlsbad. The proposed changes will
not include development in areas where there are rare or endangered species, or natural plant life.
ENERGY AND MINERAL:
The proposed changes will not increase the rate of use of any natural resources. Child care
centers are similar to other land uses in energy usage. The prohibition of acutely hazardous
materials near sensitive uses such as child care facilities also will not result in a significant
chance within the City’s industrial districts and the use of resources within those districts.
HAZARDS:
The proposed zone code amendment, as a legislative action, will not increase the risk of
explosion or release (physical or airborne) of hazardous materials and will not interfere with
emergency responses or evacuations. However, because the proposed amendment would allow
child care land uses within industrial areas, the environmental consequences of the legislative
action must be analyzed.
If child care facilities are located in planned industrial areas, children may be exposed to
accidental releases of acutely hazardous materials. Advances in the containment and handling of
hazardous materials have greatly reduced the chance of accidental release of these substances,
but have not totally eliminated risk. In the event of an accidental release, acutely hazardous
materials can pose a significant health risk to children on or near a release site.
Children are considered more sensitive to chemical exposures than healthy adults because
children have a higher respiratory rate per body weight than adults. Their metabolic mechanisms
that detoxify chemicals may not be as efficient as adults. Also, they have a shorter distance
between the point of inhalation and the point of absorption into the body thus placing chemicals
into the blood stream much faster than adults. To analyze these issues and examine potential
mitigation measures, the City had a study prepared by David J. Powers and Associates (July
1996) addressing the health and safety risks associated with locating child care in industrial
areas.
The study concluded that health and safety risks for child care facilities located in industrial areas
can be mitigated to a reasonable level after approval of a conditional use permit. Mitigation
measures recommended by either the study of staff and required as part of the industrial. section
of the proposed ordinance will reduce impacts to a level of insignificance. In addition, each
future project will be required to perform additional environmental review which may further
mitigate impacts. Measures included as part of the proposed ordinance include preparation of a
Health Risk Analysis to identify locations of acutely hazardous materials above the threshold
planning quantities within 1,000 feet of the proposed child care center; submission of an
emergency evacuation plan; and disclosure of elevated risks to parents. The provider would also
be required to restrict use of the center to children of employees hired by the business on which
the child care facility is located and to submit a legal agreement to discontinue operations
immediately upon the discovery of the use of acutely hazardous materials above the threshold
planning quantities within the 1,000 foot buffer. The applicant would have 180 days to mitigate
13 Rev. 03/28/96
the impacts of the industrial property owner using these materials. If this could not be
accomplished within 180 days the CUP would be declared null and void. A conversion plan
would also be required to demonstrate that the child care center could be converted to office or
industrial uses should the child care center permanently have to discontinue operations.
With the implementation of these measures, the impact of locating child care facilities in
industrial areas will be reduced to a reasonable or insignificant level of risk.
NOISE:
The proposed zoning changes may encourage child care centers in some commercial zones and
noise levels may increase due to the outdoor play areas. This increase will not be significant
compared with other commercial uses in these zones. Design review will be required for new
centers to ensure that outdoor play areas are located away from residential uses and fencing is
provided.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
The proposed amendments will not result in the need for new or altered government services.
Public facilities will most likely already be in place or in cases of new development will be
required through the growth management plan to ensure that these are in place concurrent with
new development. The proposed changes are legislative in nature and will not directly create a
demand for public facilities.
UTILITIES AND SERVICES:
The proposed zone code amendments will not result in additional need for new water, sewage, or
transmission lines and systems. Child care facilities will most likely be developed in existing
buildings and, in such cases, will not require more services or utilities than is typically required
for other uses in residential and commercial areas. New development will be required to provide
necessary utilities and services concurrent to or prior to construction.
AESTHETICS:
The proposed regulatory changes will not have an impact on scenic vistas or create offensive-
looking structures. These changes are not likely to result in many new buildings or structures.
The budgets for child care centers are generally limited, so child care centers locate in existing
buildings and generally do not make major exterior modifications.
CULTURAL RESOURCES:
The proposed amendments will not have an affect on the City’s cultural resources. Child care
facilities, due to limited budgets, generally locate in existing usable buildings and would not be
demolishing the City’s historic buildings in order to construct new centers.
14 Rev. 03/28/96 37
RECREATION:
Proposed changes will not affect the quantity of quality of existing recreational facilities, because
they do not affect or reduce the amount of available open space. Child care facilities provide
necessary recreational areas on site as required by State law.
15 Rev. 03/28/96 38
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 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT TO ADD
CHAPTER 21.83 TO TITLE 21 OF THE CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS
OF TITLE 21 TO REGULATE SMALL AND LARGE FAMILY
DAY CARE HOMES AND CHILD DAY CARE CENTERS.
CASE NAME: CHILD CARE ORDINANCE
CASE NO: ZCA 93-O 1
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has initiated this zone code amendment to
encourage and promote the establishment of child day care facilities in the City;
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to streamline and update the review of child
day care center applications;
WHEREAS, the City Council has requested that staff prepare a separate chapter
of Title 21 addressing child care facilities;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of May 1997, and the
21st day of May 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said
request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Zone Code Amendment; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing; the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Zone Code Amendment ZCA 93-01,
according to Exhibit “X” dated May 7, 1997, attached hereto and made a part
hereof, based on the following findings:
39
.
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
Findings:
1.
2.
The Planning Commission finds that the project is in conformance with the Land Use
Element of the General Plan based on the following: The proposed zone code
amendment encourages and promotes child care in the community by streamlining
and expediting the processing of child day care centers; by creating a more
compatible environment for large family day care homes; by assuring a safe
environment for children in industrial park day care centers; and by clearly
presenting day care center requirements for potential day care center providers.
Approval of the proposed amendment is consistent with the public necessity,
convenience and general welfare.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 21st day of May 1997, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioners Compas, Heineman,
Monroy, Noble and Savary
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Welshons
ABSTAIN: None
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: t
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4093 -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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4094
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO ALL SIX SEGMENTS
OF THE CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO
MAKE THE ZONING CODE AND THE LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM CONSISTENT WITH REGARD TO CHILD DAY
CARE FACILITIES
CASE NAME: CHILD CARE ORDINANCE
CASE NO: LCPA 97-03
WHEREAS, the City is adding Chapter 21.83 to Title 21 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code and revising other sections of Title 21 with regard to the child day care facilities;.‘
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance for the City’s
Local Coastal Program;
WHEREAS, California state law requires that amendments to the implementing
ordinance also require an amendment to the Local Coastal Program to ensure consistency
between the two documents;
WHEREAS, a verified application for an amendment to the Local Coastal
Program has been filed with the Planning Department; and,
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal
Program Amendment as shown on Exhibit “X” dated May 7, 1997, attached to Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4093, as provided in Public Resources Code Section 30574 and
Article 15 of Subchapter 8, Chapter 2, Division 5.5 of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations of the California Coastal Commission Administrative Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of May 1997, and the
21st day of May 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said
request; and
. . . 1 41
1 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
2 and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
3 relating to the Local Coastal yrogram Amendment.
4 WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six week public review period for
5
6 any amendment to the Local Coastal Program.
7 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
8 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
9 4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on April 17,
1997 and ending on May 29, 1997, staff shall present to the City Council a
summary of the comments received.
C> That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LCPA 97-03 based on the following findings,
and subject to the following conditions:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 . . .
24 . . .
25
26
27
28
2.
That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment is consistent with all applicable
policies of the Mello I, Mello II, Agua Hedionda, East Batiquitos/Hunt, and West
Batiquitos/Sammis segments of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, in that the
proposed amendment is limited in its nature and will not change existing regulations
prohibiting or restricting development on sensitive slopes, bluff tops, or agricultural
lands, and will not change any requirements for vista points/view corridors.
That the proposed amendment to the Mello I, Mello II, Agua Hedionda, East
BatiquitosHunt, and West Batiquitos/Sammis segments of the Carlsbad Local Coastal
Program is required to maintain consistency between the proposed amendment zone
code and the City’s Local Coastal Program.
. . .
PC RESO NO. 4094 -2- 4a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
s
1c
11
12
13
14
15
lf
17
1E
1s
2(
21
2:
2:
2A
2:
2t
2:
21
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting to the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 21st day of May 1997, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioners Compas, Heineman,
Monroy, Noble and Savary
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Welshons
ABSTAIN: None
ROBI%ZT NIELSEN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
- MICHAEL J. HOLZMtiER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4094 -3-
The City of CARLSBAD Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application complete date: NA
P.C. AGENDA OF: MAY 21, 1997
SUBJECT: ZCA 93-Ol/LCPA 97-03 - CHILD CARE ORDINANCE - A Zone Code
Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment adding Chapter 21.83 to the
Carlsbad Municipal Code and amending various sections of the zoning ordinance
to address the provision of small and large family day care homes as well as child
day care centers throughout the City.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4092,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director
and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4093 and 4094, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL of ZCA 93-01 and LCPA 97-03 based on the findings contained therein.
II. BACKGROUND
This item was heard by the Planning Commission at its meeting of May 7, 1997. After much
discussion of the PM-CM zone issues addressed in proposed Section 21.83.060, the item was
continued to the meeting of May 21”‘. Staff has considered the comments expressed by the
Planning Commission and the public and has revised Section 21.83.060 to broaden the scope of
child care centers in the industrial zones. These revisions are included in a redline/strikeout
version on the attached Errata #2. Staff will discuss these revisions at the meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Errata sheet #2, dated May 21, 1997
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4092
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4093
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4094
5. Staff report dated May 7, 1997, with attachments
6. Errata sheet #l , dated May 7, 1997
44
ERRATA #2
May 21,1997
21.83.060 Child Dav Care Centers
A. Child Day Care Centers are permitted in accordance with Section 21.83.040
subject to the following limitations:
1. In the PM and CM zones, 7
&&er with a conditional use permit in accordance with Section 21.83.080 and subject to the
following provisions:
(a) c The applicant shalt conduct
an evaluation of the health and safety risks associated with the proposed Child Day Care
Center. The evaluation shall include m a survey of all businesses within 1,000
feet of a the proposed Cshild Day Csare-&&@4enter to determine the nature and quantity of
hazardous materials in use nearby. If the conditional use permit is granted, thereafter, the
Provider shall conduct similar annual evaluations and disclose results to the Fire Chief and
Planning Director.. The surveys must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief and
Planning Director that -he occurrence of the following -within the 1000 feet of the
Cahild Day &are Centerw presents no significant health or safety risks to the
occupants:
(1) Use or storage of Acutely Hazardous Materials in amounts
above the threshold planning quantities (TPQs);
(2) Use or storage of more than J+GN lU,OOO gallons of
flammable liquids; or
(3) Use or storage of more than 1,500 pounds of flammable
compressed gas.
(b) &$%m& Prior to enrollment of the child in the Child Day Care Center, the Provider shall, in
writing, inform the child’s parents that their chifd(ren) may be subject to ~+xww+& health and
safety risks due to the presence, use and discharge of hazardous materials (including Acutely
Hazardous Materials above the TPQs) in’ the area+. Parents shall also be informed that the
Provider may be required to retain custody of their children for extended time periods during
an emergency.
(4 Prior to occupancy, the oWd++x~ Provider shall prepare and . . ZWHB&H+ and obtain approval by the Fire Chief of an emergency operating plan which&&&es
sprescribes procedures ~&R-&EB to be followed during
the existence of the Child Day Care Center which ensure the following:
(1) That children can be evacuated from the building within
five minutes and relocated to a predetermined refuge area(s) within 10 minutes of emergency
notification;
(2) {
euarterty exercise of the plan;
The applicant shall s+&R&+& enter into an agreement with the
City to discontinue operation of the Child Day Care Center immediately upon the discovery of
the existence of hazardous materials as described in Section 21 J3.060 A l(a) above when such
materials are found by the Fire Chief and Planning Director to l
asx%~A -present a health and safety risk to children attending the Child Day Care
Center. The applicant shall have 90 days to mitigate, to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief, the
impacts created by the use of said hazardous materials. If impacts are not mitigated within 90
days, the conditional use permit for the Child Day Care m Center shall become null and
void. The applicant shall agree to indemntfi -and hold the City of Carlsbad and its officers,
employees, and agents free and harmless from any claims, actions, damages, costs, or
expenses arising from exposure of children to hazardous substances as a result of the
presence of the former in or near the Child Day Care Center. The Fire Chief or Planning
Director are hereby authorized to enter into the agreement on behalf of the City.
03 The applicant shall @ submit a conversion plan, at the time
of application, which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and the Fire
Chief that the Child Day Care RN&+ Center could be converted to a use permitted within the . . . zone 5 . . if the conditional use as a
Child Day Care Center is discontinued.
03 Upon acceptance of a complete application and payment of the
required fees, the Planning Director shall process the application in accordance with Chapter
21.52 except that notice shall be given to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject
property . .
2. As a permitted use on developed church or school sites, except in
industrial zones, and subject to the provisions of Section 21 J3.090 below.
3. In the R-3, RD-M, RP and 0 zones, with an administrative permit, subject
to the provisions of Sections 21.83.070 and 21.83.080.
4. In the HO, C-l and C-2 zones, as a permitted use subject to the provisions
of Section 21.83.080.
:
rhe City of CABLSBAD Planning Department EXHIBIT 5
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 3 0
Application complete date: NA
P.C. AGENDA OF: MAY 7,1997 Project Planner: Adrienne Landers
Project Engineer: NA
SUBJECT: ZCA 93-Ol/LCPA 97-03 - CHILD CARE ORDINANCE - A Zone Code
Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment adding Chapter 2 1.83 to the
Carlsbad Municipal Code and amending various sections of the zoning ordinance
to address the provision of small and large family day care homes as well as child
day care centers throughout the City. *
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4092,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director
and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4093 and 4094, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL of ZCA 93-01 and LCPA 97-03 based on the findings contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The proposed zone code amendment addresses revisions to child care regulations as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Updates current regulations with regard to small and large family day care homes
to provide consistency with State law;
Provides development standards for child day care facilities;
Allows child day care centers in certain zones as a permitted use and in other
zones as a use approved by administrative permit;
Permits child day care centers in industrial zones as an ancillary use with approval
of a condition use permit;
Requires new master plans to reserve a site for child day care centers; and
Amends the zoning ordinance to revise current child day care requirements and
presents these regulations as a new Chapter (21.83) of the zoning ordinance to
create a more user-friendly document for potential child care providers.
The proposed revisions are consistent with all applicable policies and regulations; all issues have
been resolved.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
In 1991, the City Council accepted the Carlsbad Child Care Needs Assessment and
Recommendations Summarv Report prepared for the City by the International Child Resource
Institute. This document assessed the demand for child care, evaluated the supply of child care
’ ZCA 93-Ol/LCPA 97-03 - LHILD CARE ORDINANCE
MAY 7,1997
services, and proposed recommendations to make child care more affordable and accessible in
Carlsbad. Preparation of the study revealed a number of inconsistencies in the Zoning Ordinance
with regard to child care which make requirements difficult for a novice to understand. Child
day care centers are permitted by right in the multi-family R-3 zones but are permitted by
conditional use permit in the multi-family RD-M zones. Child day care centers are permitted by
CUP in the industrial zones but, for safety reasons, have been discouraged from locating in these
zones by City staff Large family day care home regulations have not been updated to be
consistent with State law. In many zones child day care centers are not addressed, either as a
permitted or prohibited use; potential providers have “worked around” this issue by calling their
facility a “school” which is allowed in any zone with a CUP. In addition, there are no
development standards clearly outlined in the code so providers do not know ahead of time what
requirements they must follow.
The land use recommendations in the Summary Report suggested that the City lower processing
fees; prepare a flow chart of the planning process; present child care standards as one chapter of
the zoning ordinance; and consider requiring child care sites in new master plan documents.
These suggestions were based on the study’s findings that many potential child care providers
have decided not to develop child care facilities in the City due to high fees; unclear and complex
regulations and long application processing times. As a result, staff began the preparation of a
child care ordinance to clarify and expedite the processing of child day care facilities. This effort
took the form of a separate chapter of the zoning ordinance with the following objectives in
mind:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Update current regulations with regard to small and large family day care homes
to reflect changes in State law;
Prepare clear, concise development standards so child care providers would know
in advance the types of design criteria that would be required of them;
Allow child day care centers as a use permitted by right or by administrative
permit rather than as a conditional use where possible, thereby reducing fees and
processing time for potential child care providers;
Permit child day care centers in industrial zones if health, safety, and economic
impacts could be reduced to reasonable levels of impact;
Consider child day care facilities when preparing new master plans; and,
Create a more user-friendly document by placing all regulations in one section of
the zoning ordinance rather than scattered throughout the code as is currently the
case.
Maior Features of The Pronosed Ordinance
The proposed zone code amendment includes several new features. In response to the
recommendations of the Summary Report, all child care regulations are proposed to be addressed
in a new chapter of the zoning ordinance. Previous child care references are deleted from the
current code or replaced with cross-references to the new ordinance. Potential child care
providers will have all necessary provisions in one chapter of the zone code and will easily be
able to locate the requirements of each zone.
’ ZCA 93-Ol/LCPA 97-03 - LHILD CARE ORDINANCE
Regulations regarding small and large family day care homes are updated to reflect changes in
State law allowing an increased number of children in these types of child care facilities.
Additional provisions are added to the section addressing large family day care homes to provide
increased compatibility with surrounding property owners.
In certain commercial zones (C-l and C-2), the Hospital Overlay Zone, school sites and
developed church sites (except in industrial zones), child day care centers are proposed to be
’ allowed as permitted uses when required development standards are met. In multi-family and
office zones, child day care centers are proposed to be allowed with an administrative permit
when required development standards are met.
Employer-sponsored child day care centers are proposed to be permitted in industrial zones (PM
and CM) with a conditional use permit but are still prohibited in the manufacturing (M) zone.
Conditions are proposed to provide a reasonably safe environment for children while ensuring
that nearby industrial property owners will be economically impacted as little as possible.
Maintaining compatibility with surrounding industrial properties is designated as the
responsibility of the company offering the employer-sponsored child day care center.
The proposed amendment requires new residential master or specific plans to reserve a site for a
child care facility for five years after issuance of the first residential building permit.
Each of these features is discussed in more detail in the Analysis section below as well as the
proposed project’s compliance with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Plan. 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 zone code amendment and the City’s LCP.
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation for approval of this zone code amendment was developed by analyzing the
accomplishment of the project objectives as well as compliance with applicable policies and
regulations listed above. Each of these items are reviewed in separate discussion sections below.
A. General Plan Consistency
The proposed new ordinance is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and
directly addresses Policy C. 10, Overall Land Use Pattern. This policy states the City should:
“Encourage and promote the establishment of child care facilities in safe and convenient
locations throughout the community to accommodate the growing demand for child care in the
community caused by demographic, economic, and social forces.” This policy is proposed for
implementation in several ways. By presenting all child care standards in one chapter of the
zoning ordinance, the proposed zone code amendment creates a more user-friendly tool for
potential child care providers. In addition and as discussed in the following sections, required
regulations are easier to understand and potential child day care locations are easier to identify;
the child day care review process has been eliminated or streamlined; compatibility has been
improved in single family neighborhoods and industrial zones. Further, child day care centers
ZCA 93-Ol/LCPA 97-03 - WILD CARE ORDINANCE
MAY 7,1997
PAGE 4
can now be conditionally located in the City industrial parks to serve employees’ child care
needs. Consistent with the General Plan, all of these revisions contribute to encouraging and
promoting the establishment of additional child care facilities in Carlsbad.
B. Code Undate to Comulv with State Law
The proposed ordinance also updates the City’s current family day care home regulations
consistent with recently revised State Law. In 1984, the State of California determined that there
was an insufficient number of family day care homes in the State. The State also concluded that
there would continue to be a growing need for such homes and mandated local jurisdictions to
adopt regulations to facilitate the establishment of small and large family day care homes.
“Family day care homes” are defined as being a family dwelling which regularly provides non-
medical care, protection and supervision of children, in the providers’ own home, for periods of
less than 24 hours per day, while the parents or guardians are away”. These include both small
family day care homes with fewer than 8 children under the age of 10 and large family day care
homes with fewer than 14 children under the age of 10. State law allows cities to regulate large
family day care homes in four areas: spacing, traffic control, parking and noise. These homes are
not considered a change of occupancy for Fire or Building Code purposes and may not be
precluded by CC&Rs. Simply, cities may regulate such facilities to some extent but may not
prohibit them. This mandate has caused frustration among single family home owners who
believe they are affected by noise as well as traffic, and who believe their peace of mind and
property values are impacted.
In 1985, the City did address this mandate through an administrative permit process and adopted
regulations for large family day care homes stipulating the provision of adequate ingress and
egress; a 1,200 foot separation between large family day care homes; and leeway to require a
fence for noise mitigation. Current City regulations define small family day care as homes
accommodating l-6 children and large family day care accommodating 7-12 children. The State
recently increased the number of children permitted in each type of home as follows: small
homes at fewer ‘than 8 children and large homes at fewer than 14 children. The proposed
ordinance reflects the increased numbers of children allowed in each type of home and provides
the following additional measures to facilitate neighborhood compatibility:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Garages must be used to park two of the providers’ on-site vehicles during the
daily operation of the day care home and are not allowed to be used as part of the
child care facility;
Outdoor play areas must be in the rear yard and fenced;
The number of children playing outdoors at any one time must be staggered and
play hours may begin no earlier than 9:00 a.m. and end no later than 5:00 p.m.;
The providers’ driveway must be designated as the official drop-off and pick-up
location;
Providers must direct employees to park as close as possible to the day care home
to inconvenience nearby property owners as little as possible;
A 1,200 foot separation must be maintained between large family day care homes;
A minimum lot size of 7,500 sq. ft. is required and Large Family Day Care
Homes are prohibited from locating on the bulb of a cul-de-sac; and
’ ZCA 93-OVLCPA 97-03 - L~-IILD CARE ORDINANCE
MAY 7,1997
8. If the subject site is being rented or leased, the applicant must provide written
proof that the property owner has been notified of the applicant’s intent to operate
a large family day care home on the subject property.
These requirements meet with the intent of State law and provide increased compatibility with
nearby property owners. Although nearby homeowners may find that not all impacts are
eliminated, the impacts have been minimized as much as possible while still allowing the City to
maintain compliance with State directives.
C. Develonment Standards
The proposed child care ordinance includes development standards for all child day care centers.
The purpose of including these provisions is twofold. One, child care providers will now know
in advance what requirements they have to comply with in order to operate a child day care
center in the City. Two, with the assurance that these basic standards would be met, the
proposed ordinance recommends that the City allow some child day care centers to be considered
as a permitted use or as an administratively-approved use, thereby reducing processing time and
expense for potential child care providers.
The proposed development standards are general in nature and address measures commonly
required by other jurisdictions. Provisions include fencing, loading and unloading areas, and
outdoor play areas. The standards function to make the centers safer for children and more
compatible with nearby properties. Interior design, staffing, etc. are regulated by the State and
are not included in the proposed ordinance. The proposed standards are consistent with all other
sections of the zoning ordinance as well as accepted engineering practices.
Parking standards have also been included to create a more-user friendly code by having all
standards for child day care centers in one chapter of the code. Parking requirements remain the
same as current standards with one exception. Up to 50 percent of the parking facilities required
for a church are proposed to be jointly available to an on-site, accessory child day care center
provided there is no substantial conflict in the principal operating hours of the buildings or uses.
This provision is not available to churches located in industrial areas but is available on all other
developed church sites. The impacts of locating a child care facility in an existing building on
this type of site create no greater parking impacts than those produced by a church use itself. For
example: in the case of a small church of 19,600 sq. ft. the parking requirement would be 196
spaces. On the other hand, a child day care center of 19,600 sq. ft. for 135 children has a
parking requirement of only 26 spaces. The impacts are reduced even further when one
considers that a child care facility is utilized during the week and the church on weekends.
Section 2 1.44.050 (Parking) of the zoning ordinance includes provisions for this type of joint use
parking when the parking area is shared primarily by daytime and nighttime uses. The case of
child care and churches is similar except that the parking is shared by a weekday use and a
weekend use. The proposed zone code amendment to permit this shared parking is consistent
with the intent of Section 21.44.050 as discussed above.
’ ZCA 93-O 1 /LCPA 97-03 - GlILD CARE ORDINANCE
MAY 7,1997
D. Small and Large Family Day Care Homes and Child Day Care Centers bv Zone
Zoning designations proposed to allow small and large family day care homes as well as child day
care centers can be found on the following use chart. Permitted, administrative, conditional, and
prohibited uses are shown as follows:
“P” Indicates that the use is permitted in the zone.
“A” Indicates that the use is permitted subject to approval of an administrative permit.
“C” Indicates that the use is permitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit.
“X” Indicates that the use is prohibited in the zone.
M, PU, OS,
LC, TC, CT
VR, PC
l------ Permitted only when the large family daycare home is located on a lot occupied by a detached, single
family dwelling on a lot of 7,500 square feet or more by ministerial approval without a public hearing
and subject to the provisions of Section 21 J33.050 of this Chapter.
2------ Permitted subject to the provisions of Sections 21.83.070 and 21.83.080 of this Chapter. 3------ Permitted subject to the provisions of Section 21.83.080 of this Chapter and any requirements of a
regulating document, e.g., a site development plan.
4------ Permitted subject to the standards of the regulating document (Village Redevelopment Master Plan and
Design Guidelines or designated Master Plan) and the provisions of Section 21.83.080 of this Chapter.
As indicated in the above land use chart, child day care centers are allowed by right, by
administrative permit, and by conditional use permit. In evaluating which process would be
appropriate in each zone, staff viewed land use compatibility and child safety as the main
considerations. Staff also evaluated whether a proposed child day care center would create
noise, traffic, safety, or economic impacts that were greater than the impacts generated by the
existing, surrounding uses.
ZCA 93-OVLCPA 97-03 - CHILD CARE ORDINANCE
MAY 7,1997
In the C-l, C-2 zones and in the Hospital Overlay Zone, child day care centers are proposed as
permitted uses. In these zones, higher levels of noise and traffic generation are expected and
child care facilities have proven to be a compatible land use by not significantly increasing the
levels of noise or traffic impacts. Proposed development standards discussed in the preceding
section are generally the only standards necessary to create compatibility and address safety
issues. To expedite processing, these requirements will be reviewed during building plan
check or business license inspection rather than as part of a discretionary permit review. The
obligation of complying with the required development standards and any requirements of a
regulating site document (e.g., a site development plan for a shopping center) should address
any impacts caused by the child care center. An additional layer of discretionary review is not
necessary as evidenced by the fact that child day care centers have been allowed in the City in
or near these zones for years without incident.
In some zones where there may be issues of compatibility (multi-family zones and office
zones), an administrative permit is required. This provides the opportunity to add any
conditions necessary to create a better interface between the child care facility and nearby land
uses. The administrative permit also gives nearby property owners/residents the opportunity to
comment on the project. A conditional use permit is required in industrial zones where the
issue of land use compatibility needs to scrutinized most closely. This item is discussed in
more detail in Section “E” below.
The proposed land use procedures provide adequate review to ensure compatibility between
land uses, to provide a safe environment for children, and to allow the opportunity for public
input. At the same time, the levels of discretionary review and subsequent processing time
have either been eliminated or substantially reduced except in the most necessary cases-the
industrial zones.
E. Child Dav Care Centers in the Industrial Zones
In 1996, Council directed staff to hire a consulting firm, David J. Powers and Associates to
prepare a study, Child. Care Facilities in Industrial Areas, evaluating the health, safety, and
economic impacts of locating child day care centers in Carlsbad’s industrial zones. The
subsequent report indicated that the impacts of permitting child care facilities in these zones
could be minimized but not eliminated. Council considered the health, safety and economic
impacts as well as the land use impacts and directed staff, in the proposed child care ordinance,
to allow child care centers in industrial areas upon approval of a conditional use permit. The
proposed ordinance addresses these areas of impact to the greatest extent possible.
Section 21.83.070 of the draft ordinance requires the company proposing the employer-
sponsored child day care center to comply with certain conditions to provide a reasonably safe
environment for children and to maintain compatibility with nearby industrial uses. Proposed
conditions also place the responsibility for continued compatibility with the child day care center
rather than with the industrial use. However, if the industrial property owner is creating an
unsafe situation by operating illegally in violation of fire or building code requirements, then the
. ’ ZCA 93-OVLCPA 97-03 - &I.ILD CARE ORDINANCE
MAY 7,1997
PAGE 8
industrial property owner would be held responsible for correcting the situation. Main
provisions of this section require the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
A health risk analysis provided by the sponsoring company, which surveys nearby
businesses and demonstrates that no acutely hazardous materials above certain
quantity levels are used or stored within 1,000 feet of the child day care center;
An evacuation nlan which demonstrates that children can be safety evacuated
from the center within 5 minutes and relocated to a safe area within 10 minutes;
An acknowledgment indicating that parents are aware that their children may be
subject to exposure of health and safety risks due to the presence, use and
discharge of hazardous materials in the area;
A legal agreement from the sponsoring company consenting to discontinue
operation of the center immediately upon discovery of the existence of hazardous
materials as outlined in the ordinance. The sponsoring company would have 90
days to mitigate the impacts or the conditional use permit for the child day care
center would become null and void; and
A conversion plan, submitted with the CUP application by the sponsoring
company, which demonstrates that the child care facility could be converted to a
use permitted within the zone should the child care facility discontinue as a
permitted use.
After lengthy analysis of the health and safety issues of locating child day care centers in the
industrial zones, staff believes the proposed ordinance addresses these issues as comprehensively
as possible while providing a reasonably safe environment for children. The proposed
requirement of a 1,000 foot buffer distance between the child day care center and companies
using acutely hazardous materials above certain quantities reduces health and safety risks to an
acceptable level. The sponsoring company’s agreement to potentially discontinue operation of
the center reduces economic impacts by establishing industrial activity as the priority with
respect to land use. It establishes the right of industry as more prominent to those of dissimilar
uses, but allows the dissimilar use as long as no conflict exists. In addition to reducing economic
impacts for industrial property owners, the proposed ordinance provides child care in close
proximity to the work place, retains City decision-making authority, and finally, allows the City
to continue to attract target industries. While the proposed ordinance ‘does not eliminate health
and safety risks, it does provide a means by which each can be minimized.
F. Reservation of Child Dav Care Centers in New Master Plans
Another recommendations of the Summary Report suggested that consideration be given to the
development of child care as a component in new master plans. The proposed ordinance
addresses this recommendation by including provisions for each new residential master plan to
reserve a site for a child day care center of reasonable size for a period of five years from the date
of issuance of the first residential building permit within the master plan area. The intent of this
requirement is to set aside a site for a potential child care facility until there is adequate nearby
residential development to create a demand for a day care center rather than trying to retrofit a
center after development has already occurred. During review of recent master plans, staff has
required developers to provide child day care center sites as a means of meeting the child care 54
I ‘1 .
June 17,1997
I -- rr- - dzztA=ha
FOR THE !NFORMATION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL/ CITY MANAGER I
Frank,
The attached two pages were faxed from Planning as they were inadvertently left out of the
original Child Care Agenda Bill - Public Hearing Item #12.
Marjanne
dif vntiL3DnU bUIIIi ut ml\ IW. 43t)Ut)Y~ r, UL
JUN-I, JI ,UC ui),~J G’ ’
’ , ZCA 9%Ol/LCPA 97-03 - L~IILD CARE ORDINANCE
MAY 7, 1997
PAGE 9
needs of the master plan neighborhood. Some of these plans include Arroyo La Costa. Kai,.,
Zone 20, and the proposed Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan. This provision meets the demand
for child care within master planned communities but dots not penalize the developer if the
market demand does not materialim.
G. ,0cal Coastal Proe;ram Amemhm
Because the Zoning Ordinance f%nctions as the implementing zoning for C&bad’s Local
Coastal Program, all amendments to the zone code require the processing of a Local Coastal
Program amendment. As a legislative document, the proposed ZCA is consistent with all LCP
policies because no physical land use changes or impacts arc proposed at this time. In addition,
no changes are proposed to the coastal land use map. All f&ire child day care centers will be
reviewed for compliance with the irnpiementing zone and all pertinent coastal regulations.
V. )mvIR0NMENTALREvrEW
Environmental review for this legislative action was performed and staff determined that no
sign&a& envir0nmentaI impacts will result from the approval of this zone code amendment.
Proposed regulations addressing child day care centers will allow the development of these
facilities to occur in areas consistent with existing land uses. By providing an opportunity for a
potential increase in chiId day care centers, both traf& circuiation and air quality will be
incrementally improved. Parents may be able to place children in centers closer to their homes
or place of employment thereby reducing the number of daily automobile trips which would
improve traffic congestion and contribute to the improvement of air quality. Mitigation
measures have been included in the proposed ordinance to create a safe environment for child
day care centers in the industrial zones and reduce impacts to a 1eveI of insignificance. In
addition, f&ire child day cent-era proposing to locate in industrial zones will be required to
perform additional environmental review which may further mitigate impacts. This is an
improvement over present policies which do not address safety factors or the use of hazardous
materials. The environmental review of this project indicates that all impacts have been reduced
to a level of insignificance and that in- environmental conditions will be improved as a
result of this zone code amendment To that et%ct, a Negative Declaration was prepared for
Planning Commission and was noticed for a 30 day public review period on April 3, 1997. No
comments were received during the public comment period.
Fees for Large Family Day Care Homes and Child Day Care Centers
Although not a part of this zone code amendment, staff has researched the fees charged by other
cities for large family day care homes and child day care centen (Exhibit “B”). This was done in an effort to reduce fees as much as possible to encourage the provision of child day care facilities
in Cat&bad. Although the establishment off& is not included in the purview of the PIanning
Commission sta.8 has included it as an item of information As noted earlier, to encourage and
promote the establishment of child day care cent&s in the City, staff has stmanthned and
expedited the discretionary review process. The requirement for a Conditional Use permit has
been reduced in many tones and replaced by an Administrative Permit. A fee of $250 is
proposed for an Administrative Permit to reflect the reduced rquirement for ataR review. This
JUN-17-97 TUE OB:i?C W"! OF CARLSBAD COHM DE FAX NO, 43w94 P. 03
. .
. ZC!A 93-Ol/LCPA 97-03 - &IL,D CARE (X.IXNANCE
MAY 7,1997
PAGE 10
fee is less than rhc actual cost of providing the se&e but is propsed as a means of encouraging
and supporting child day care in the City. The existing fee amounts of $125 for a Large Family
Day Care Permit (minimum cost of service approximately $450) and $2,500 for a Cotlditiod
Use Permit are proposed to remain as exitiing.
I. Phning Commission Resolution 4092
2. Planning Coinmission Resolution 4093
3. PIanning Commission Resolution 4094
4. Exhibit “A”, Redline/Strikeout Version dated May 7, 1997
5. Exhibit %“, Fee Survey dated May 7, lVV7
6. Exhibit “c”, Flowcharts dated May 7,1997.
EXHIBIT “A”
MAY ?,I997
REDLINE/STRIKEOUT VERSION OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO TITLE 21
Definitions SECTION I: That Title 21, Chapter 21.04 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
is amended by amendments to Sections 21.04.086, 21.04.140, 21.04.146, and
21.04.147 and the additions of new Sections 21.04.170, and 21.04.149 to read as
follows:
21.04.086 Child Day Care Center.
“Child Day Care Center” means any a facility, B, other than a . . family daycare home 6
pe+&p which provides non-medical care, protection and supervision is
fweui$e$ for children . ;n .under 18 years of age for periods of
less than 24 hours per day ” Child day care center” includes preschools,
nursery schools, employer-sponsored day care facilities and before and after-
school recreational programs, but does not include public or private
elementary schools.
21.04.140 Educational Institution or School.
. . L. Educational institution or school means an
institution of learning for minors, whether public or private, which offers
instruction in those courses of study required by the California Education
Code or which is maintained pursuant to standards set by the State Board of
Education. This definition includes a ‘nursery school, kindergarten,
elementary school, junior high school, senior high school or any special
institution of education, blit it does not include a vocational or professional
institution of higher education, including a community or junior college,
college, of university.
21.04. f46 IFaMy Day Care Home.
3 “Family
Day Care Home” means a sing/e family dwelling which regularly provides
non-medical care, protection, and supervision of 14 or fewer children, in the
provider’s own home, for periods of less than 24 hours per day, while the
parents or guardians are away. The actual number of children permitted in a
Family Day Care Home is based on age composition as determined by the
State of California, Department of Social Services. Family Day Care Homes
include Large or Small Family Day Care Homes.
Child Care Redline Page 1
Famhy Day Care Home, Large.
“Large Family Day Care Home” means a detached, single family dwelling
which provides famiiy day care for 7 to 14 children, inclusive, inciuding children
under fhe age of 10 years who reside at the home as defined in Section 1596.78
of the California Health and Safety Code and permitted by the licensing agency.
2164.148 Famiiy Day Care Home, Small.
‘Small Family Day Care Home” means a detached, sing/e famiiy dwelling
which provides famiiy day care for eight or fewer children, including children
under the age of 10 years who reside at the home as defined in Section 1596.78
of the California Health and Safety Code and permitted by the licensing agency.
21.04.149 Employer-sponsored Child Day Care Cenfer.
“Employer-sponsored Chiid Day Care Center” means any Child Day Care
Cenfer at the employer’s site of business and operated dire&/y or through a
provider contract by any person or entity having one or more employees, and
available exclusively for the care of that employer, and of the officers,
managers, and empioyees of the employer.
21.04.170 Director.
“Director” means the Director of Planning unless otherwise specified.
EA SECTION II: That Title 21, Chapter 21.07, Section 21.07.020 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the additions of Subsections
21.07.020(15) and (16) to read as follows:
“(15) Small Family Day Care Homes;
(16) Large Family Day Care Homes, subject to the provisions of
Chapter 21.83.”
RA SECTION III: That Title 21, Chapter 21.08 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
is amended by the additions of Subsections 21.08.010 (I 1) and 12) to read as
follows:
“(11) Small Family Day Care Homes;
(12) Large Family Day Care Homes, subject to the provisions of
Chapter 21.83.”
Child Care Redline Page 2
1
RE SECTION IV: That Title 21, Chapter 21.09 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
is amended by the addition of Subsections 21.09.020(8) and (9) to read as
follows:
“(8) Small Family Day Care Homes;
“(9) Large Family Day Care Homes, subject to the provisions of
Chapter 21.83.”
SECTION V: That Title 21, Chapter 21 .lO, of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
is amended by the amendment of Subsections 21 .I 0.010 (11) and (12) to read as
follows:
“(11) Small Family Day Care Homes; nm\r;rl;nn
. . I,\ \“I TT
Child Care Redline
57
Page 3
h . .
(12) Large Family Day Care Homes, subject to the provisions of
Chapter 21.38.”
R-3 - SECTION VI: That Title 21, Chapter 21.16, is amended by the
addition of Subsection 21.16.010(9) and (10) and Section 21.16.018 to read as
follows:
“(9) Small Family Day Care Homes
(10) Large Family Day Care Homes, subject to the provisions of
Chapter 21.83.”
21.f6.018 Child Day Care Centers by administrative permit.
Child Day Care Centers may be permitted by administrative permit
subject to the provisions of Chapter 21.83.”
RP SECTION VII: That Title 21, Chapter 21.18 is amended by the addition
of Section 21.18.043 to read as follows:
“21.18.043 Child Day Care Centers permitted by administrative permit.
A. Child Day Care Centers may be permitted by administrative
permit, subject to the provisions of Chapter 21.83.”
R-T SECTION VIII: That Title 21, Chapter 21.20, Section 21.20.010 is
amended by the addition of Subsection 21.20.01 O(6) and (7) to read as follow:
“(6) Small Family Day Care Homes
Child Care Redline Page 4
-
.
(7) Large
Chapter 21.83.”
Family Day Care Homes, subject to the provisions of
HO SECTION IX: That Title 21, Chapter 21.21, Section 21.21.040 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Subsection 21.21.040(3)
to read as follows:
“(3) Child Day Care Centers, subject to the provisions of Chapter
21.83.”
RW SECTION X: That Title 21, Chapter 21.22, Section 21.22.010 is
__ amended by the addition of Subsection 21.22.01 O(6) and (7) to read as follows:
“(6) Small Family Day Care Homes
(7) Large Family Day Care Homes, subject to the provisions of
Chapter 21.83.”
- ROM SECTION Xl: That Title 21, Chapter 21.24, of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code is amended by the repeal of Subsection 21.24.020(5) and the addition of
Subsections 21.24.010(7) and (8) and 21.24.027 to read as follows:
“‘21.24.010
“(7) Small Family Day Care Homes.
(8) Large Family Day Care Homes, subject to the provisions of
Chapter 21.83.”
‘21.24.027 Child Day Care Centers by administrative permit.
A. Child Day Care Centers may be permitted by administrative
permit, subject to the provisions of Chapter 21.83.”
C-l SECTION XII: That Title 21, Chapter 21.26, Section 21.26.010 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Subsection 21.26.010(31)
to read as follows:
“(31) Child Day Care Centers, subject to the provisions of Chapter
21.83.”
Child Care Redline s-9 Page 5
-
.
SECTION XIII: That Title 21, Chapter 21.27 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code is amended by the addition of Section 21.27.021 to read as follows:
“21.27.021 Child Day Care Centers by administrative permit.
Child Day Care Centers may be permitted by administrative permit,
subject to the provisions of Chapter 21.83.”
0 SECTION XIV: That Title 21, Chapter 21.27 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code is amended by the addition of Section 21.27.021 and the amendment of
Section 21.27.040 to read as follows:
“21.27.021 Child Day Care Centers by administrative permit.
Child Day Care Centers may be permitted by administrative permit,
subject to the provisions of Chapter 21.83. Application for administrative
permit shall demonstrate site design compatibility with surrounding
development”
‘21.27.040 Site Development plan required.
Approval of a site development plan processed according to the provisions
of Chapter 21.06 shall be required for any development in the 0 zone except
Child Day Care Centers.”
CM SECTION XV: That Title 21, Chapter 21.30., is amended by the addition
of Section 21.30.011 to read as follows:
“21.30.011 Uses and structures permitted by conditional use permit.
Child Day Care Centers are permitted by conditional use permit,
subject to the provisions of Chapters 21.50 and 21.83.“:
M SECTION XVI: That Title 21.32 is amended by the amendment of
Section 21.32.01 O(1) to read as follows:
“(1) Any use permitted in the C-M zone, except Child Day Care
Centers, except that a dwelling conforming to the yard requirements of the R-3
zone shall be permitted on the same lot on which a factory is located, and which
dwelling is used exclusively by a caretaker or superintendent of such factory and
his family.”
Child Care Redline Page 6
PM SECTION XVII: That Title 21, Chapter 21. 34, Section 21.34.030 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of Subsection
21.34.030(4) to read as follows:
(4) Child Day Care Centers, subject to the provisions of Chapter
21.83.
RMHP SECTION XVIII: That Title 21, Chapter 21.37, Section 21.37.020 is
amended by the addition of Subsection 21.37.020(7) and (8) to read as follows:
“(7) Small Family Day Care Homes
(8) Large Family Day Care Homes, subject to the provisions of
Chapter 21.83.”
PC SECTION XIX: That Title 21, Chapter 21.38, is amended by the
amendment of Section 21.38.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to read as
follows:
21.38.020 Permitted uses and structures.
“In the P-C, planned community zone, the permitted uses and structures
shall be established by a .master plan of development approved in accordance
with this Chapter which may include any use found to be necessary and desirable
for a community planned in accordance with the purposes of this Chapter,
provided that such permitted uses and structures shall be consistent with the
general plan and applicable specific plans. Any such master plan which
includes a residential. component shall include graphic plans and text to
reserve a site within the master plan area for a Child Day Care Center of
reasonable size for a period of five years from the date of issuance of the
first building permit. Prior to approval of a master plan, the property may be
used as permitted by Chapter 21.07 for the E-A exclusive agriculture zone. After
approval of a master plan, such agricultural uses may be continued if the master
plan so provides.”
Parking SECTION XX: - That Title 21, Chapter 21.44, Section 21.44.050 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Subsection
21.44.050(a)(4)(E) to read as follows:
Child Care Redline Page 7
Child Care Redline
21.44.050 General requirements~
(E) Up to 50 percent of the parking facilities required by this
Chapter for a church may be jointly utilized by an on-site, accessory, Child
Day Care Center provided there is no substantial conflict in the principal
operating hours of the church and Child Day Care Center. ”
Page a
:
EXHIBIT “B”
MAY 7,1997
FEE SURVEY ON CHILD DAJ! CARE FACILITIES
Chula Vista $350
Coronado $100
De1 Mar $350
El Cajon $750 (SDP)
NA
NA
NA
$750
$2000
$2,395
Less than 501 sq ft - $350;
501-1500 sq ft - $750; 1501+
sq ft - $1200
$750
Encinitas No fee NA $400
Escondido $130 NA $705 in existing bldg; $2755 in
new bldg.
Imperial $450 (Site plan $450 (Site plan $300 plus $450 for site’plan
Beach review) review) review plus time and materials
La Mesa No fee NA $1,275
Lemon Grove $135 NA No CUPS for child day care
centers. Permitted in
commercial, none elsewhere
National City $200 NA No CUPS for child day care
centers. Permitted in
commercial, none elsewhere
Oceanside No Fee NA $1,828
Poway No Fee NA $1,600
San Diego $150 NA $2,000
San Marcos $425 (Minor CUP) NA $700
Santee $250 for more than 8 NA $250-800 existing bldg; % of
children valuation cost for new
construction ($.003 X sq. ft)
Solana Beach $750 (CUP) NA $750
Vista $3,152 (CUP) NA $3,152
To encourage and promote the establishment of child day care centers in the City, staff has
streamlined and expedited the discretionary review process. The requirement for a Conditional
Use permit has been reduced in many zones and replaced by an Administrative Permit. A fee of
$250 is proposed for an Administrative Permit to reflect the reduced requirement for staff
review. This fee is less than the actual cost of providing the service but is proposed as a means
of encouraging and supporting child day care in the City. The existing fee amounts of $125 for a
Large Family Day Care Permit and $2,500 for a Conditional Use Permit are proposed to remain
as existing.
EXHIBIT “C”
MAY 7,1997
Building & Obtain
Fire c3 State
Inspection License
Obtain
c3 Business
License Q FpEZion I
PERMIlTED USE
construction I I
1 or remodel
Submit Application,
Simple Plans, and
Preliminary Inspec-
tion by Building, Fire
and Water
Review &
approval by
Planning
Director
If remodel or new
construction submit
0 plans Ql
I I Building & Fire
Construction
Inspections
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Application submitted: Staff Review & Notice to
8 Health Risk Analysis Preliminary
+ Legal Agreement to * Inspection by o Property Owners
discontinue use Building, Fire & , 1 within 1000’ I
1 l :* Conversion plan 1 1 Water I - I
.
May 7,1997
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Planning Department
ERRATA FOR CHILD CARE ORDINANCE - ZCA 93-OULCPA 97-03
The following changes have been made as listed below:
Staff Renort
1. Page 6, Section D, Use Chart should read:
Small Family Large Family
Zoning Day Care Home Day Care Home . m) /-)
(8 or Fewer Children) (14 or Fewer Children)
Child Day
Care
Center
Exhibit X, Dated Mav 7. 1997
1. Page 8, Section 21.83.040, Use Chart should read :
Small Family Large Family
Day Care Home Day Care Home . fCP..,,,+t\nn /- 1
(8 or Fewer Children) (14 or Fewer Children)
Child Day
Care
Center
2.
3.
Page 10, Section 21.83.060 A. 1 .(a)( 1) should read:
“( 1) Use or storage of more than &Q&J IO,000 gallons of flammable liquids.”
Page 12, first sentence should read:
“the project is or is not in conformity with the requirements of Section 31
21.83.080”
4. Page 13, line 4 should read:
“EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its
adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to
be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad
within fifteen days after its adoption. (Notwithstanding the proceeding, this ordinance
shall not be effective within the City’s Coastal Zone until approved by the California
Coastal Commission.)”
cv-
PLANNING COMMISSION May 7,1997
EXHIBIT 6
Page 6
3. ZCA 93-011LCPA 97-03 - CHILD CARE ORDINANCE - A Zone Code Amendment and Local
Coastal Program Amendment adding Chapter 21.83 to the Carlsbad Municipal Code and
amending chapters and sections of the zoning ordinance to address the provision of small and
large family day care homes as well as child day care centers throughout the City.
Commissioner Welshons excused herself from hearing this item, citing a potential conflict of interest, and
left the dais.
Chairperson Nielsen announced that if the Commission recommends approval of this item, it will go
forward to City Council.
Project Planner, Adrienne Landers began her presentation of the staff report with a brief of history of the
ordinance, which was first proposed in 1991, as follows: A Task Force was created to investigate the
need for child care, not only in residential areas of the city but also in the industrial areas. The Task Force
found that all quadrants of the city, including the industrial areas, needed more child care. They also
made recommendations on the draft ordinance that had already been prepared. While staff was preparing
the draft ordinance, the issue was raised over whether or not child care facilities could be safely located
within the city’s industrial parks. A little more than a year ago, City Council directed staff to hire a
consultant to analyze this issue and as a result of their study, Council determined that health, safety and
economic impacts of locating child care facilities in the industrial parks could be mitigated to a reasonable
level. They subsequently directed staff to prepare the proposed Zone Code Amendment and permit child
care in the industrial zones with a CUP.
Ms. Landers gave the main reasons for doing a child care ordinance, the first of which was outlined in the
summary report prepared by the Task Force, and found that the process for obtaining a CUP for a
Childcare Center is time consuming and overwhelming for a novice. The proposed ordinance was
developed with the goal of streamlining and simplifying the process, hopefully making it a little less
expensive. The second reason for a child care ordinance is that it provides the opportunity to correct
some inconsistencies in the Zoning Ordinance. The Zone Code and state law are not consistent with the
number of children that are allowed in both small and large Family Day Care homes. In many zones, child
care is simply not addressed.
Ms. Landers pointed out that there are several main features to the ordinance. She stated that the Zone
Code is now consistent with state law and commonly used development standards have been included so
that providers know, in advance, how they should design their site plans. To streamline the process in
some zones, centers have been allowed either as a permitted use or by Administrative Permit, centers
have been allowed in industrial zones with a CUP, and provisions have been included to require new
Master Plans to reserve sites for child care.
Ms. Landers reviewed some of the main features as follows: One of the main changes to the child care
regulations is in regard to state law. The state regulates large and small Family Day Care Homes located
in residential neighborhoods and cities may also regulate them but may not prohibit them. The areas in
which cities are allowed to regulate are noise, traffic control, spacing, and parking. State law regulates the
number of children that may be cared for in a Family Day Care Home. Lot size restrictions, parking
restrictions, separation between the day care home and other residences, outdoor play hours are specific,
the number of children playing outside must be staggered, and solid outdoor fencing must be provided to
ensure privacy both for the day care facility and the neighbors. Centers can, in addition to regular permits
and CUPS, be issued Administrative Permits from the Planning Director. In commercial zones and the
hospital overlay zones where the impacts are already higher than in other areas child care centers will be
allowed as permitted uses. In zones where safety and compatibility are major issues, the CUP process
will still remain in effect. As part of the CUP application, potential child care providers will be required to
prepare a health risk analysis which will survey and fully disclose any nearby hazards to parents, staff and
decision makers and is also necessary for adequate environmental review. 1,000 foot buffer zones must
46 MINUTES
’ PLANNING COMMISSION May 7,1997 Page 7
be maintained between the child care facility and any industry using acutely hazardous materials above
certain quantities, unless approved by the City. It must be demonstrated that there are no significant
health risks for children and that they can be safely evacuated from the facility within 5 minutes. Parental
acknowledgment of elevated risk factors will be required. An important proposed condition, and one that
will probably be the most discussed, is that the child care provider will have to sign a legal agreement to
relocate, discontinue the use, or mitigate impacts should future industrial use of acutely hazardous
materials occur within 1,000 feet. This condition acknowledges that industry has the prominent position in
the industrial community. Child care, being a dissimilar use, requires that the provider take the
responsibility for maintaining compatibility. Lastly, the child care provider must also submit a conversion
plan to verify that if the child care center must discontinue use, the building could be reverted to a
permitted use such as offices or other industrial uses.
Ms. Landers stated that commonly used standards have been included for all centers so that providers
know ahead of time what should be included in their site designs as well as to provide a better interface
with adjacent properties. One new provision is that on developed church sites, a joint use of parking
facilities will be allowed as long as there are no conflicts in the hours of use. Provisions have also been
included in new Master Plan areas to reserve a site for a child care center and to attempt to meet the
needs for child care close to home and early in the development of a neighborhood community.
Ms. Landers concluded her presentation by pointing out that the proposed amendment is consistent with
all sections of the Code and does not create any impacts to coastal resources and therefore staff
recommends approval of the ZCA and LCPA, as presented, including the Errata sheet. Ms. Landers also
referenced a letter from the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce, dated May 7, 1997, in support of the Child
Care Ordinance, and also a letter from Ron Rouse, Attorney for Callaway Golf, dated May 6, 1997, and
requested that both be entered into the record.
Commissioner Compas asked what the Planning Department response was to Mr. Rouse’s letter.
Fire Marshal, Mike Smith, responded to Mr. Rouse’s comments as follows:
Comment #I : Mr. Rouse’s requested that the word “primarily” be substituted for the word
“exclusively”, so that children of employees of other companies in the area will be
allowed to attend the facility, space permitting.
Answer: Allowing “others” to use the facility violates the basic premise of having the
parents close by and easily notified and available to participate in emergency
training and drills. The sponsoring employer has little or no ability to require
employees of other firms to respond to evacuation notices or to participate in
emergency training exercises that would be required to maintain compliance with
the CUP. Staff feels that participation in those drills is very important as it
heightens the awareness of the parents to the issues of concern.
Commissioner Monroy suggested that if the other employers were willing to sign an agreement.to allow
their employees to participate in the training and drills, it would relieve staff of that concern.
Mr. Smith stated that with the proliferation of child care facilities it is important to make sure that the
parents are available, quickly, to participate in the event of a major emergency. Staff feels that it would be
nearly impossible to have a timely and orderly evacuation if parents will have to come from other areas to
assist in the evacuation.
Commissioner Compas asked if Mr. Smith is aware of any employer sponsored child care center,
anywhere in California, that shares their facility with employees of another company.
MINUTES
. ’ PLANNING COMMISSION
:
May 7,1997 Page 8
Mr. Smith stated that he is unaware of any, specifically, but is reasonably certain that they do exist and
therefore has no knowledge of their experience.
Ms. Landers interjected with information that in the process of the study for City Council, they surveyed a
number of cities as to whether or not they allow child care in their industrial zones and found that a little
more than 50% of them do. Most of the time there are no special conditions that they apply to those
facilities, and that this type of use just seemed to fit in over a period of time. There are also a number of
cities, in northern California, where the manufacturers voiced their strong opposition to child care in
industrial zones. However, after some lengthy negotiations, those manufacturers compromised and
agreed to the 1,000 foot buffer zone. She also stated that when staff went to Council on this issue,
Council was very concerned about safety and after some very lengthy discussion, they directed staff to go
forward with the CUP allowance. Subsequently, staff has perhaps taken a more comprehensive look at
this situation than most other cities and have looked at both the economic and safety impacts. She went
on to state that staff feels that they are proposing a fair compromise for both while maintaining a very high
level of safety for the children.
Comment #2: Language modification (see Attachment Page lo), Item #A. 2. (a) “ . the Fire
Chief and Planning Director that the presence of the following, within the 1000
feet of the child care facility presents no significant health or safety risk” :
Answer: Staff feels the suggested modification is acceptable and is actually a bit more
succinct than previously proposed.
Comment #3: Language modification (see Attachment Page IO), Item #A. 1. (c), (2) “That
promptly following emergency notification, parents of children under care can
be informed of the evacuation order and location of the children”: (3) “That the
provider shall undertake quarterly training to facilitate emergency evacuation
plan and provide all parents with copies of the plan.”
Answer: Staff feels that the assumption of parent participation in the evacuation would only
lead to chaos and confusion. The purpose of the quarterly training is to be sure
that the parents understand the emergency evacuation procedures and that they
are able to assume custody of their children as soon as possible. Staff feels it is
up to the day care provider and the employer to devise a method by which the
children can be released to their parents in an orderly manner. Staff is concerned
that if the City allows the facility to provide day care for children of employees of
other companies, this will restrict the provider’s and employers ability to have an
effective notification and release plan. Also, in the case of outside participation
and the lack of parental participation, the City assumes a greater responsibility for
the safety of the children and therefore a greater liability.
Comment #&I: Language modification (see Attachment Page lo), Item #A. I. (d) ’ . . . in
conformance with all State and local regulations and present a health dr safety
risk as determined by the Fire Chief and Planning Director.”
Answer: That section probably does warrant some change although staff does not
necessarily agree with Mr. Rouse’s proposed language modification, but does
feel that there are words that can be added or deleted that would solve the
problem. The problem is in determining if there is a significant hazard or risk to
the children. Both before and after the fact, there are numerous possibilities for
concern.
MINUTES 43
-
’ PLANNING COMMISSION May 7,1997 Page 9
Staff proposes to modify sub-section (d) as follows: “ . . . as described in Section
21.83.070 A 1 (a) above when such materials are found to be in conformance with
all State and local regulations, and in the opinion of the Fire Chief, present a
significant health or safety risk to the child care center. This would allow the
City to make a quick evaluation of the material to determine whether or not it is
likely to cause a hazard.
Comment #5: “There should be a time frame for the use of “x0 gallons of product.” “Other child
care ordinances we have reviewed set the requirement for storage of flammable
liquids at 10.000 qallons rather than the 1,000 gallons indicated and we believe
10,000 gallons to be a more appropriate level.”
Answer: The 1,000 gallons of flammable liquid referenced in the text, should be 10,000
gallons. As for the time frame for the use of “x” gallons of product, it was staffs
intention to recognize a daily (peak) inventory.
Commissioner Monroy asked if temporary portable buildings are allowed in the industrial areas.
Ms. Landers stated that modular buildings are allowed but only as interim measures and only for a short
time period. She went on to point out that most child care providers will be looking for a permanent
structure and would not be interested in modulars.
Commissioner Monroy suggested that it would be a possible solution if or when there may be a time when
the center might be required to relocate.
Ms. Landers stated that the possibility of relocation has been taken into consideration and that the
provider will have to include that possibility in the planning of the facility. She added that this ordinance
encourages child care facilities on a more “campus” like setting where the environment can be more easily
controlled.
Commissioner Savary asked how staff determined that 1,000 feet is a definite safety factor.
Mr. Smith stated that the 1,000 foot figure is found in the Health and Safety Code, as well as several other
places, and it is generally accepted that 1,000 feet provides an adequate buffer from very serious
discharges of chemicals.
Commissioner Heineman asked staff to summarize their responses to the issues raised by Mr. Rouse.
Mr. Smith summarized as follows:
1. Opposed
2. Acceptable
3. Opposed
4. Acceptable with suggested modifications
5. Clarification item
Chairperson Nielsen opened Public Testimony and extended an invitation to speak.
Ron Rouse, Attorney and author of the aforementioned letter, representing Callaway Golf, 600 W.
Broadway, #2600, San Diego, quickly summarized his letter and made it clear that it is not their intention
to create multi-employer child care centers, but to merely make full utilization of a resource. He also
stated that it is not their intention to exclude parents from the emergency evacuation planning but they are
concerned about including them in the actual evacuation. He cited the possibility of a hazardous materials
MINUTES rb9
-
PLANNING COMMISSION May 7,1997 Page 10
leak and how detrimental it would be to have parents coming from all directions in their private vehicles
while emergency vehicles are trying to get in and get a job done, not to mention each parent running to
find their child or children. He also pointed out that if a leak is a health hazard to the children, it will be a
hazard to the adults as well and they shouldn’t be allowed into the area while the emergency personnel
are trying to get everyone out.
Carol Curley, representing Callaway Golf, 2285 Rutherford Rd., Carlsbad, stated that they are very much
in favor of the staff recommendation and the adoption of this ordinance. She stated that there are
approximately 500 corporate child care centers, not including hospitals and other non-industrial sites, ’
throughout the U.S., including some of the Fortune 500 companies. She outlined how the professional
care givers handle emergency situation, pointed out that the children are so well trained in emergency
procedures they become very good at it, and to have parents there in the middle of everything, serves
only to confuse the children and disrupts the orderly flow of movement in an emergency.
Commissioner Compas asked if the preponderance of the Fortune 500 corporate child care centers have
the professional care staff handle the evacuation and if that is why Callaway is recommending approval of
the same in this ordinance.
Ms. Curley stated that the parent is informed when there is an evacuation but are instructed to meet and
pick up the child or children at a prearranged pick-up site. This provides for a much more orderly and safe
evacuation.
Gerard Tanksley, Facilities Manager for Viatech, La Place Court and Cosmos Court, Carlsbad, expressed
their support for this project and urged Commission approval.
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Nielsen closed the Public Testimony.
Fire Marshal Smith, stated that although staff agrees with the language modification suggested by Mr.
Rouse, staff does not agree with the remainder of the language in that section, i.e., . the performance
requirements for evacuation and movement to a safe location.
Chairperson Nielsen asked Mr. Smith for a response regarding the issue of the trained providers escorting
the children to a remote site.
Fire Marshal Smith stated that although the operations of the professional provider are excellent, there will
be a large number of children and perhaps not enough staff to adequately supervise all of them in the
event of an emergency. Staff feels that it is too much to expect that they could get everyone out and
moved at minimum of 1,000 feet distant, without the help of the parents.
Commissioner Savary countered by asking if the increase of people (parents) would only serve to double
the mass, increase the confusion and add to the overall emotional distress.
Mr. Smith pointed out that that is the point of the training and the drills.
Commissioner Savary asked if he is referring to parents on-site.
Mr. Smith stated that the original concept was to require that all parents of children attending day care
would be required to be an on-site employee, so they can assume custody of their children, when
necessary, and move them to a safe location. He pointed out that Callaway Golf has devised a plan that
will mitigate concerns regarding the safe handling of the children and staff feels that the plan is reasonable
and will work.
MINUTES w
’ PLANNING COMMISSION May 7,1997 Page 11
Commissioner Compas asked that if the provider can come up with a proper plan for evacuation, that
doesn’t require the help of the parent(s) or other custodian(s), would staff be agreeable to it?
Mr. Smith responded by stating that staff would certainly take a look at the plan but they would not
preclude the ability of the parents to participate.
Commissioner Compas asked if the ordinance, the way it is written, would or would not preclude the
parents from participating in the event of an emergency.
Mr. Smith stated that staff had not contemplated that question and he is not prepared to make that
statement, one way or the other. He restated staffs theory that it is important for the parents to be
encouraged, if not required, to take part in the process.
Commissioner Heineman stated that this issue regarding the parents being present for an evacuation is a
recipe for disaster. He pointed out that adding another 100 bodies to the already present 100 children and
staff can do nothing but add to the confusion. The Commissioner suggested that this is one issue that
staff and Callaway should get together on and settle to their mutual satisfaction.
Mr. Smith stated that the proposals before this Commission have little to do with Callaway Golf and deal
with the ordinance.
Commissioner Noble asked Mr. Smith if he can foresee a possibility in which an immediate evacuation is
necessary and there is no time to notify the parents.
Fire Marshal Smith agreed that it is a possibility.
Commissioner Noble then asked that if the care giver and/or employer has a plan, and you don’t preclude
the parents’ rights to pick up the children, can’t you send the parents to an off-site point to pick up their
children?
Commissioner Monroy suggested that a facility be built but with a provision(s) to allow some flexibility to
do some actual testing of evacuation methods and then determine which is the most effective.
Fire Marshal Smith stated that the proposed ordinance requires that children be totally evacuated from a
building within 5 minutes, be moved to a predetermined refuge area within 10 minutes, and that within 1
minute parents are notified of the evacuation. With regard to flexibility and testing, staff feels that the
requirement is not all that specific and they would assist any applicant in developing a plan that will work
well, with or without parent participation. They just want to make it possible for the parents to participate if
they are available and able.
Commissioner Heineman asked if staff is opposed to admitting children whose parents work for a different
company, because of the 1 minute evacuation notice to parents.
Mr. Smith agreed that having off-site parents is one of the factors they oppose because if the off-site
parent has to drive to the center, the additional traffic will hamper the emergency vehicles in their attempt
to access the area. They feel it is more prudent to limit the participation to the sponsor of the facility.
Commissioner Compas asked if there is enough flexibility in the ordinance so that some of these things
can be handled.
Mr. Smith stated that staff feels that the ordinance is so specific so as to exclude other solutions.
Commissioner Savary asked if the whole thing can be solved by saying that “the trained professionals and
the trained parents will participate in the evacuation, whenever possible.” Also, the Commissioner asked if
a safe percentage can be attached to accommodate a dwindling enrollment due to the aging of the work
MINUTES 31
‘PLANNING COMMISSION May 7,1997
force.
Page 12
Mr. Smith stated that if they allow children from other companies, the center will then become a
commercial child care facility rather than an amenity and could present a very large problem. There are
no established numbers upon which to calculate percentages.
Chairperson Nielsen, in an attempt to further clarify the issue, asked if staff is primarily concerned with
approving evacuation plans submitted by the applicant and was answered affirmatively.
Ms. Landers restated the proposed ordinance simply states how quickly the children must be evacuated
and when the parents must be notified. It is general in nature and allows plenty of flexibility to
accommodate the needs of the Fire Department and the child care provider and perhaps it is not
necessary to actually determine the exact steps in that process at this time.
Chairperson Nielsen stated that the applicant has the ability to submit, staff has the ability to critique and
now is the time to use the ability to negotiate.
Commissioner Noble asked what kind of system will be utilized in notifying 100 parents within a 1 minute
time frame.
Mr. Smith stated that the method of notification will be left up to the applicant and staff will be available to
assist them with technology.
Chairperson Nielsen stated that if a 1 minute notification to 100 parents is, in fact, impossible to achieve,
how can the city make that notification a “standard”?
Commissioner Noble explained that his reason for asking the question was not so much that a 1 minute
notification may be an impossibility but that if other companies are allowed to participate, how will they be
notified in that same 1 minute time frame?
Commissioner Compas asked if two companies could join forces in creating a child care center accessible
to both their employees.
Mr. Smith stated that such an arrangement is.possible and used the example of an office building that
houses multiple companies and their respective offices. He again stated that staffs main concern is for
off-site parents and the increase in traffic and confusion.
Commissioner Compas asked what would happen if this ordinance goes into effect with the 1 minute
notification and it is discovered that no one can find a way to make the 1 minute notification work and
therefore there can be no child care centers -what would happen then?
Mr. Smith responded that common sense would have to prevail and added that there are a number of
ways to implement the notification process.
Commissioner Heineman asked if a child care center submitted a satisfactory evacuation and notification
plan, would staff be necessarily concerned about the 1 minute factor and/or whether there is more than
one company involved.
Mr. Smith stated that staff would be concerned about both and uppermost would be what is in the
ordinance. He went on to state that they would have difficulty in approving a facility that cared for children
from another employer.
72 MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSlc/rJ May 7,1997 Page 13
Commissioner Compas, citing a single parent situation, asked how an evacuation and 1 minute notification
would be handled if that single parent was attending a meeting (out of town) and absolutely could not be
reached or could not get to the center to take custody of the child.
Mr. Smith stated that that was a subject of discussion and Callaway has found a way to mitigate that
concern by having other employees appointed to custodial positions to act on the parents behalf.
Commissioner Monroy asked for staffs definition of flexibility.
Mr. Smith responded that staff is recommending that the sponsoring employer limit the child care services
to their own company’s employees.
Commissioner Noble quoted from the proposed ordinance as follows:
Page 10, Sub-paragraph A. 1. (c) - “Prior to occupancy, the child day care Provider shall prepare
and maintain an emergency operating plan which indicates to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief that
procedures are in place which ensure the following: etc.” The Commissioner stated that this
paragraph states what will be done and asked if an applicant would be allowed to submit 2 plans,
to include the possibility of including another company in the child care facility.
Commissioner Heineman stated that he had asked the same question earlier and the Fire Marshal stated
that there is not enough flexibility to do that. His question was that if a company proposed a satisfactory
evacuation and notification plan, would it not then be possible to reach an agreement with someone (as
Callaway Golf has done) to eliminate the 1 minute notification if that had been a part of the plan and also
to allow children from parents working in other companies to participate. Commissioner Heineman further
stated that staffs response indicates to him that there is no evacuation plan satisfactory enough to permit
that.
Mr. Smith stated that evacuation procedures should stand on their own.
Chairperson Nielsen declared a recess at 8:lO p.m. and reconvened at 8:23 p.m., with six Commissioners
present.
Fire Marshal Smith stated that staff now proposes to continue this item on the PM and CM Zones,
particularly the items dealing with the standards of notification and evacuation times and the availability of
employer sponsored child care facilities to other firms. He further stated that it is staffs intention to study
the issues further and return to the Commission with a recommendation.
Commissioner Heineman agreed that a continuance is in order.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Compas, and duly seconded, to continue this item to
May 21, 1997.
VOTE: 6-O
AYES: Nielsen, Noble, Heineman, Savary, Monroy, and Compas
NOES: None
Commissioner Welshons returned to the dais.
73
3. ZCA 93411LCPA 97-93 - CHILD CARE ORDINANCE - A Zone Code Amendment and Local
Coastal Program Amendment adding Chapter 21.83 to the Carlsbad Municipal Code and
amending chapters and sections of the zoning ordinance to address the provision of small and
large family day care homes as well as child day care centers throughout the City.
Commissioner Welshons excused herself from hearing this item, citing a potential conflict of interest, and
left the dais.
Chairperson Nielsen announced that if the Commission recommends approval of this item, it will be
forwarded to the City Council for its consideration.
Project Planner, Adrienne Landers began her presentation of the staff report with a brief of history of the
ordinance, which was first proposed in 1991 and was discussed at length at the Regular Meeting of this
Commission on May 7, 1997. Ms. Landers stated that at that time the Planning Commission indicated that
they had no issue with most of the proposed ordinance and the remaining unresolved issues focused on
the provision for Child Day Care Centers in the PM and CM Zones. Ms. Landers went on to point out
that the major issue discussed that evening was, “if safe evacuation can be provided, can Child Day Care
Centers be accessible to anyone rather than just employees of a sponsoring company?” Ms. Landers
noted that there were also concerns over whether the child care provider or the parents should be
responsible for the evacuation. The last Issue focused on a provision for a one minute warning for
parents to begin to participate in the evacuation of the children.
Ms. Landers reported that staff has considered the comments expressed by the Commission and the
Public, and has revised the PM and CM zone section of the ordinance to broaden the scope of Child Day
Care Centers in the industrial zones and introduced Fire Marshal Mike Smith, who then reviewed the
revised ordinance sections.
Mr. Smith began by stating that the first significant modification proposed is to permit Child Day Care
Centers in the PM and CM zones, on a commercial basis, with the approval of a CUP. He stated that this modification would enable Child Day Care Centers to; 1) be available to anyone; 2) be limited to the
exclusive use by children of employees; and, 3) be operated as a separate commercial entity. Mr. Smith
noted that Item A. 1. (a) has been modified, as shown in Errata #2, that in order to obtain a CUP, the applicant will be required to conduct a health risk evaluation of all buildings within 1,000 feet and demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief and the Planning Director, that any high risk hazardous
chemicals that might exist there either present no threat to the center and if they do, they must show how
MINUTES 74
. PLANNING COMMISSION May 21,1997 Page 4
such a threat would be mitigated. He also pointed out that the Information necessary to complete this
health risk evaluation, is routinely available to the public at the San Diego County Department of
Environmental Health. Mr. Smith further noted that the applicant will also be required to submit an annual
follow-up evaluation, demonstrating that the 1,000 foot buffer area remains free of hazard. Regarding
Item A. 1. (b), Fire Marshal Smith stated that staff proposes that the ordinance retain the requirement for
the child care provider to disclose to parents, the potential risk of exposure of their children to hazardous
materials as a result of an accidental release. He continued by further noting that staff additionally
proposes that the parents be made aware that when an emergency occurs, the child care provider may be
required to maintain custody of their child/children for an extended period of time.
Fire Marshal Smith stated that the additional disclosure requirements will permit parents to make an
“informed decision”, regarding the safety of their children, and Staff therefore proposes that any
emergency evacuation be accomplished by the child care provider, without the assistance of the parents,
This, in turn, eliminates the need for the original requirement of a one minute notification to parents in the
event of an emergency. As for the requirements for evacuation of a building in five minutes and the
relocation to a refuge area in ten minutes, they will be retained in the ordinance. Mr. Smith pointed out
that Item A. 1. (d) requires that the applicant enter into an agreement with the City to discontinue operation
of the Child Day Care Center when the Center is found to be at risk due to the presence of hazardous
materials nearby. He went on to advise that the provider would then have ninety days to mitigate the risk
or their CUP will terminate. Mr. Smith stated that staff also proposes that the applicant be required to
indemnify the City from liability from any action arising as a result of exposure of children to hazardous
materials while under the care of a Child Day Care Provider. Mr. Smith concluded by stating that hem A.
1. (e) has been modified to state that “The applicant shall submit a conversion plan, at the time of
application, which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and the Fire Chief that the
Child Day Care Center could be converted to a use already permitted in the PM/CM Zone.”
Commissioner Savary requested that Item A.1 .(c) (2) be made more explicit than “quarterly exercise of the
plan”.
Fire Marshal Smith stated that staff will develop a sentence to better describe the quarterly exercise
(practice) of the evacuation plan.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf inquired as to what was felt to be unclear. He reviewed and clarified the
+ meaning of this language and Commissioner Savary agreed with the explanation.
Chairperson Nielsen opened Public Testimony and issued an invitation to speak.
Ron Rouse, Attorney at Law, 600 W. Broadway, Suite 2600, San Diego, representing Callaway Golf Co.,
stated his clients appreciation for the effort put forth on this ordinance, their concurrence with the
changes, and urged the full support of the Commission.
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Nielsen closed the Public Testimony. _,
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4092, recommending approval of the Negative
Declaration issued by the Planning Director and to adopt Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 4093 and 4094, recommending approval of ZCA 93-01 and
LCPA 97-03, based on the findings contained therein and to include Errata #l
and Errata #2.
VOTE: 6-O
AYES: Nielsen, Noble, Heineman, Savary, Monroy, and Compas
NOES: None
7f MINUTES
-
(Form A)
TO: C1T.Y CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARINC REQUEST
Attached arc the materials necessary for you to notice
ZCA 9%Ol/LCPA 97-03 - CHILD CARE ORDINANCE
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the council meeting of FIRST AVAILABLE HEARING
JUNE 17, 1997
Thank you.
J_TJljE .3a- J%!W - Date
, ” PROOF OF PUBLICr,ON
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
I This space is? the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
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 Proof of Publication of
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:
Public Hearing --------------------L----_
L -------------------- _--__
NOTICE OF P q LIC HEARING ZCA-9 -1 L -3+-m- A97-3 - CHILD CARE ORDINANEE
I CO 1987;. If YOU have any questions regardin ies Of the staff report will be available on and after June 13
call Adrienne Landers in the Planning 8 this matter pleas;
436-1161, extension 4451. epartment it (760)
June 7, 1997
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at C&##if!!% 7th day
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
If You challenge the Zone Code Amendment and/or Local C?+tal Pr remg only%ose is”), ram Amendment in court, you may be limited to sues raised by ou or someone else at the public hearmg described in this no Ice or in written corre-
id S ondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad Ci CARLSBAD CITY COu&,L AP~LICAN! City of Carls- a or pnor to the public hearin Clerk’s Office
Legal 50073 June 7,1997
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ZCA 934/LCPA 97-3 - CHILD CARE ORDINANCE
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, June 17, 1997, to consider a Zone Code
Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment adding Chapter 21.83 to the
Carlsbad Municipal Code and amending chapters and sections of the zoning ordinance
to address the provision of small and large family day care homes as well as child day
care centers throughout the City on property generally located citywide, in the City of
Carlsbad.
Copies of the staff report will be available on and after June 13, 1997. If you have any
questions regarding this matter, please call Adrienne Landers in the Planning
Department at (760) 438-l 161, extension 4451.
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: June 7,1997
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
-
I
--------
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST ISAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST i I ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST
801 PINE AVE 1 CIVIC CENTER DR 101 SO RANCH0 SANTA FE
CARLSBAD CA 92008 SAN MARCOS CA 92069 ENCINITAS CA 92024
SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST LEUCADIA CNTY WATER DIST OLIVENHAIN WATER DIST
701 ENCINITAS BLVD 1960 LA COSTA AVE 1966 OLIVENHAIN RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ENCINITAS CA 92024
VALLECITOS WATER DIST SD COUNTY PLANNING
788 SAN MARCOS BLVD SUITE 8
SAN MARCOS CA 92069 5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CITY OF SAN MARCOS CITY OF OCEANSIDE
1 CIVIC CENTER DR 300 NORTH COAST HWY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
SUITE 50
330 GOLDENSHORE
LONG BEACH CA 90802
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ADRIENNE LANDERS
CMWD
/j
/ ,’ ,/’ _I
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY SANDAG
SUITE B SUITE 800
9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD 400 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331 SAN DIEGO CA 92101
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
FIRE DEPARTMENT
MIKE SMITH
PROJECT PLANNER
ANNE HYSONG
LABELS FOR ZCA93-01 ILCPA 97-03
CHILD CARE ORDINANCE
.H:\ADMIkLABELSWP
INTERESTED PARTIES
UPDATED 1 l-96
OLIVENHAIN M.W.D.
1966 OLIVENHAIN ROAD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CRAIG ADAMS
SIERRA CLUB
SAN DIEGO CHAPTER
3820 RAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
LESLIE ESPOSITO
1893 AMELFI DRIVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
LANIKAI LANE PARK
SHARP; SPACE 3
6550 PONTO DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KIM SEIBLY
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC
PO BOX 1831
SAN DIEGO CA 92112
PERRY A LAMB
890 MERE POINT ROAD
BRUNSWICK MAINE 04011
RICHARD RETECKI
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
SUITE 1100
1330 BROADWAY
OAKLAND CA 94612
DALE/DONNA SCHREIBER
7163 ARGONAURA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
/ CITY OF ENCINITAS
COM.DEV. DEPARTMENT
505 S. VULCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
REGIONAL WATER QUAL. BD
EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SUITE 6
9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92124
GUY MOORE JR
6503 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CYRIL AND MARY GIBSON
12142 ARGYLE DRIVE
LOS ALAMITOS CA 90702
JOHN LAMB
1446 DEVLIN DRIVE
LOSANGELES CA 90069
MARY GRIGGS
STATE LANDS COMMISSSION
SUITE 100 SOUTH
100 HOWE AVE
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
PLANNING & LAND USE DEPT
JOAN VOKAC - SUITE B-5
5201 RUFFIN ROAD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
ANTHONY BONS
1124 BLUE SAGE
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
MR/MRS MICHAEL CARDOSA
6491 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TABATA FARMS
PO BOX 1338
CARLSBAD CA 92018
KENNETH E SULZER
SANDAG - EXEC DIRECTOR
IST INT’L PLAZA, SUITE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
JAN SOBEL
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
PO BOX 1605
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BILL MCLEAN
c/o LAKESHORE GARDENS
7201 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SPIERS ENTERPRISES
DWIGHT SPIERS
SUITE 139
23 CORPORATE PLAZA
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
SUPERVISOR BILL HORN
ATTN: ART DANELL
COUNTY OF SD, ROOM 335
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
LEE ANDERSON
CRA PRESIDENT
5200 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FLOYD ASHBY
416 LA COSTA AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CARLENE TIMM
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC
PO BOX 1831
SAN DIEGO CA 92112
-
LABELS - 5 163 I, SANDAG (SAN DIEGO COUNTY)
LCPA MAILING LIST (GOVERNMENT AGENCIES) WELLS FARGO PLAZA
SUITE 800
APPENDIX A (PER COASTAL COMMISSION) 401 B STREET
SANDIEGO CA 92101
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
ROOM 700
110 WEST A STREET
SANDIEGO CA 92101
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
350 MCALLISTER STREET
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
OFFICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFAIRS
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 958 14
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
STEVE SHAFFER, AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
ROOM 100
1220 N STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION & HSG AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
WILLIAM G. BRENNAN
DEPUTY SECRETARY AND SPECIAL COUNCIL
SUITE 2450
980 NINTH STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 958 14
ROOM 5504
1120 N STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DISTRICT 11 CALTRANS RESOURCES AGENCY
TIM VASQUEZ, ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING RM 1311
2829 SAN JUAN ST 1416 NINTH STREET
SANDIEGO CA 92138 SACRAMENTO CA 95812
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
ANNE GERAGHTY, MANAGER
GENERAL PROJECTS SECTION
PO BOX 2815
SACRAMENTO CA 95812
ENERGY RESOURCES, CONSERVATION
AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
CHUCK NAJARIAN
15 16 NINTH STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
MARINE RESOURCES REGION, DR & G
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SUPERVISOR
350 GOLDEN SHORE
LONG BEACH CA 90802
SOUTHERN REGION
JOHN WALSTROM, TECHNICAL SERVICES
8885 RIO SAN DIEGO DRIVE
SAND DIEGO CA 92 108
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
DWIGHT SANDERS
SUITE 1005
100 HOWE AVE
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
SUITE 1100
1330 BROADWAY
OAKLAND CA 94612
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
DON LOLLOCK, CHIEF
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
RM 1206-20
1416NINTH STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 958 14
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
DOUG WICKIZER, ENVIROMENTAL COORD
RM 1516-2
1416 NINTH STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION
AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
BILL TRAVIS
30 VAN NESS AVENUE
SANFRANCISCO CA 95814
WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
PO BOX 100
SACARAMENTO CA 95801
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD ’ DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SUITEB ROBERT L. ERWIN, DIRECTOR
9771 CALAIREMONT MESA BLVD SUITE 1037
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331 630 SANSOME STREET
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
ATTN: GARY FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION
RESOURCE CONSERVATIONIST IRWRIN HOFFMANN
SUITE 102 SUITE F
2121-C SECOND STREET 194 W MAIN STREET
DAVIS CA 95616 WOODLAND CA 95695
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
OFFICE OF OCEAN AND COASTAL
L McGILVRAY
1825 CONNECTICUT AVENUE
WASHINGTON DC 20235
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
BRIGADIER GENERAL PATRICK KELLY
RM 1216
630 SANSOME STREET
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CHAIRMAN
722 JACKSON PLACE NORTH WEST
WASHINGTON DC 2006
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
RICHARD L FRASER
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH
630 SANSOME STREET
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
COMMANDING OFFICER, WESTERN DIVISION
ROBERT FORSYTH, DIRECTOR
PO BOX 727
SAN BRUNO CA 94066
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ENGINEER
PO BOX 2711
LOS ANGELES CA 90053
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
JOHN B. MARTIN, REGIONAL DIRECTOR
SUITE 210
1450 MARIA LANE
WALNUT CREEK CA 94596-5368
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
MOLLY BRANDT, DIRECTOR
OPERARJONAL PLANNING
525 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105
U. S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
BOB BARNEY
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
U. S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
LOWER COLORADO REGION
PO BOX 427
BOULDER CITY CO 89005
1 j ’ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
COMMANDANT, ELEVENTH NAVAL DISTRICT
DISTRICT CIVIL ENGINEER
SAN DIEGO CA 92132
I DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
PHILLIP LAMMI, CHIEF
ROOM 1316
630 SANSOME STREET
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
CLIFFORD EMMERLING, DIRECTOR
SUITE 350
901 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVE
DUNCAN LENT HOWARD, REGIONAL ADMIN
450 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94 102
BRIAN O’NEILL, SUPERINTENDENT U. S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA MID-PACIFIC REGION
BUILDING 201 FORT MASON JOHN H. TURNER
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94123 2800 COTTAGE WAY
’ SACRAMENTO CA 95825
SUPERINTENDENT
CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK
1901 SPINNAKERDRIVE
SAN BUENAVENTURA CA 93001
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
RONALD M. JAEGER
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SUITE 200
3 111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH
SAN DIEGO CA 92108
DOUGLAS WARNOCK, SUPERINTENDENT
REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK
DRAWERN
1111 2mSTREET
CRESCENT CITY CA 95531
U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
JAMES MCKEVITT. FIELD SUPERVISOR
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
BARRY BRAYER, AWP-8
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
WESTERN REGION
PO BOX 92007
LOS ANGELES CA 90009