HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-09-28; City Council; 15413; Appellate Procedures-
CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL AH /$4/S VITLE : DEPT. HD.
MTG. g/28/99 APPELLATE PROCEDURES
ZCA 99-06iLCPA 99-04
CITY All-Y. @,
DEPT. CA CITY MGR. w
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. ~@-%6
ADOPT Resolution No. ?y-# APPROVING LCPA 99-04.
APPROVING ZCA 99-06 and
ITEM EXPLANATION:
In March 1996, the Council approved appellate procedures ZCA 95-06 and LCPA 95-06 making
various technical changes to the zone code and companion changes to ordinances applying within
the coastal zone making uniform procedures regarding appeal of planning matters in response to a
Council request to allow appeals by individual Council Members of Planning Commission decisions,
and in order to comply with then-recent case law requirements regarding burden of proof provisions
affecting the due process procedures applicable in such appeals.
Since that time, several appellants have asserted that those amendments did more than just clarify
that the appellant had the burden of proof upon appeal, and went beyond that and restricted the
ability of the City Council to overturn decisions upon appeal.
Although staff believes those arguments overstate the effect of the 1996 amendments, the language
is ambiguous and we believe the proposed amendments eliminate any ambiguity, and clarify the
authority of the appellate body upon appeal sufficiently to avoid litigation regarding the procedures
to be applied when planning matters are appealed.
Prior to the 1996 amendments all appeals were “de nova”, requiring the appellate body to
completely hear and reconsider the matter, causing the parties, City staff, and the public to repeat
all the information presented below, and potentially new information not previously presented. Such “de novo” review, however, gave no status to the lower decision, and greater flexibility to Council to
reverse or modify the lower decision.
One of the goals of the 1996 amendments was to require specificity of the reason or reasons for the
appeal, and require the parties to only address those matters appealed from. It was hoped that this
would narrow the focus of the proceedings and reduce the amount of evidence, and therefore time,
involved in presenting the matter to the ultimate decision maker.
The second change was to make clear that the burden of proof upon appeal was on the appellant.
This clarification was added in response to the Court of Appeal decision in Cohan v. Citv of
Thousand Oaks (1994) 30 Cal.App.LFth 547, requiring local ordinances relating to appeals of
planning matters to make provision for the burden of proof, so that the parties knew who had to
proceed on which issues once the appeal was being considered by the ultimate decision maker.
Under prior procedures it was not clear whether the original applicant, or the appellant, was required
to carry the burden of proof and what would be a proper basis of overturning or sustaining the lower
decision.
The third thing the 1996 amendments did was invest the lower decision with a presumption of
correctness, and require the appellate body/ultimate decision maker to sustain the lower decision,
unless the aopellant showed that it was wrong, by a preponderance of the evidence. This portion of
the 1996 changes was not required by the Cohan decision, but was recommended by staff because the City Council had already determined which types of planning decisions it was comfortable
-
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA FILL NO. /<4/J
delegating to the Planning Director, Planning Commission and/or Design Review Board for final
decision subject only to appeal. Those types of matters related to non-legislative decisions (lesser
permits), not to major general or specific plan amendments or large tentative maps. This Council
deference to the Planning Director’s or Planning Commission’s expertise was consistent with good
planning principles and a desire to streamline the process by eliminating incentive to appeal.
The second option considered by the City Council in 1996, and not recommended by staff at that
time, is the option now recommended. It satisfies the holding in the Cohan case by giving direction
in the rules applicable to appeals concerning the appropriate burden of proof. It assigns the burden
of proof to the appellant with regard to the reasons or grounds asserted in the written appeal, which
continue to be specifically required to be called out. However, the new language clarifies that the
hearing before the appellate body is “de novo”, that is, the appellate body can affirm, modify or
reverse the lower action taken upon its independent review of the evidence, so long as the ultimate
decision is based upon substantial evidence in the record. As a concession to the streamlining of
the process, desired and effectuated by the older version of the ordinance being superseded, the
new ordinance requires the appellate body to determine that all those matters which are not
specifically appealed from are supported by findings by the lower decision maker and supported by
substantial evidence in the record. This will continue to allow the focus only on the matters under
appeal, while still giving the appellate body the ability to overturn the decision, if the appellant proves
the grounds stated in the appeal exist by substantial evidence on record, and the Council, in its
discretion, determines that the lower decision should therefore be overturned. It also expressly calls
out the option of the City Council on appeal to determine the matter itself or remand the matter to the
lower decision making body for further proceedings. In any event, the Council’s ultimate decision
must be supported by substantial evidence to withstand judicial attack.
Accordingly, the ordinance is recommended for adoption, along with the resolution effectuating it as
a local coastal program amendment for all segments of the coastal zone. If approved by the City Council, it will be processed by the Coastal Commission’s Executive Director as a “de minimus”
amendment. No public comments were received during the public review period. The Planning
Commission recommended approval at its meeting of July 21, 1999.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Planning Director has determined this project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA
because it satisfies the general rule that there is no possibility that the adoption of this ordinance
amendment and Local Coastal Program amendment will cause a significant impact on the
environment, because it is a technical amendment relating to the burden of proof on appeals.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the implementation of this ordinance amendment.
The application fee required for the filing of the appeal to the City Council ($600) remains the same.
EXHIBITS:
City Council Ordinance No. #+sbb
City Council Resolution No. ??+ qq$ Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4599 and 4600
Planning Commission Staff Report;dated July 21, 1999 Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated July 21, 1999.
Redlined/Strikeout of Ordinance
:
I
L
e .
E
7
e
9
10
11
12
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. NS-506
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AMENDING VARIOUS
SECTIONS OF TITLE 21 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO APPELLATE PROCEDURES
REGARDING BURDEN OF PROOF UPON APPEAL OF
PLANNING MATTERS.
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as
follows:
SECTION I: That Title 21, Chapter 21.06 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
is amended by the amendment of section 21.06.130 to read as follows:
“21.06.130 Effective date of order.
The decision of the Planning Commission is final and effective ten
calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless within such ten-day
period an appeal in hriting is filed with the City Clerk by an interested person, An
individual member of the City Council can be an interested person. The written appeal
shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the manner in which
the decision of the Planning Commission is in error. The burden of proof is on the
appellant to establish by substantial evidence that the reason(s) for the appeal exist.
The hearing before the Council is de novo, but the Council shall determine all matters
not specified in the appeal have been found by the Planning Commission and are
supported by substantial evidence. If the Council finds one or more grounds set forth in
the notice of appeal supported by substantial evidence, it may, nevertheless, affirm,
modify, or reverse the action of the Planning Commission, and make such order
supported by substantial evidence as it deems appropriate, including remand to the
Planning Commission with directions for further proceedings. The filing of an appeal
shall stay the effective date of the Planning Commission decision until such time as the
City Council has acted on the appeal. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall
be established by resolution of the City Council.”
SECTION II: That Title 21, Chapter 21.35 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
is amended by the amendment of section 21.35-l IO to read as follows:
“21.351 IO Appeal to housina and redevelopment commission.
Except as provided in Section 21.35.100(c), the action of the design
review board is final and effective ten calendar days after the adoption of the resolution
of decision unless an interested person appeals a design review board decision on a
minor project or nonadministrative variance or by filing a written appeal with the City
Clerk within such ten-day period. An individual member of the housing and
redevelopment commission can be an interested person for the purposes of appeal.
The written appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the
Ordinance No. ~-506 II6 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 9 g mWtX 32-7
fpg 13
jL, 0) SO-j5 14
&gf
9 0
a;32 15
$;zx 16
05s E agf!J
z-g l7 3 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
manner in which the decision of the design review board is in error. The burden of proof
is on the appellant to establish by substantial evidence that the reason(s) for the appeal
exist. The hearing before the Housing and Redevelopment Commission is de novo, but
1 the Housing and Redevelopment Commission shall determine all matters not specified
in the appeal have been found by the Design Review Board and are supported by
substantial evidence. If the Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds one or
more grounds set forth in the notice of appeal supported by substantial evidence, it
may, nevertheless, affirm, modify, or reverse the action of the Planning Commission,
and make such order supported by substantial evidence as it deems appropriate,
including remand to the Design Review Board with directions for further proceedings.
The filing of an appeal shall stay the effective date of the design review board decision
until such time as the housing and redevelopment commission has acted on the appeal.
Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the City
Council. “
SECTION III. That Title 21, Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.45.073(a) to read as follows:
“21.45.073 Appeal of plannina commission decision.
(a) The decision of the Planning Commission is final and effective ten
calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless within such ten-day
period the applicant, any resident of the subject property, in the case of a proposed
conversion of residential real property to a planned development project, or any other
interested person files a written appeal with the City Clerk. An individual member of the
City Council can be an interested person. The written appeal shall specifically state the
reason or reasons for the appeal and the manner in which the decision of the Planning
Commission is in error. The burden of proof is on the appellant to establish by
. substantial evidence that the reason(s) for the appeal exist. The hearing before the
Council is de novo, but the Council shall determine all matters not specified in the
appeal have been found by the Planning Commission and are supported by substantial
evidence. If the Council finds one or more grounds set forth in the notice of appeal
supported by substantial evidence, it may, nevertheless, affirm, modify, or reverse the
action of the Planning Commission, and make such order supported by substantial
evidence as it deems appropriate, including remand to the Planning Commission with
directions for further proceedings. The decision of the Planning Director on projects
processed in accordance with Section 21.45.140 may be appealed to the Planning
Commission by filing a written notice of appeal with the Planning Director within ten
calendar days of the decision in the same manner and subject to the same burden of
proof as appeals to the City Council. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall
be established by resolution of the City Council.
Upon the filing of an appeal, the City Clerk shall set the matter for public
hearing. Such hearing shall be held within thirty days after the date of filing the appeal.
Within ten days following the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council shall render its
decision on the appeal. The decision of the City Council is final.”
Ordinance No. NS-506 216
1 SECTION IV: That Title 21, Chapter 21.47 of the Carlsbad Municipal
2 II Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.47.073(a) to read as follows:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 9 g mwo, I?=-; sg 13
0) 283, 14 ms,f “5 9 5-8 nlL a;32 15
zwmo 8$i&- oza 16
E m aa: p-5 l7 i3
18
“21.47.073 Appeal of plannina commission decision.
(a) The decision of the Planning Commission is final and effective ten
calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless within such ten-day
period applicant or any other interested person files a written appeal with the City Clerk.
An individual member of the City Council can be an interested person. The written
appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the manner in
which the decision of the Planning Commission is in error. The burden of proof is on the
appellant to establish by substantial evidence that the reason(s) for the appeal exist.
The hearing before the Council is de novo, but the Council shall determine all matters
not specified in the appeal have been found by the Planning Commission and are
supported by substantial evidence. If the Council finds one or more grounds set forth in
the notice of appeal supported by substantial evidence, it may, nevertheless, affirm,
modify, or reverse the action of the Planning Commission, and make such order
supported by substantial evidence as it deems appropriate, including remand to the
Planning Commission with directions for further proceedings. The decision of the
Planning Director on projects processed in accordance with Section 21.47.1 IO may be
appealed to the Planning Commission by filing a written notice of appeal with the
Planning Director within ten calendar days of the decision in the same manner and
subject to the same burden of proof as appeals to the City Council. Fees for filing an
appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the City Council.
Upon the filing of an appeal, the City Clerk shall set the matter for public
hearing. Such hearing shall be held within thirty days after the date of filing the appeal.
Within ten days following the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council shall render its
decision on the appeal. The decision of the City Council is final.”
SECTION V: That Title 21, Chapter 21.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal
19 I/
Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.50.100 to read as follows:
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“21.50.100 Effective date of order for variance or conditional use oermit -
Time for appeal.
The order of the Planning Commission in granting or denying a variance
or conditional use permit shall become final and effective ten calendar days after the
rendering of its decision granting or denying the variance or conditional use permit
unless within such ten-day period an appeal in writing is filed with the City Clerk by an
interested person. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested
person. The written appealshall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal
and the manner in which the decision of the Planning Commission is in error. The
burden of proof is on the appellant to establish by substantial evidence that the
reason(s) for the appeal exist. The hearing before the Council is de novo, but the
Council shall determine all matters not specified in the appeal have been found by the
Planning Commission and are supported by substantial evidence. If the Council finds
one or more grounds set forth in the notice of appeal supported by substantial
evidence, it may, nevertheless, affirm, modify, or reverse the action of the Planning
Ordinance No. N's-506 3/6
1
2
3
4
Commission, and make such order supported by substantial evidence as it deems
appropriate, including remand to the Planning Commission with directions for further
proceedings. The filing of such appeal within such time limits shall stay the effective
date of the order of the Planning Commission until such time as the City Council has
acted on the appeal as hereafter set forth in this title. Fees for filing an appeal under
this section shall be established by resolution of the City Council.”
5 SECTION VI: That Title 21, Chapter 21.54 of the Carlsbad Municipal
6 Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.54.140(b) to read as follows:
7
8
“2154.140 Appeal of plannina director decisions .
Whenever the Planning Director is authorized, pursuant to this title, to
9
10
11
12 2 gj mwo, Yr7 13 %iL 8
0Wg.j jlLc3
$035 14
E=lle dgzo 9 * 2” 15 I&g+ 0 ,o,zd,- 05$ 16
b a82 c-3 l7 u
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a
make a decision or determination such decision or determination is final unless the
determination or decision is appealed by an interested person to the Planning
Commission. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested person.
The written appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the
manner in which the decision of the Planning Director is in error. The burden of proof is
on the appellant to establish by substantial evidence that the reason(s) for the appeal
exist. The hearing before the Planning Commission is de novo, but the Planning
Commission shall determine all matters not specified in the appeal have been found by
the Planning Director and are supported by substantial evidence. If the Planning
Commission finds one or more grounds set forth in the notice of appeal supported by
substantial evidence, it may, nevertheless, affirm, modify, or reverse the action of the
Planning Commission, and make such order supported by substantial evidence as it
deems appropriate, including remand to the Planning Director with directions for further
proceedings. The appeal shall be filed in writing with the secretary of the Planning
Commission within ten calendar days after the date of the Planning Director’s decision.
The Planning Director’s decision or determination shall be made in writing. The date of
the decision shall be the date the writing containing the decision or determination is
mailed or otherwise delivered to the person or persons affected by the decision or
determination. The Planning Commission action on an appeal shall be final. Fees for
filing an appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the City
Council.”
SECTION VII: That Title 21, Chapter 21.80 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.80.080(a) to read as follows:
“21.80.080 ADDeEd of Dtannino commission decision.
(a) The decision of the Planning Commission is final and effective ten
calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless within such ten-day
period the applicant or any other interested person files a written appeal with the City
Clerk. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested person. The
written appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the
manner in which the decision of the Planning Commission in error. The burden of proof
is on the appellant to establish by substantial evidence that the reason(s) for the appeal
exist. The hearing before the Council is de novo, but the Council shall determine all
Ordinance No. ~3-506 .
i
6
E
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
matters not specified in the appeal have been found by the Planning Commission and
are supported by substantial evidence. If the Council finds one or more grounds set
forth in the notice of appeal supported by substantial evidence, it may, nevertheless,
affirm, modify, or reverse the action of the Planning Commission, and make such order
supported by substantial evidence as it deems appropriate, including remand to the
Planning Commission with directions for further proceedings. Upon the filing of an
appeal, the City Clerk shall set the matter for public hearing. Such hearing shall be
held within thirty days after the date of filing the appeal. Within ten days following the
conclusion of the hearing, the City Council shall render its decision on the appeal. The
decision of the City Council is final.”
SECTION VIII: That Title 21, Chapter 21.81 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code is amended by the amendment of section 21.81.080(a) to read as follows:
“21.81.080 Aopeal of Carlsbad desian review board decision.
(a) The action of the design review board is final and effective ten
calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless the applicant or
any other interested person. files a written appeal within that time with the secretary to
the housing and redevelopment commission. An individual member of the housing and
redevelopment commission can be an interested person. The written appeal shall
specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the manner in which the
decision of the design review board is in error. The burden of proof is on the appellant
to establish by substantial evidence that the reason(s) for the appeal exist. The hearing
before the Housing and Redevelopment Commission is de novo, but the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission shall determine all matters not specified in the appeal
have been found by the Design Review Board and are supported by substantial
evidence. If the Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds one or more grounds
set forth in the notice of appeal supported by substantial evidence, it may, nevertheless,
affirm, modify, or reverse the action of the Planning Commission, and make such order
supported by substantial evidence as it deems appropriate, including remand to the
design review board with directions for further proceedings. Upon the filing of an
appeal, the City Clerk shall set the matter for public hearing. Such hearing shall be
held within thirty days after the date of filing the appeal. Within ten days following the
conclusion of the hearing, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission shall render its
decision on the appeal. The decision of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
is final.”
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its
adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to
be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad
within fifteen days after its adoption. Notwithstanding the preceding, Sections II, VII
and VIII effectuate a Local Coastal Program Amendment, and shall not be effective until
Ordinance No. Ns-506 516
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
approved by the Coastal Commission (or by its Executive Director as a de minimus
amendment).
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad
City Council on the 28th day of September , 1999, and thereafter
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad on the day of I 1999, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney
Ordinance No. NS-506
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
Al-TEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
(SEAL)
616
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
RESOLUTION NO. 99-444
follows:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO
ALL SEGMENTS OF THE CITY’S LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
TO MODIFY THE APPELLATE PROCEDURES RELATING TO
PLANNING MATTERS CITYWIDE.
CASE NAME: APPELLATE PROCEDURES
CASE NO.: LCPA 99-04
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
WHEREAS, on July 21, 1999, the Carlsbad Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing to consider Local Coastal Program Amendment 99-04 and adopted
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4600 recommending to the City Council that it be
approved; and
WHEREAS, LCPA 99-04 will implement the proposed Citywide modifications to
the appellate procedures since the City’s zoning ordinance regulates coastal zone properties;
and
WHEREAS, the proposed appellate procedures will not have any adverse
impacts to shoreline resources or coastal zone policies regarding coastal access or
development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did on the *day of September , 1999 hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the proposed amendments to the
Zoning Ordinance and the City’s Local Coastal Program; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony ad
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors of
the Local Coastal Program Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Carlsbad, California as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the findings of the Planning Commission in Resolution No. 4600
constitute the findings of the City Council in this matter. 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. That the Local Coastal Program Amendment, LCPA 99-04, is approved
as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4600 and Ordinance No. NS- 506 , on file
with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 28 day of September 1999, by the following vote, to wit:
AYESCouncil Members Lewis, Nygaard, Finnila, Hall & Kulchin
NOES: None
ATTEST:
r
AHHA L.@bhhKfdk. Citv Clerk KAREN R. KUNDTZ, Ass&&&t 'City Clerk
(SEAL)
-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. 4599
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY
THE BURDEN OF PROOF REGARDING APPEALS OF
PLANNING MATTERS.
CASE NAME: APPELLATE PROCEDURES
CASE NO: ZCA 99-06
WHEREAS, the Planning Director has prepared a proposed Zone Code
Amendment pursuant to Section 21.52.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to:
make technical changes to the burden of proof aspect of the
existing appellate procedures as well as clarifying the ability of
final decisionmakers to affirm, amend or reverse lower
decisions; and
WHEREAS, on March 19, 1996, the City Council approved ZCA 95-06 and
LCPA 95-06 making various technical changes to the appellate procedures relating to planning
matters; and
WHEREAS, staff concurs that the 1996 amendments may be interpreted to
unduly restrict the City Council and the Planning Commission on appeals regarding planing
matters; and
WHERAS, staff has proposed revisions to clarify the burden of proof of the
appellant in appeals regarding planning matters and the authority of the appellate body in such
appeals; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is set forth in the draft City Council
Ordinance, Exhibit “X” dated, July 21, 1999, and attached hereto APPELLATE
PROCEDURES ZCA 99-06/LPCA 99-04; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of July, 1999, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Zone Code Amendment; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of APPELLATE PROCEDURES ZCA 99-06,
based on the following findings:
FindinPs:
1.
2.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. *
. . .
. . .
. .
. . .
. . .
. .
. . .
. . .
That the proposed Zone Code Amendment ZCA 99-06 is consistent with the General
Plan in that the technical changes made to the appellate procedures will not alter or
impact any General Plan program, policy or designation.
That the proposed Zone Code Amendment is in compliance with the requirements
of due process and is consistent with the principles of good planning, public
necessity, convenience and public welfare.
PC RESO NO. 4599 -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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 21st day of July, 1999, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compaq L’Heureux,
Nielsen, Segall, Trigas, and Welshons
NOES:
I ABSENT:
I ABSTAIN:
CAFUSBAD PLANNING COMMI$SION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4599 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4600
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO CLARIFY THE BURDEN
OF PROOF REGARDING APPEALS OF PLANNING
MATTERS IN ALL OF THE CITY’S SIX LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM SEGMENTS.
CASE NAME: APPELLATE PROCEDURES
CASE NO: LCPA 99-04
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has filed a verified application for an
amendment to the Local Coastal Program with the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal
Program Amendment (LCPA 99-04) as shown on Exhibit “X” dated July 21,1999 attached to
and incorporated by reference in companion Planning Commission Resolution No. 4599
(ZCA 99-06) 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, it is generally desirable that administrative appellate procedures in
the Local Coastal Program and zone code provisions for properties in the coastal zone be in
conformance with such appellate procedures outside the coastal zone; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of July 1999, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment.
WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six week public review period for
any amendment to the Local Coastal Program.
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
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A)
W
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on June 23,
1999 and ending on August 4, 1999, staff shall present to the City Council a
summary of the comments received.
C) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of APPELLATE PROCEDURES LCPA 99-
04 based on the following findings:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment is consistent with all applicable
policies of the six segments of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, in that the technical
changes to the appellate procedures will have no impacts on coastal resources or
policies.
That the proposed amendment to the six segments of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program
is required to achieve compliance with the requirements of due process and is
consistent with the principles of good planning, public necessity, convenience and
public welfare.
The proposed amendment is necessary to maintain consistency between the zoning
code and the Local Coastal Program.
That the Planning Director has determined that the project is exempt from
environmental review under CEQA because it satisfies the basic rule that there is no
possibility that adoption of this ordinance will cause any impact to the environment.
PC RESO NO. 4600 -2- /5
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting to the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 21st day of July, 1999, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L’Heureux,
Nielsen, Segall, Trigas, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMI%ION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. I&ZI+&LER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4600 -3-
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 3 0
Application complete date: June 1, 1999
P.C. AGENDA OF: July 2 1, 1999 Project Planner: Eric Munoz
Project Engineer: N/A
SUBJECT: ZCA 99-06/LCPA 99-04 - APPELLATE PROCEDURES - Request for a zone
code amendment and local coastal program amendment to clarify the procedure
for appeals in land use planning matters.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4599 and 4600
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Zone Code Amendment ZCA 99-06 and Local Coastal
Program Amendment LCPA 99-04, based on the findings contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
In March 1996, the City Council approved appellate procedures (ZCA 95-06/LCPA 95-06)
relating to land use planning matters. The proposed amendments focus on the issue of burden of
proof and the resulting ability of the final decisionmaker to amend or reverse the lower decision.
City Council direction to staff, based on the use of the current provisions, is to provide more
flexibility to the final decisionmaker to affirm, amend or reverse the lower decision in the case.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The current appellate procedures require that an appellant carries the burden of proof to show
how the lower decision was made in error and warranted a correction via the appeal. It also
cloaked the lower decision in a presumption of correctness that limits the latitude of the Council
in amending or reversing the lower decision. Prior to the 1996 code revisions which established
the existing regulations, the hearings before the appellate body was “de novo”, that is, the
appellate body could affirm, amend or reverse the lower decision so long as the ultimate decision
is based on substantial evidence in the record. The proposed amendment presents a middle
ground compromise whereby the burden of proof is still on the appellant, but the hearing is “de
novo” so that the appellate body may affirm, amend or reverse the lower decision,
Since the zone code amendment would apply citywide to land use planning matters, and the city
contains coastal zone properties, a companion local coastal program amendment is necessary to
effectuate the code changes within the coastal zone. LCPA 99-04 will be processed through the
Coastal Commission subsequent to final city action.
C _-
ZCA 99-06/LCPA 99-04 - APPELLATE PROCEDURES
July 21, 1999
IV. ANALYSIS
The proposed changes are being initiated by the City Attorney’s Office after consultations with
City Councilmembers regarding the use and implementation of the current appellate procedures.
The general feeling is that the current procedures are too restrictive to the point where an appeal
could not be realistically amended or reversed by the appellate body.
The City Attorney’s Office drafted the proposed zone code amendment ordinance as contained in
Exhibit “x” attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 4599. Also attached to this staff
report is a redline/strike-out version of the ordinance.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA
Guidelines and will not have any adverse significant impacts on the environment. Section
15061(b)(3) exempts projects which can be seen with certainty, will have no possibility of
having a significant environmental impact. The proposed changes to appellate procedures
qualifies for this exemption because the it is a technical amendment relating to the burden of
proof on appeals. A Notice of Exemption will be issued by the Planning Director after project
approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4599 (ZCA)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4600 (LCPA)
3. Exhibit “A” - Redline/Strike-out Version of Ordinance
EM:eh
-
_-. .-
3. ZCA 9996/LCPA 99-04 - APPELLATE PROCEDURES Request for a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to clarify the procedure for appeals in land use planning
matters.
Senior Planner, Eric Munoz presented the staff report as follows: The Appellate Procedures ZCA/LCPA was drafted and prepared by the City Attorney’s Office in response to feedback received from the City
Council. The need for the changes are to align the appellate procedures with due process issues and to
give final decision makers more flexibility when considering projects on appeal.
The current regulations were put into place in 1996 and required an appellant to precisely state the reason that the lower body erred or passed an approval that is in need of correction. The final decision makers
then were restricted to what they could act on to modify or reverse the lower decision.
The current regulations also cloak the lower decision with a presumption of correctness; now that
presumption of correction is no longer in place.
The proposed ZCAILCPA still requires the appellant to disclose the areas of incorrectness or that an
improper finding has been made; but the case before the appellant body is “de nova” meaning they can affirm, modify or reverse the lower decision.
Commissioner Welshons asked the Attorney about the origin on this request.
Mr. Rudolf clarified that the original ordinance provided for a de novo hearing. The first amendment to the
ordinance amended that, to provide a presumption of correctness and required the appellant to carry the
burden of proof to overturn the decision, which was essentially a review of the record. Today’s ordinance
is a partial return to the original ordinance in that that portion of the matter specifically appealed from, will
be treated as “de nova,” but the rest of the matter will be deemed having been appropriately treated by the lower decision maker.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Compas, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4599 and 4600, recommending approval of Zone
Code Amendment ZCA 99-06 and Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 99- 04, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein,
VOTE: 7-o
AYES: Heineman, Compas, L’Heureux, Segall, Trigas, Welshons, Nielsen NOES: None
REDLINED VERSION
“21.06.130 Effective date of order.
The decision of the Planning Commission is final and effective ten
calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless within such ten-day
period an appeal in writing is filed with the City Clerk by an interested person. An
individual member of the City Council can be an interested person. The written appeal
shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the manner in which . . the decision of the Planning Commission is in error. The dm of the ?!m
before the Council is de nova, but the Council shall determine all matters not specified
in the appeal have been found by the Planning Commission and are supported by
substantial evidence. If the Council finds one or more grounds set forth in the notice of
appeal supported by substantial evidence, it may, nevertheless, affirm, modify, or
reverse the action of the Planning Commission, and make such order suppotied by
substantial evidence as it deems appropriate, including remand to the Planning
Commission with directions for further proceedings. The filing of an appeal shall stay
the effective date of the Planning Commission decision until such time as the City
Council has acted on the appeal. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be
established by resolution of the City Council.”
“21.35110 ADDeal to housina and redevelorsment commission.
Except as provided in Section 21.35.100(c), the action of the design
review board is final and effective ten calendar days after the adoption of the resolution
of decision unless an interested person appeals a design review board decision on a
minor project or nonadmini$rative variance or by filing a written appeal with the city
clerk within such ten-day period. An individual member of the housing and
redevelopment commission can be an interested person for the purposes of appeal.
The written appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the . . manner in which the decision of the design review board is in error. Tkn
of proof is on the appellant to establish by substantial evidence that the reason(s) for
the appeal exist. The hearing before the Housing and Redevelopment Commission is
de novo, but the Housing and Redevelopment Commission shalt determine all matters
not specified in the appeat have been found by the Design Review Board and are
supported by substantial evidence. If the Housing and Redeveiopment Commission
finds one or more grounds set forth in the notice of appeal supported by substantial
evidence, if may, nevertheless, affirm, modify, or reverse the action of the Design
Review Board, and make such order supported by substantial evidence as it deems
appropriate, including remand to the Design Review Board with directions for further
proceedings. The filing of an appeal shall stay the effective date of the design review
board decision until such time as the housing and redevelopment commission has
acted on the appeal. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by
resolution of the city council. “
“21.45.073 ADDeal of Dlannina Commission decision.
(a) The decision of the Planning Commission is final and effective ten
calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless within such ten-day
period the applicant, any resident of the subject property, in the case of a proposed
conversion of residential real property to a planned development project, or any other
interest person files a written appeal with the City Clerk. An individual member of the
City Council can be an interested person. The written appeal shall specifically state the
reason or reasons for the appeal and the manner in which the decision of the Planning . . Commission is in error. G~+&&+x cf S bc M&r+3&@
thcP;h’cf~
that the reason(s) for the appeal exist. The hearing before,the, Council is de novo, but
the Council shall determine all matters not specified .in the.appeaLhave been found by
the Planning Commission and are supported by substantial evidence. If the Council
finds one or more grounds set forth in the notice of appeal supported by substanial
evidence, it may, nevertheless, affirm, modify, or reverse the action of the Planning
Commission, and make such order supported by substantial evidence as it deems
appropriate, including remand to the Planning Commission with directions for further
proceedings. The decision of the Planning Director on projects processed in
accordance with Section 21.45140 may be appealed to the Planning Commission by
filing a written notice of appeal with the Planning Director within ten calendar days of
the decision in the same manner and subject to the same burden of proof as appeals to
the City Council. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by
resolution of the City Council.
Upon the filing of an appeal, the City Clerk shall set the matter for public
hearing. Such hearing shall be held within thirty days after the date of filing the appeal.
Within ten days following the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council shall render its
decision on the appeal. The decision of the City Council is final.”
“21.47.073 ADDeal of Plannina Commission decision.
(a) The decision of the Planning Commission is final and effective ten
calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless within such ten-day
period applicant or any other interested person files a written appeal with the City Clerk.
An individual member of the City Council can be an interested person. The written
appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the manner in . . which the decision of the Planning Commission is in error. rc T)!m
before the Council is de novo, but the Council shall determine al1 matters not specified
in the appeal have been found by the PJanning Commission and are supported by
substantial evidence. If the Council finds one or more grounds set forth in the notice of
appeal supported by substantial evidence, it may, nevertheless, affirm, modify, or
reverse the action of the Planning Commission, and make such order supported by
substantial evidence as it deems appropriate, including remand to the Planning
Commission with directions for further proceedings. The decision of the Planning
Director on projects processed in accordance with Section 21.47.1 IO may be appealed
to the Planning Commission by filing a written notice of appeal with the Planning
Director within ten calendar days of the decision in the same manner and subject to the
same burden of proof as appeals to the City Council. Fees for filing an appeal under
this section shall be established by resolution of the City Council.
Upon the filing of an appeal, the City Clerk shall set the matter for public
hearing. Such hearing shall be held within thirty days after the date of filing the appeal.
Within ten days following the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council shall render its
decision on the appeal. The decision of the City Council is final.”
“21.50.100 Effective date of order for variance or conditional use permit -
Time for appeal.
The order of the Planning Commission in granting or denying a variance
or conditional use permit shall become final and effective ten calendar days after the
rendering of its decision granting or denying the variance or conditional use permit
unless within such ten-day period an appeal in writing is filed with the City Clerk by an
interested person. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested
person. The written appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal
and the manner in which the decision of the Planning Commission is in error. %e
exist. The hearing before the Council is de novo, but the Council shall determine all
matters not specified in the appeal have been found by the Planning Commission and
are supported by substantial evidence. If the Council finds one or more grounds set
forth in the notice of appeal supported by substantial evidence, it may, neverthelessm,
affirm, modify, or reverse the action of the Planning Commission, and make such order
supported by substantial evidence as it deems appropriate, including remand to the
Planning Commission with directions for further proceedings. The filing of such appeal
within such time limits shall stay the effective date of the order of the Planning
Commission until such time as the City Council has acted on the appeal as hereafter
set forth in this title. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by
3
resolution of the City Council.”
“21.54.140 Anpeal of Dlannina director decisions.
(b) Whenever the Planning Director is authorized pursuant to this title to
make a decision or determination such decision or determination is final unless the
determination or decision is appealed by an interested person to the Planning
Commission. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested person.
The written appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the . . manner in which the decision of the Planning Director is in error. m
exist. The hearing before the Planning Commission is de novo, but the Planning
Commission shall determiner all matters not specified in the appeal have been found by
the Planning Director and are supported by substantial evidence. If the Planning
Commission findsone or more grounds set forth in the notice of appeal supported by
substantial evidence, it may, nevertheless, affirm, modify, or reverse the action of the
Planning Director, and make such order supported by substantial evidence as it deems
appropriate, including remand to the Planning Director with directions for further
proceedings. The appeal shall be filled in writing with the secretary of the Planning
Commission within ten calendar days after the date of the Planning Director’s decision.
The Planning Director’s decision or determination shall be made in writing. The date of
the decision shall be the date the writing containing the decision or determination is
mailed or otherwise delivered to the person or persons affected by the decision or
determination. The Planning Commission action on an appeal shall be final. Fees for
filing an appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the City
Council.”
“21.80.080 ADDeal of Plannina Commission decision.
(a) the decision of the Planning Commission is final and effective ten
calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless within such ten-day
period the applicant or any other interested person files a written appeal with the City
Clerk. An individual member of the City Council can be an interested person. The
written appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the . . manner in which the decision of the Planning Commission in error. Tkh
The hearing before the Council is de novo, but the Council shall determine all matters
not specified in the appeal have been found by the Planning Commission and are
supported by substantial evidence, If the Council finds one or more grounds set forth in
the notice of appeal supported by substantial evidence, it may, nevertheless, affirm,
4
modify, or reverse the action of the Planning Commission, and make such order
supported by substantial evidence as it deems appropriate, including remand to the
Planning Commission with directions for further proceedings. Upon the filing of an
appeal, the City Clerk shall set the matter for public hearing. Such hearing shall be
held within thirty days after the date of filing the appeal. Within ten days following the
conclusion of the hearing, the City Council shall render its decision on the appeal. The
decision of the City Council is final.”
“21.81.080 Appeal of Carlsbad desian review board decision.
(a) The action of the design review board is final and effective ten
calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless the applicant or
any other interested person files a written appeal within that time with the secretary to
the housing and redevelopment commission. An individual member of the housing and
redevelopment commission can be an interested person. The written appeal shall
specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the manner in which the
decision of the design review board is in error. 1
The hearing before the Housing and Redevelopment Commission is de novo, but the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission shall determine all matters not specified in
the appeal have been found by the Design Review Board and are supported by
substantial evidence. If the Housing and Redevefopment Commission finds one or
more grounds set forth in the notice of appeal supported by substantial evidence, it
may, nevertheless, affirm, modify, or reverse the action of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission; and make such order supported by substantial evidence
as it deems appropriate, including remand to the Design Review Board with directions
for further proceedings. Upon the filing of an appeal, the City Clerk shall set the matter
for public hearing. Such hearing shall be held within thirty days after the date of filing
the appeal. Within ten days following the conclusion of the hearing, the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission shall render its decision on the appeal. The decision of
the Housing and Redevelopment Commission is final.”
C
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALlFORNlA
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. l am the principal clerk
of the printer of
North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have
been adjudged newspapers of general
circulation by the Superior Court of the County of
San Diego, State of California, for the cities of
Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Solana Beach
and San Diego County; 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:
Sept. 17, 1999
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at San MArcos , California
this 17th day
of Sept. 1999
Signature/
This space is for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
Public Hearing
JUOdCE, OF Pl@IC .HEARING
ZCA 994WLCPA gg-04 APPELLATE PROCEDURES
maken, to affirm, amend
If you chaflee the Zone &&Ii &riik&&nt and Local Coastal Program Amendment !n,c+& I$Ju.T be limited to raising only
the lsaues raked by you’oi tamebna e$ atthe pub@ hearing
described In this npttae, of kr wttttmimdence dellvered to the City of Cadsbad City Clerk‘s Off&% tit, or pr@ to, the public hearing. ‘_ ” 1’ ‘. ~,:? ‘)a .b ::‘ c : f:‘! ; $31, ,y.. ;I, ; >,2 i.‘,‘G b” 3” ‘-5 .‘,
..-
:., _ - a.. i,‘b .,:,. **$k :k& -**‘<;$ :+g. i”‘? .’ ~ “‘f .$$,“. “.:,-%. I ‘* ,yy’I’y -’
,
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising ’
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ZCA 99-06/LCPA 99-04 APPELLATE PROCEDURES
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00
p.m., on Tuesday, September 28, 1999, to consider approval of a Zone Code Amendment and
Local Coastal Program Amendment to clarify the procedure for appeals in land use planning
matters and more particularly described as:
Make technical changes to the burden of proof aspect of the
existing appellate procedures as well as clarifying the ability of
final decision makers to affirm, amend or reverse lower decisions.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on or after September 24, 1999. If you have
any questions regarding this matter, please contact Eric Munoz, in the Planning Department, at
(760) 438-l 161, extension 4441.
If you challenge the Zone Code Amendment and 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.
PUBLISH: SEPTEMBER 17,1999
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
-.
(Form A)
TO: CI1.Y CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notlde
ZCA 99-()6/LCPA 99-04 - APPELLATE PROCEDURES
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the ften for the council meeting of First Available Hearing
in September
Thank you.
August 12, 1999
Date
City of
&/e c oy
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will
hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 21, 1999, to consider a request for a Zone
Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to clarify the procedure for
appeals in land use planning matters and more particularly described as:
Make technical changes to the burden of proof aspect of the
existing appellate procedures as well as clarifying the ability of
final decisionmakers to affirm, amend or reverse lower decisions;
and
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the
public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after July 15, 1999. If
you have any questions, please call Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at (760)
438-l 161, extension 4441.
If you challenge the Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment in
court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the
public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City
of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: ZCA 99-06/LCPA 99-04
CASE NAME: APPELLATE PROCEDURES
PUBLISH: JULY II,1999
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-l 161 l FAX (760) 438-0894 @
,
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST
801 PINE AVE 1 CIVIC CENTER DR
I~ARLSBAD CA 92008 SAN MARCOS CA 92069
SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST 701 ENCINITAS BLVD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST
101 RANCH0 SANTA FE RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
LEUCADIA CNTY WATER DIST OLIVENHAIN WATER DIST 1960 LA COSTA AVE 1966 OLIVENHAIN RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009 ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF SAN MARCOS CITY OF OCEANSIDE
1 CIVIC CENTER DR 300 NORTH COAST HWY SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988 VISTA CA 92085
I.P.U.A. VALLECITOS WATER DISTRICT SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND 788 SAN MARCOS BLVD URBAN STUDIES SAN MARCOS CA 92069 SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME REGIONAL WATER QUALITY SANDAG
STE 50 STE B STE 800 330 GOLDENSHORE 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD 401 B STREET
LONG BEACH CA 90802 SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331 SAN DIEGO CA 92101
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST SD COUNTY PLANNING
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR STE B SAN DIEGO CA 92123 5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE
2730 LOKER AYE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD,
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
SERVICES DEPT
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 200
3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NO
SAN DIEGO CA 92108
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
c
LABELS - 5163
6LCPA MAILING LIST (GOVERNMENT AGENCIES)
SANDAG (SAN DIEGO COUNTY)
WELLS FARGO PLAZA
SUITE 800
APPENDIX A (LIST IS REQUIRED BY COASTAL 401 B STREET
COMMISSION) SANDIEGO CA 92101
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
DEPUTYATTORNEYGENERAL
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 AFFAIRS .
PO BOX 3044
SACRAMENTO CA 95812-3044
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
STEVE SHAFFER, AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
ROOM 100
1220 N STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION & HSG AGENCY
WILLIAM G. BRENNAN
DEPUTY SECRETARY AND SPECIAL COUNCIL
SUITE 2450
980 NINTH STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
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
U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
SUITE 130
3310 EL CAMINO AVENUE
SACRAMENTO CA 95821
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 92108
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
GAIL PRESLEY, CHIEF
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
RM 1341
1416 NINTH STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
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
. SUITE B
9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331
BARRY BRAYER, AWP-8
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
WESTERN REGION
PO BOX 92007
LOS ANGELES CA 90009
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
ATTN: GARY
RESOURCE CONSERVATIONIST
SUITE 102
2121-C SECOND STREET
DAVIS CA 95616
PACIFIC REGIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMIN - OCRM, 55MC4
N/ORM - 3
1305 EAST-WEST HIGHWAY
SILVER SPRING MD 20910
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
LILY ALYEA - SUITE 702 LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ENGINEER
333 MARKET STREET PO BOX 2711
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105-2197 LOS ANGELES CA 90053
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
611 RYAN PLAZA DR STE 400
ARLINGTON TX 760 11-4005
USDA - RURAL DEVLOPMENT
430 ST DEPT 4169
DAVIS CA 95616
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CHAIRMAN
722 JACKSON PLACE NORTH WEST
WASHINGTON DC 2006
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
COMMANDANT, ELEVENTH NAVAL DISTRJCT
DISTRICT CIVIL ENGINEER
SAN DIEGO CA 92 132
U. S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
2135 BUTANO DRIVE
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
U. S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
LOWER COLORADO REGION
PO BOX 427
BOULDER CITY CO 89005
SUPERINTENDENT
CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK
190 1 SPINNAKER DRIVE
SAN BUENAVENTURA CA 93001
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
RONALD M. JAEGER
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
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
SANFRANCISCO CA 94102
U. S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
MID-PACIFIC REGION
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
DOUGLAS WARNOCK, SUPERINTENDENT
REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK
DRAWERN
11112ND STREET
CRESCENT CITY CA 95531
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SUITE 200
3 111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH
SAN DIEGO CA 92 108
* H:iADMINUu4BELS\LCP
INTERESTED PARTIES
UPDATED 3-99
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
COPIES TO:
+ CITY CLERK
+ MAIN LIBRARY
+ BRANCH LIBRARY
+ WATER DISTRICT
CITY OF ENCINITAS
COM DEV DEPARTMENT
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
REGIONAL WATER QUAL. BD
EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SUITE B
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
LOS ANGELES 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
25709 HILLCREST AVE
ESCONDIDO CA 92026
MR/MRS MICHAEL CARDOSA
6491 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE SERVICES
2730 LOKER AVE WEST
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
GEORGE BOLTON
6583 BLACKRAIL ROAD
CARLSBAD CA 92009