HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-03-27; City Council; 16127; Community Facilities ZoneCITY OF CARiSBAD -AGENDA BILL
AB# /&d7 TITLE:
MTG. sJ?o/
DEPT. PLN &
COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE
GPA 99-OWCA 99-02/LCPA 99-02
DEPT. HD.
CITY ATTY.
CITY MGR
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That City Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. /Js - 53? CREATING new regulations for
community facilities uses and ADOPT Resolution No. &?Oct/-cP’L/ APPROVING GPA 99-
02/ZCA 99-02/LCPA 99-02.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
This project consists of several text changes to the General Plan and to the City’s Zoning
regulations. The primary changes have to do with creating a new “CF” (Community Facilities)
General Plan designation and a new “C-F” (Community Facilities) Zone. The other changes are two
General Plan housekeeping items which have been included in this package for convenience of
processing. The first of these is a clarification of the existing wording regarding allowed density in
special circumstances. The second is a correction of a typographical error. The Community
Facilities changes and the density clarification are explained below.
Community Facilities
The adopted General Plan Land Use Element contains wording which requires new master plans
and residential specific plans to reserve areas for community-serving uses (e.g., child day care,
places of worship). The General Plan also contains a policy which directs that the amount of
acreage to be reserved be addressed through an amendment to the P-C (Planned Community)
Zone. Staff relied on this existing wording to negotiate the inclusion of community facilities areas
since 1994. The resulting land reservations have varied widely in size, time period, and uses
allowed. Therefore, staff is now proposing to establish specific development standards for these
areas through creation of a new zone and to create a corresponding new General Plan land use
designation. Staff is also proposing minor wording changes to the existing P-C (Planned
Community) Zone and to the Conditional Uses regulations to ensure consistency throughout the
Municipal Code with regard to community facilities uses.
The proposed community facilities General Plan amendment would create a “CF” (Community
Facilities) land use designation and establish a goal, objective, and policies for the designation. This
goal, objective, and policies require that master plans and residential specific plans reserve
community facilities sites for a sufficient period of time to allow supporting uses to develop.
The details of the community facilities requirements are in the proposed Zone Code Amendment.
The ZCA would create a new zone chapter (“C-F” Community Facilities Zone, Chapter 21.25) which
would be the primary implementing regulations for community facilities. The new chapter calls for
land reservations in all new master plans, in all new residential specific plans of greater than 100
acres, and in existing master/residential specific plans if the applicant proposes an amendment to at
least 100 acres of undeveloped property. The reservation time period being proposed is ten years
commencing when final inspections have been approved for all of the units in the first residential
planning area. The proposed uses include a range of types, including child daycare, places of
worship, and other similar uses. A stand-alone child daycare facility would require approval of a Site
Development Plan (SDP). All other uses would require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The
proposed text changes to the P-C Zone and the Conditional Uses regulations are necessary in order
to maintain consistency throughout the Code with regard to the C-F regulations.
I
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. ]&,I ;;\3
Density Clarification
The General Plan currently contains a discussion of the density to be allowed on sites with
exceptional circumstances (situations wherein the zoning is consistent with the General Plan but
would allow a slightly higher yield than that recommended in the RL and RLM density
classifications). The existing wording was intended to allow additional units on in-fill sites with this
circumstance. City Council Policy No. 43 supports this intent. However, the existing General Plan
wording is somewhat confusing and, when applied literally, actually further restricts allowed density
rather than allowing additional density as it was intended to do. Therefore, staff is proposing a minor
wording change which would clarify the maximum density allowed in these exceptional
circumstances and would correct the calculation wording error.
This item was first heard by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on November 15, 2000. It
was continued to December 6, 2000, then to January 3, 2001, and then to a date uncertain. It was
heard again by the Planning Commission on February 7, 2001. At that hearing the Planning
Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed new and revised language.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
The Planning Director determined that this project will not have a significant impact on the
environment and, therefore, issued a Negative Declaration on August 28, 2000.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Approval of the proposed project would have no fiscal impact on the City.
EXHIBITS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Ordinance No. Ns r 5 79
City Council Resolution No. 3x4 -94
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4853, 4854,4855,4856
Planning Commission Staff Reports dated November 15, 2000, December 6, 2000, January
3,2001, and February 7,200l
Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated November 15, 2000, December 6, 2000,
January 3,2001, and February 7,200l.
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-579
A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT TO AMEND TITLE 21 OF THE
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION OF
CHAPTER 21.25 AND THE AMENDMENT OF SECTIONS
21.38.010, 21.38.020, AND 21.38.021 AND SECTIONS
21.42.010(2) AND 21.42.010(5) RELATING TO COMMUNITY
FACILITIES USES ON PROPERTY LOCATED CITYWIDE.
CASE NAME: COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE
CASE NO.: ZCA 99-02
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition
of Chapter 21.25 to read as follows:
“CHAPTER 21.25
COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE
Sections:
21.25.010 Intent and Purpose
2 1.25.020 Applicability
21.25.030 Time Period of Reservation
21.25.040 Uses Permitted by Site Development Plan
21.25.050 Uses Permitted by Conditional Use Permit
21.25.060 Limitations on Permitted Uses
21.25.070 Minimum Requirements For Community Facilities Area
21.25.080 Building Height
21.25.090 Yards
21.25.100 Location Standards
21.25.110 Required Notification
21.25.120 Severability
21.25.010 Intent and Purpose.
The intent and purpose of the C-F, community facilities, zone is:
(1) to ensure that all master plans and residential specific plans (i.e., specific plans which
include residential units) reserve community facilities sites of adequate size for uses which
benefit the community as a whole by satisfying social/religious/human service needs;
(2) to identify those uses which can be utilized to satisfy the community facilities uses
requirements in master plans pursuant to Chapter 21.38 of this Code and residential specific
plans; and,
(3) to establish development standards for community facilities uses in master plans and
residential specific plans.
21.25.020 Applicability.
This chapter applies as follows:
(1) This chapter applies to those properties developed through a new master plan pursuant
-l- 3
to Chapter 21.38 of this Code approved after the effective date of this ordinance.
(2) This chapter applies to those properties developed through a new residential specific
plan (a specific plan which includes residential units) of at least 100 gross acres approved after
the effective date of this ordinance.
(3) This chapter applies to any master plan or residential specific plan approved prior to
the effective date of this ordinance for which an application for amendment involving at least
100 gross acres of undeveloped land is made by the property owner.
(4) Master plans and residential specific plans approved prior to the effective date of this
ordinance and not described in Subsection 21.25.020(3) above may satisfy their community
facilities requirements (if any) as required by those approved master plans or specific plans.
21.25.030 Time period of reservation.
As part of the master plan or residential specific plan application, the developer shall
designate a portion(s) of the site for community facilities uses. The community facilities
designation shall be for a minimum time period of ten (10) years. The ten (10) year time period
shall commence when final inspections have been approved for 100% of the units in the first
residential planning area in the master plan or specific plan. There shall be no automatic
reversion of the community facilities site to other uses. If, at the end of the ten (10) year
reservation period, community facilities have not developed in the community facilities
designated area, then the developer may make an application for a major master plan amendment
to eliminate the community facilities site(s) or to designate a different site(s) of the master plan
or residential specific plan for such uses. If the developer proposes to eliminate the community
facilities area, he shall demonstrate why it is infeasible that the designated area will ever develop
with community facilities uses. If the developer proposes to designate a different site(s) for the
community facilities uses, he shall demonstrate why the proposed alternative location is better
than the originally-designated location. If an alternative location(s) is proposed, the total amount
of acreage for the community facilities uses shall not be reduced from the originally-designated
acreage.
21.25.040 Uses permitted by site development plan.
Notwithstanding any other wording to the contrary, a stand-alone child daycare facility is
permitted subject to the approval of a Site Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 21.06. If any
office area is proposed with the use, the office area must be ancillary to the main use; it cannot be
the principal use. If a child daycare facility is developed in conjunction with another community
facilities use which requires a conditional use permit, then the requirement for a site development
plan for the child daycare use is waived.
21.25.050 Uses permitted by conditional use permit.
Subject to the provisions of Chapter 21.50, and notwithstanding any other wording to the
contrary, the following uses are permitted by conditional use permit in the C-F zone. If any offke
area is proposed with the use, the office area must be ancillary to the main use; it cannot be the
principal use.
(1) churches, synagogues, temples, and other places of worship
(2) religious reading room (separate from church structure)
(3) welfare and charitable services (private or semi-private) with no permanent residential
uses (e.g., Goodwill, Red Cross, Travelers Aid)
(4) social clubs (non-commercial)
(5) fraternal associations and lodges (except college fraternities/sororities)
-2-
(6) youth organizations (e.g., Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Boys’ & Girls’ Clubs, YMCA and
YWCA except lodgings)
(7) civic associations (e.g., League of Women Voters, etc.)
(8) veterans’ organizations (including meeting facilities)
(9) adult and/or senior daycare and/or recreation facility (private or non-private)
(10) other uses of a similar character as determined by the Planning Director to be
community facilities uses.
21.25.060 Limitations on permitted uses.
(1) All uses shall be conducted wholly within a building except such uses as athletic
fields, outdoor play areas, and other uses customarily conducted in the open.
21.25.070 Minimum requirements for community facilities area.
(1) The minimum size of the community facilities area for new master plan developments
and new residential specific plan developments is two (2) net developable acres plus 1% of the
total net developable acreage in the entire master plan or residential specific plan area.
(2) The minimum size of the community facilities area for master plan developments and
residential specific plan developments approved prior to the effective date of this ordinance and
described in Subsection 21.25.020(3) of this ordinance is two (2) net developable acres plus 1%
of the total net developable acreage in the area included in the proposed amendment.
(3) All master plans and residential specific plans must provide for a child daycare
facility somewhere within their community facilities area.
21.25.080 Building he&t.
No building in the C-F zone shall exceed a height of 35 feet and 3 levels if a minimum
roof pitch of three to twelve (3 : 12) is provided or 24 feet and two levels if a roof pitch less steep
than 3:12 is provided. Architectural projections may be allowed pursuant to Section 21.46.020
of this Code.
2 1.25.090 Yards.
Front yard, side yard, or rear yard setbacks shall be as required through the development
standards contained in the master plan or residential specific plan.
21.25.100 Location and design standards.
Every community facilities site shall satisfy the following criteria:
(1) The community facilities uses shall be located so as to assure compatibility with
adjacent land uses.
(2) The community facilities area(s) shall be located and designed so as to provide
adequate buffering from, and to minimize any negative impacts to, surrounding residential
developments.
(3) The community facilities structures shall be designed to be architecturally compatible
with surrounding developments.
(4) The community facilities site(s) shall be centrally located within the master plan or
residential specific plan unless a non-central location more effectively serves a greater number of
residents of the master plan or residential specific plan.
(5) All community facilities uses shall be located on one unified site unless provision of two
or more sites more effectively serves a greater number of residents of the master plan or residential
specific plan.
;
-3-
21.25.110 Required notification.
Full disclosure shall be made to all buyers of surrounding residential units and owners of
surrounding properties within 600’ that a community facility will be located on the reserved
portion of the property. All approvals of new master plans, new residential specific plans, and
amendments to previously-approved master plans and residential specific plans involving 100 or
more gross acres of undeveloped land shall be conditioned to provide documentation that this
disclosure requirement has been accomplished to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
21.25.120 Severabilitv.
Should any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of the ordinance codified in
the Chapter be held for any reason to be invalid or unconditional by the decision of any court of
competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the
ordinance codified in this chapter. The City Council declares that it would have passed the
ordinance codified in this chapter and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase
thereof irrespective of the fact that any part thereof be declared invalid or unconditional.”
SECTION II: That Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the
amendment of Section 21.38.010 to read as follows:
“The intent and purpose of the P-C, planned community zone, is to:
(1) Provide a method for and to encourage the orderly implementation of the general plan
and any applicable specific plans by the comprehensive planning and development of large tracts
of land under unified ownership or developmental control so that the entire tract will be
developed in accord with an adopted master plan to provide an environment of stable and
desirable character;
(2) Provide a flexible regulatory procedure to encourage creative and imaginative
planning of coordinated communities involving a mixture of residential densities and housing
types, open space, community facilities, both public and private and, where appropriate,
commercial and industrial areas;
(3) Allow for the coordination of planning efforts between developer and city to provide
for the orderly development of all necessary public facilities to insure their availability
concurrent with need;
(4) Provide a framework for the phased development of an approved master planned area
to provide some assurance to the developer that later development will be acceptable to the city;
provided such plans are in accordance with the approved planned community master plan; and,
(5) Ensure that all new and, as appropriate, existing master plans reserve a site or sites for
community facilities uses which benefit the community as a whole by satisfying
social/religious/human service needs pursuant to Chapter 21.25 of this Code.”
SECTION III: That Title 21 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
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
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
consistent with the general plan and applicable specific plans. 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.”
SECTION IV: That Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the
amendment of Section 21.38.021 to read as follows:
“21.38.021 Communitv facilities sites required.
All new master plans shall include graphic plans and text to reserve a site within the
master plan area for community facilities uses pursuant to Chapter 21.25 of this Code.”
SECTION V: That Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the Amendment
of Section 2 1.42.01 O(2) to read as follows:
“(2) All zones including residential, with the exception of the Community Facilities Zone
(Chapter 21.25) in which all uses must be specifically allowed by Chapter 21.25:
(A) Cemeteries,
(B) Churches,
(C) Public and private schools,
(D) Repealed by Ord. NS-56 3 2.
(E) Golf courses (except as may be approved as part of a planned community development),
(F) Greenhouses greater than two thousand square feet in area and packing or sorting sheds
greater than six hundred square feet in area subject to the following conditions:
1. Lighting to be directed away from nearby residences and shall not create undue illumination
2. Fans shall not create a noise nuisance to nearby residences
3. Driveways shall be improved with dust control material and be maintained
4. Structure, including panels or coverings, shall be maintained and not become a safety hazard
or nuisance to the neighborhood
5. The approving conditional use permit resolution shall contain the time limits of the permit and
the provisions for periodic review,
(G) Repealed by Ord. 9564 5 3.
(H) Overnight campsites. All overnight campsites shall comply with the following conditions:
(a) Any campsite shall be located in, adjacent to, or shall be directly associated with existing or
planned parks and open space system and shall augment the city’s general plan.
(b) An overnight campsite shall comply with all federal, state and local laws.
(c) Overall design for an overnight campsite shall be approved by a licensed architect or
landscape architect.
(d) No person shall occupy any part of an overnight campsite for more than ninety days, in the
aggregate, during any given year.
(e) The design of an overnight campsite shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. Upon site review, a perimeter six-foot fence or wall may be required. Interior six-foot fencing
shall be required to isolate major trash collection and storage areas. Such fences or walls shall be
of materials compatible with an approved architectural scheme for the total development.
2. Primary road surfaces, i.e., two-way throughways, shall be blacktop, asphalt or equivalent road
surfaces. One-way throughways with sufficient natural drainage may be surfaced with
decomposed granite or equivalent, otherwise hard surface equal to two-way requirements will be I
-5- I
required. The remaining travel surfaces (camp pads, footpaths, maintenance roads) will be
covered with decomposed granite or equivalent material.
3. Associated signs, freestanding or attached to buildings shall be designed and constructed in
accordance with city ordinances.
4. Unit site densities will be computed from a slope analysis of the project area: O-5 percent slope
= maximum 7 units; 6-l 5 percent slope = maximum 3 units; 16 plus percent slope = permanent
open space.
5. Sites within the campground shall be clearly marked and shall be not less than two thousand
five hundred square feet in area.
6. Sites utilized by auto-truck campers, trailers, mobile coaches, shall front on a roadway not less
than fifteen feet wide and which affords access to a public road.
7. Said campground facility shall total not less than ten acres, of which not less than sixty percent
of the site shall be utilized for recreation activities, other than buildings, roadways, parking pads,
trash or storage areas.
8. Camping spaces shall be placed at random throughout the project, so as not to reflect
uniformity in appearance or design.
9. Exterior lighting shall be a type so as not to make visible a direct light source or cause glare
outside the campground facility. Proposed light fixtures shall be subject to review to assure
compatibility with the architectural scheme of the total development.
10. Landscaping and sprinkler system shall be constructed in conformance with a plan approved
by a registered landscape architect and approved by the land use planning office prior to building
permit issuance. The sprinkler system shall be applied only to those areas that are not in
extensive recreational use. Such landscaping shall be in conformance with but not limited to the
following minimum standards:
(a) The campground site shall be planted with combinations of flowers, turf, groundcovers,
shrubs, and trees; said plantings shall be distributed throughout the site to create a park-like
effect.
(b) Trees shall be planted at a ratio of one for each one thousand square feet of gross land area.
Ten percent of all trees shall be of specimen size, the remainder of which shall be equally divided
among fifteen, five and one-gallon sizes. Existing on-site trees may be utilized to fulfil1 tree
requirements.
11. An architectural concept shall be adopted for the total development. Plans for all structures
and fences shall be subject to review and approval by the land use planning office to assure
harmony and compatibility of all facilities within the campground.
12. Documents pertaining to the maintenance of all facilities including landscaping, and
designating those persons responsible for same, shall be submitted for staff approval prior to
building permit issuance.
Other conditions may be imposed in connection with any conditional use permit issued for a
campsite, pursuant to conditional use permit ordinance regulations then in effect;
(I) Public buildings,
(J) Accessory public and quasi-public utility buildings and facilities including, but not limited to,
water wells, water storage, pump stations, booster stations, transmission or distribution electrical
substations, operating centers, gas metering and regulating stations, or neighboring telephone
exchanges, with the necessary apparatus or appurtenances incident thereto,
(K) Private zoos; provided the property for such private zoo has a minimum of twenty thousand
square feet, no animal is kept within twenty feet of any property line, and a valid wild animal
permit has been issued by the state,
(L) Aquaculture: The cultivation of aquatic organisms both in inland waters and the open sea;”
-6- 8 I
SECTION VI: That Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the
Amendment of Section 2 1.42.0 1 O(5) to read as follows:
codified in this section are allowed to continue in existence subject to the terms and conditions of
this code and the conditional use permit or other discretionary permit permitting them and may
apply for and may be granted CUP extensions under this code.
(0) Take-out restaurants (where food is not served within a dining area),
(P) Open air theaters,
(Q) Radio or television transmitters,
(R) Fairgrounds,
(S) Temporary uses of trailers or mobile homes for commercial offices under the following
conditions:
(i) The occupancy shall not exceed one year after the issuance of the permit unless
otherwise extended by the planning commission. The conditional use permit shall not be
extended unless construction of the structure intended for occupancy by applicant has
begun and reasonable progress toward completion is being made
(ii) The method of placement of the trailer, the landscaping and other design aspects shall be
a”(5) All zones except residential and the Community Facilities Zone (Chapter 21.25) unless
specifically allowed by Chapter 21.25:
(A) Airports and landing fields,
(B) Commercial circuses and carnivals operating within the city limits shall, in addition to filing
all necessary documents for a conditional use permit, also submit for consideration by the
planning commission, a schedule of operations, including availability of parking, types of games,
rides and amusements proposed, and proposed hours of operation,
(C) Columbariums, crematories and mausoleums, not located within a cemetery,
(D) Hospitals,
(E) Establishments or enterprises involving large assemblages of people or automobiles,
(F) Amusement parks,
(G) Institutions for treatment of alcoholics,
(H) Privately-operated recreational centers,
(I) Racetracks,
(I) Stadiums,
(K) Mental hospitals,
(L) Veterinarians and small animal hospitals,
(M) Automobile repair facilities (not permitted in C-l zone),
(N) Drive-thru business or drive-thru facilities to existing businesses except drive-&u
restaurants which are prohibited from all zones in the city including coastal zone properties. The
drive-thru restaurant prohibition applies citywide to all existing and proposed specific plans,
master plans, and related amendments. Drive-thru restaurants that are either existing or have
received final approvals on the effective date of the ordinance pproved as part of the conditional
use permit,
(T) Bowling alleys subject to the following conditions:
(i) No noise shall be audible outside of the confines of the structure
(ii) If alcoholic beverages are offered for consumption on site, no open container shall be
permitted to be taken from the premises
(iii) Parking requirements for any bar area not meeting the definition of bona tide eating
establishment shall be computed at one space per fifty square feet of gross floor area,
(U) Coin-operated arcades subject to the following conditions:
-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
(i) No alcoholic beverages shall be permitted on premises
(ii) All activities shall be conducted within the confines of a structure designed to contain the
noise created by such operation
(iii) Construction shall be such as to permit unobstructed view of the interior from the street upon
which the business fronts,
(V) Escort services subject to the following conditions:
(i) Construction shall be such as to permit an unobstructed view of the interior of the premises
from the street upon which the business fronts
(ii) No such business shall be located within five hundred feet of any residential zone
(iii) An applicant shall submit his application for conditional use permit to the chief of police,
which application shall be under oath, and shall include, among other things, the true names and
addresses of all persons financially interested in the business. The past criminal record, if any, of
all persons financially interested in the business shall be shown on such application. The term
“persons financially interested” shall include the applicant and all persons who share in the
profits of the business on the basis of gross or net revenue, including landlords, lessors, lessees,
and the owner of the building, fixtures or equipment. The application shall also be accompanied
by fingerprints of persons financially interested.
The chief of police shall make such investigation as is necessary to determine the background of
the applicant and other persons financially interested. The chief of police shall report to the
planning commission his findings and recommendations as to whether to approve, deny, or
conditionally approve or deny the conditional use permit in writing within thirty days after the
application is submitted. The recommendations of the police chief shall be based on the findings
and may also be based on his judgment of potential enforcement problems and reasons therefor
from the proposed establishment. Failure to so report shall be deemed approval of the
application.
The planning commission may deny an application based on the findings and recommendations
of the chief of police,
(W) Pawnshops subject to the following conditions:
(i) No pawnshop shall be located within five hundred feet of any establishment licensed to
dispense (for on-site or off-site consumption) alcoholic beverages
(ii) No pawnshop shall be located within five hundred feet of any residentially zoned property
(iii) Every structure housing such operation shall be constructed so as to provide an unobstructed
view of the interior of the premises from the street upon which the business fronts,
(X) Poolhalls or billiard parlors subject to the following conditions:
(i) No such establishment shall be located within five hundred feet of any establishment licensed
to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on-site or off-site
(ii) No establishment shall be permitted to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on-site
or off-site
(iii) All structures housing such operation shall be constructed so as to permit unobstructed views
of the interior of the premises from the street upon which the business fronts
(iv) Each structure housing such operation shall be constructed so as to contain within the
confines of such structure all noise and all other objectionable byproducts of such operation,
(Y) Secondhand or thrift shops subject to the following conditions:
(i) An applicant shall submit his application for a conditional use permit to the chief of police,
which application shall be under oath, and shall include, among other things, the true names and
addresses of all persons financially interested in the business. The past criminal record, if any, of
all persons financially or otherwise interested in the business shall be shown on such application.
The term “persons financially interested’ shall include the applicant and all persons who share in
the profits of the business on the basis of gross or net revenue, including landlords, lessors,
I
2
7 u
4
: 3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
lessees and the owner of the building, fixtures or equipment. The application shall also be
accompanied by fingerprints of persons financially interested.
The chief of police shall make such investigation as is necessary to determine the background ot
the applicant and other persons financially interested. The chief of police shall report to the
planning commission his findings and recommendations as to whether to approve, deny 01:
conditionally approve or deny the conditional use permit in writing within thirty days after the
application is submitted. The recommendation of the police chief shall be based on the findings
and may also be based on his judgment of potential enforcement problems and reasons therefor
from the proposed establishment. Failure to so report shall be deemed approval of the
application.
The planning commission may deny an application based on the findings and recommendations
of the chief of police.
Charitable organizations shall be specifically exempt from the report provisions of this section.
For purposes of this section, a “charitable organization” is one organized for religious, scientific,
social, literary, educational, recreational, benevolent, or other purpose not that of pecuniary profit
(ii) No goods shall be taken on a consignment basis,
(Z) Tattoo parlors subject to the following conditions:
(i) No tattoo parlor shall be located within five hundred feet of any licensed alcoholic beverage
dispensing operation offering said beverages for on-site or off-site consumption;
(ii) No tattoo parlor shall be operated in conjunction with nor share any operating space with any
other business;
(AA) Windmills exceeding the height limit of the underlying zone, provided the purpose of such
windmills is to generate usable electrical or mechanical energy and provided the windmill is
architecturally compatible with the other buildings on the site.
(BB) Drug paraphernalia stores as defined in Chapter 5.18 of this code subject to the following
conditions:
(i) No drug paraphernalia store shall be located within five hundred feet of any school, church,
residence, residential area, children’s camp or club, child care facility, community center, library,
park, public beach or playground;
(ii) No drug paraphernalia store shall have ‘a sign or advertisement which displays, shows or
represents drug paraphernalia or any illegal drug including but not limited to, marijuana, hashish,
cocaine, or any controlled substance as defined in the Health and Safety Code of the state of
California.
(CC) Mini-warehouses.”
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its
adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be
published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within
fifteen days after its adoption. Not withstanding the preceding, this ordinance effectuates a Local
Coastal Program Amendment, and shall not be effective in the Coastal Zone until it is approved
by the California Coastal Commission.
-9- 11
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
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council on the 27th day of March ,200 1, and thereafter
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the of day ,2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-lO-
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. 2001-94
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT, A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT, AND A
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT, TO
AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN TO CREATE A NEW
LAND USE DESIGNATION AND TO AMEND TITLE 21 OF
THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO CREATE A NEW
ZONE AND TO AMEND CHAPTERS 21.38 AND 21.42 TO
CREATE NEW REGULATIONS FOR COMMUNITY
FACILITIES USES IN MASTER PLANS AND
RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC PLANS.
CASE NAME: COMMUNITY FACILITIES
CASE NO.: GPA 99-Ol/ZCA 99-02/LCPA 99-02
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
follows:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on February 7, 2001, hold a duly
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Negative Declaration, General Plan
Amendment (GPA 99-Ol), Zone Code Amendment (99-02), and Local Coastal Program
Amendment 99-02 and adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4853, 4854, 4855, and
4856 recommending to the City Council that they be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 27th day of March ) 2001
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Negative Declaration
and proposed amendments to the General Plan and to the Zoning regulations and a Local
Coastal Program and;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment and,
Local Coastal Program Amendment.
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does hereby resolve as
follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the findings of the Planning Commission in Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 4853, 4854, 4855 and 4856 constitute the findings of the City Council in this
matter. /..?
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 Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Zone Code
Amendment, and Local Coastal Program Amendment, GPA 99-01, ZCA 99-02 and LCPA 99-02
respectively, are approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4853, 4854,
4855, and 4856 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 27th day of March 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Finnila, Nygaard and Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None. A
-2-
EXHIBIT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4853
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO AMEND
THE GENERAL PLAN, THE ZONING REGULATIONS, AND
THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO ESTABLISH A NEW
C-F “COMMUNITY FACILITIES” ZONE AND TO AMEND
THE GENERAL PLAN TO CLARIFY EXISTING WORDING
REGARDING ALLOWED DENSITY.
CASE NAME: COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE
CASE NO.: GPA 99-O 1 /ZCA 99-02/LCPA 99-02
9 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of November 2000,
10 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, said public hearing was continued to the 6th day of December
2000, and to the 3rd day of January 2001, and to the 7th day of February, 2001, at said
public hearing, having heard and considered all testimony and arguments, examining the initial
study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments
received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A)
W
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration
according to Exhibit “ND” dated August 28, 2000, and “PII” dated March 22,
2000, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration COMMUNITY
FACILITIES ZONE - GPA 99-Ol/ZCA 99-02/LCPA 99-02, the environmental
impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; 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
B.
C.
D.
The Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of February 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman,
L’Heureux, Nielsen, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOtZmLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4853 -2-
City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: Citywide in the City of Carlsbad
Project Description: Creation of a new General Plan land use designation and a new
zoning district to require some already-allowed uses in master
plans and residential specific plans as community facilities uses
and clarification of existing General Plan wording regarding
allowed density.
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, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department
at (760) 602-4621.
DATED: AUGUST 28,200O
CASE NO: GPA 99-O l/ZCA 99-02/LCPA 99-02
CASE NAME: COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE
PUBLISH DATE: AUGUST 28,200O
Planning Director
/I
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559 @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: GPA 99-O l/ZCA 99-02/LCPA 99-02
DATE: March 22.2000
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Communitv Facilities Zone
2. APPLICANT: Citv of Carlsbad. Planning Department
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92009 (760) 602-4600
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED:
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Creation of a new General Plan land use designation and a new
Zoning district to require some alreadv-allowed uses in master clans and residential suecific
plans as communitv facilities uses and clarification of existing. General Plan wordine; regarding
allowed densitv.
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.
lzl Land Use and Planning lzl Transportation/Circulation El Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources q Utilities & Service Systems
El Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
q Air Quality cl Noise cl Recreation
El Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96 18
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
El
0
0
III
0
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 pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
-a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
8-67)-~
Date
Planning Directorr%Signat@e Date *‘z”‘O
19 Rev. 03/28/96
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.
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.
“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.
“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.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but @ potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
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.
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 20 Rev. 03/28/96
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.
4 $1 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a)
b)
cl
4
e)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l -5.6-l@
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l -
5.5-6)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
a> b) 4
4
4 0
s> h) 9
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l :Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1- 1’ -
5.1-15)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or till? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Potentially Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q
q
q q
0 q q
q
q
q
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
q
q
q
0
q
q
q
0
q q q
q
q q
0 q q
q
q
q
Less Than
Significant
Impact
q
q
q
0
0
q
q
q
q q q
q
q q
q q q
q
q
0
No
Impact
Ix1
lxl
lzl
[XI
Ix]
IXI
lxl
lxl
l.xl
El
IXI
lxl
lxl
IXI
lxl
lxl
El
El
IXI
[XI
o(9
5 Rev. 03/28/96 dd
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
e)
f7
.d
h)
0
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-l - 5..2-11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l
- 5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
4
b)
cl
4
e>
f)
g)
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l -
5.7.22)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Potentially
Significant Impact
cl
0
El
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation [ncorporated
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Ix1
Ix1
IXI
lxl
El
Ix]
lxl
lzl
El
lxl
lxl
Ia
lxl
lxl
El
lxl
El
lxl
lxl
El
6 Rev. 03/28/96 23
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d)
e)
VIII.
a)
b)
c>
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l
- 5.4-24)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
1 - 5.13-9)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
4
b)
c>
4
4
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-j)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10. l-l -
5.10.1-j)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-j)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-j)
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-j)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-
15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( )
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
cl
El
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
III
El
0
0
0
0
0
cl
El
0
0
q
0 0 III 0 0
cl
Less Than Significant
Impact
0
El-
No
Impact
El
lxl
Ix]
lxl
lxl
ix1
IXI
lxl
El
lxl
lzl
lxl
lxl
Ix1
lxl
151
lzl
IXI
7 Rev. 03/28/96 a+!
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) c>
4 e>
f) 8)
XIII.
4
b)
c)
XIV.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Communications systems? ( )
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-l -5.11-5)
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1-5.11-5)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-I - 5.11-j)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#I :Pgs 5.12.8- 1 -
5.12.8-7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l :Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
q q
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q
q
q
q
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
cl q
cl q q q
q
u
q
q
q
q q
q
q
q
q
Less Than
Significant Impact
q q
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q 0
q
q
q
q
No
Impact
lxl
Ix]
lxl
lzl
(XI
[XI
El
lxl
El
El
lxl
Ia
lzl
lxl
lxl
lxl
ixl
8 Rev. 03/28/96 a-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
Incorporated
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? q q q lxl
(“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)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
9
q q q (XI
Rev. 03/28/96 ah
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:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
4 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.
10 d7 Rev. 03128196
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed project consists of a General Plan amendment and a zone code amendment to
require reservation of sites for “community facilities” uses in all new master plan developments
and residential specific plan developments and a clarification of existing General Plan wording
regarding allowed density.
The proposed General Plan amendment would add some discussion of the nature of community
facilities uses and set out the required size of such sites. The proposed zone code amendment
includes 1) changes to the existing P-C Zone to add the wording requiring reservation of a site(s)
for community facilities uses; and, 2) creation of a new “C-F” (Community Facilities) zone to
identify the uses which will be considered community facilities and to establish development
standards for the zone. The uses which will be allowed to satisfy the community facilities
requirement are all currentlv-allowed uses. No new uses are being identified with the proposed
amendments. The effect of the new regulations will be only to require that some uses be
anticipated in new master plans and residential specific plans. During the processing of master
plan and residential specific plan development applications, staff has previously negotiated the
reservation of sites for uses considered beneficial to serve the proposed new development. These
have usually included child day care facilities and places of worship, among other uses. Staff is
now proposing to codify this reservation of sites into a requirement.
The second part of the amendment would clarify existing General Plan wording regarding
density in some exceptional cases. There are some sites in the City which have consistent
General Plan and zoning designations, but which would be allowed a slightly higher yield by
their zoning than would be allowed by the General Plan. The General Plan anticipated these
situations and includes specific wording which gives the City Council authority to allow density
of up to 25% above the top of the otherwise allowed range subject to certain findings. However,
the adopted wording is confusing. The proposed amendment would correct this confusion by
revising the wording in the General Plan. (No zone code amendment is necessary.)
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. NON-RELEVANT ITEMS
I. Land Use and Planning
The proposed amendments will have the effect of requiring that new residential master and
specific plan communities provide sites for community facilities such as places of worship and
day care centers. All of the uses to be required are uses which are already allowed in the City,
and have historically been included in master plans and specific plans through project
negotiation. Therefore, codification of this requirement is not in conflict with any applicable
General Plan, zoning, or environmental regulations. In fact, codification of this requirement is
being done to implement wording already in the adopted General Plan which directs this action.
The creation of this requirement, and the development standards for the community facilities
uses, will not affect agricultural uses or disrupt any established communities, and will not be
incompatible with any existing land uses. The requirement for community facilities would apply
only to new master plans and residential specific plans. The second part of the amendment (the
clarification of existing wording) will not result in any changes to the General Plan policies or
11 a8
Rev. 03/28/96
zoning regulations or to how those policies and regulations have been implemented historically.
Therefore, the proposed project will not result in any potentially significant impacts to land use
and planning.
II. Population and Housing
The proposed project will not result in any potentially significant impacts to population or
housing in the city. No development is being proposed, and the inclusion of community
facilities uses within communities by requirement, rather than by chance, would not be expected
to result in any growth beyond that already anticipated by the City’s General Plan. The second
part of the amendment (the clarification of existing wording) will not result in any changes to the
General Plan policies or zoning regulations or to how those policies and regulations have been
implemented historically.
III. Geologic Problems
The proposed amendments are not specific to any site, but could apply citywide. Also, no
development is being proposed, and no sites are being identified for specific uses through these
amendments. Also, the proposed amendments will not change any regulations, policies,
standards, or guidelines already in place which affect geologic conditions or the
prevention/handling of geologic problems. The ultimate placement of any future uses will be
reviewed and considered at the time a master plan or specific plan application is submitted, just
as it is under the current regulations. The proposed project would only ensure that, among the
uses proposed by the developer, a day care site and possibly another community facilities use site
would be reserved for a particular time period. Detailed analysis of site conditions and possible
development impacts will be evaluated at the time a project application is submitted. Therefore,
the proposed project will not result in any potentially significant geological impacts.
IV. Water
The proposed amendments are not specific to any site, but could apply citywide. Also, no
development is being proposed, and no sites are being identified for specific uses through these
amendments. Also, the proposed amendments will not change any regulations, policies,
standards, or guidelines already in place which affect or address water conditions or the
prevention/handling of problems related to water bodies, absorption rates, hazards, discharge,
turbidity, or the availability of water. The ultimate placement of any future uses will be reviewed
and considered at the time a master plan or specific plan application is submitted, just as it is
under the current regulations. The proposed project would only ensure that, among the uses
proposed by the developer, a day care site and possibly another community facilities use site
would be reserved for a particular time period. Detailed analysis of site conditions and possible
development impacts will be evaluated at the time a project application is submitted. Therefore,
the proposed project will not result in any potentially significant water impacts.
VI. Transportation/Circulation
The proposed project is not specific to any site and could apply any place within the City.
However, no development is proposed through this project. Provision of community facilities
within master plans and residential specific plans might reasonably be expected to reduce any
traffic/circulation impacts resulting from those developments by ensuring that some necessary
services are located in close proximity to the residential development reducing the number and/or
distance of vehicle trips. However, any master plan or specific plan application will be analyzed
in detail for potential transportation/circulation impacts when an application is submitted. In
addition, the proposed project will not alter in any way the City regulations, policies, standards,
and guidelines already in place which require provision of adequate and timely circulation
facilities. By requiring that community facilities uses be placed within master planned 4 a
12 Rev. 03/28/96 d/
communities, the total number of trips generated in a given area may even be reduced.
Therefore, the proposed project will not have any potentially significant
transportation/circulation impacts.
VII. Biological Resources
The proposed amendments are not specific to any site. They could apply any place in the City.
Any master plan or specific plan application will be analyzed in detail for potential impacts to
biological resources. However, the code amendments proposed currently (the “project”) will not
have any impact on biological resources.
VIII. Energv and Mineral Resources
The proposed amendments are not site-specific and could apply anywhere in the City. The
proposed project will not create any new uses (i.e., uses not currently allowed in the City), and
no development is proposed through this project. Any development proposed in the future will
be analyzed in detail for potential impacts to energy and mineral resources.
IX. Hazards
The proposed project is not specific to any site and could apply any place within the City.
However, no development is proposed through this project. In addition, the project will not
create any new uses (i.e., uses not currently allowed in the City). The uses which would be
allowed to satisfy the community facilities use requirement (e.g., places of worship, child dare
care facilities, etc.) are uses which typically do not present any risk of explosion, release of
hazardous substances, etc. However, any development proposed in the future will be analyzed in
detail for potential hazard impacts. Therefore, the proposed project does not result in any
potentially significant hazards impacts.
X. Noise
The proposed amendments are not specific to any site. They could apply any place in the City.
Any master plan or specific plan application will be analyzed in detail for potential noise
impacts. In addition, the proposed Code amendments specifically address the need for
consideration of compatibility of the community facilities uses. Compatibility concerns would
include, among other things, noise impacts to neighboring uses. However, the code amendments
proposed currently (the “project”) will not have any noise impacts.
XI. Public Services
No development is proposed through this project. Under the City’s adopted growth management
regulations, all development in the City is required to provide all necessary public facilities and
services concurrent with development. This requirement would not be altered by the proposed
project. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts to
public services.
XII. Utilities and Services Systems
No development is proposed through this project. Under the City’s adopted growth management
regulations, all development in the City is required to provide all necessary public facilities and
services concurrent with development. This requirement would not be altered by the proposed
project. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts to
public utilities and services systems.
XIII. Aesthetics
The proposed amendments are not specific to any site. They could apply any place in the City.
Any master plan or specific plan application will be analyzed in detail for potential aesthetic 3n 3u Rev. 03128196
impacts. In addition, the proposed Code amendments specifically address the need for
consideration of compatibility of the community facilities uses. Compatibility concerns would
include, among other things, aesthetic impacts of any proposed uses. However, the code
amendments proposed currently (the “project”) will not have any aesthetic impacts.
XIV. Cultural Resources
The proposed amendments are not specific to any site. They could apply any place in the City.
Any master plan or specific plan application will be analyzed in detail for potential impacts to
cultural resources. However, the code amendments proposed currently (the “project”) will not
have any impact on cultural resources.
xv. Recreational
The proposed amendments will only require that future residential master plans and specific
plans provide sites for needed community facilities. Provision of recreational sites and/or
facilities is already a requirement of development in the City, and the currently required amounts
and types of such uses would not be altered in any way by the additional requirement for
community facilities. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in impacts to recreational
demand or opportunities.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DISCUSSION
V. Air Oualitv
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result
from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that
continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts in the form of increased gas and electric power consumption and
vehicle miles traveled. 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 build-out
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 build-out, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
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 93-01, 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 projects covered
by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR. This
14 Rev. 03/28/96 3
document is available at the Planning Department.
VI. TransnortationKirculation
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would
result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded
that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in
increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out
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 build-out.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out,
numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include
measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) 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. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at build-out 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 projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR.
This project is within the scope of that MEIR. This document is available at the Planning
Department.
15 Rev. 03/28/96 32
EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008,
(760) 602-4600.
1. Final Master Environmental Imnact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
16 Rev. 03/28/96 33
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
17 Rev. 03128196 34
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. 4854
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO ESTABLISH A NEW
C-F “COMMUNITY FACILITIES” DESIGNATION AND TO
CLARIFY EXISTING WORDING REGARDING ALLOWED
DENSITY.
CASE NAME: COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE
CASE NO: GPA 99-01
WHEREAS, the Planning Director has filed a verified application with the City
of Carlsbad regarding property owned by various owners, “Owner”, described as citywide (“the
Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a General Plan
Amendment as shown on Exhibit “W Revised” dated February 7, 2001, on file in the Carlsbad
Planning Department COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE - GPA 99-01 as provided in
Government Code Section 65350 et. seq. and Section 21.52.160 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 15th day of November 2000,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was continued to the 6th day of December
2000, and to the 3rd day of January 2001, and to the 7th day of February, 2001, at said
public hearing, having heard and considered all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons
desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the General Plan
Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
35-
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE -
GPA 99-01, based on the following findings:
FindinPs:
1. That the proposed amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan are
consistent with the applicable elements of the General Plan, in that they are being
processed to fulfil1 one of the policies of the adopted General Plan (Residential
Policy C.12) requiring the implementation of a requirement for provision of land for
community facilities uses in master plans and residential specific plans.
2. That the proposed amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan are
consistent with the City’s Local Coastal Program, in that implementation of the
amendments will not negatively impact coastal resources (slopes or vegetation) and
will not impact public views or public access and will not conflict with any existing
Coastal Zone policies.
3. That the proposed amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan are
consistent with the City’s Growth Management Program, in that the proposed
amendments will not result in new development or new types of development not
already allowed within the City or in additional density or intensity of development,
and all development will still be required to comply with applicable growth
management requirements to provide facilities and services concurrent with
development.
. . .
. . .
. . .
*..
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
PC RESO NO. 4854 -2- 36
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, California, held on the 7th day of February 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman,
L’Heureux, Nielsen, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT:
%STAIN:
JEFF&!% SEGALL, Cl’%rperson
CAIUSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
, MICHAEL J.k&ZtiLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4854 -3- 37
General Plan Land Use Element Revisions
EXHIBIT “W” REVISED
GPA 99-O 1
FEBRUARY 7,200l
Page 5 righthand column bottom of first full 7
&R&W& Southeast Quadrant lo,80 1.
Pane 9 lefthand column insert
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Page 15 righthand column last 1
In-&ese There are exceptional cases where the base zone is consistent with the land use
designation but would permit a slightly higher yield than that recommended in the low and low-
medium density residential classifications;. In those exceptional cases, the City may find that the
project is consistent with this element :C:,
general land uses and
programs expressed herein, b) all of the necessary infrastructure is in place to support the
project, and c) the proposed density does not exceed the maximum density allowed at the top of
the range by more than an additional 25%.
Page 16 - insert text following Affordable Housing;, and before Commercial
2. COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Facilities for child care providers, places of worship, senior citizens, charities, and a range of
other community-serving activities are not traditional residential, industrial, or commercial land
uses. Nevertheless, these activities and land uses are important and traditional members of any
vital and fully functioning community. Because the organizations which pursue these activities
are open non-profit or quasi-for-pro@, their financial resources are oflen limited. The land
within large-scale developments planned and marketed for upscale homes, shopping centers,
and industrial campuses is very ofren not affordable to these organizations, making it likely that
these types of facilities cannot be easily incorporated into the community. The development of
large new residential communities through new master plans and spec@c plans creates an
additional needfor these community facilities uses in close proximity to the new residences.
The purpose of the Community Facilities land use designation is to assure that some land within
communities, especially new masterplan and specific plan areas, is identtfied and set aside solely
for these types of uses, spectycally with the objective that market forces will ensure that the land
so designated will remain aflordable to the organizations which build and operate these special
community facilities. Further, once the land is set aside, there is a need to guarantee that it does
not revert to other uses before the community is sufficiently developed to make use of and
1 38
provide financial support for the community facilities. To these ends, specific objectives and
policies have been set out for community facilities uses.
Pages 16 - 20 - re-number to accommodate the insertion of a new #2, above.
Page 3 1 - delete C- 12 and renumber remaining three Implementing Policies and Action Pro,mams.
Pane 31 - insert the following text following Residential and prior to Commercial:
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
A. GOAL
A City which provides land for child daycare facilities, places of worship, and other community
sewices facilities.
B. OBJECTIVES
B.1 Require new and, as appropriate, existing master plan developments and residential specific
plan developments to provide usable acres to be designated for community facilities such as child
daycare, worship, youth and senior citizen activities, and other appropriate uses.
C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS
C.1 Require new and, as appropriate, existing master plan developments and residential specific
plan developments to provide landfor a child daycare use and other community facilities uses.
C.2 Require that community facilities sites be resewed for a suflcient time period to allow
development of surrounding residential uses which would support those community facilities
uses.
C.3 Require that community facilities sites be located within the master plan or residential
specific plan to most effectively serve the residents of the master plan or residential spectj?cplan.
C.4 Amend the City’s Municipal Code to create a Community Facilities zone to identiji) those
uses which will be allowed in the community facilities area and to establish development
standards for community facilities uses.
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. 4855
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT TO
ESTABLISH A NEW C-F COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE
AND TO AMEND THE EXISTING P-C PLANNED
‘COMMUNITY ZONE AND THE CONDITIONAL USES
REGULATIONS
CASE NAME: COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE
CASE NO: ZCA 99-02
WHEREAS, the Planning Director has prepared a proposed Zone Code
Amendment pursuant to Section 21.52.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to establish a new
C-F Community Facilities zoning district and amend the existing P-C Planned Community
zoning district and the Conditional Uses regulations to require and regulate community
facilities uses in Master Plans and residential Specific Plans; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is set forth in the draft City Council
Ordinance, Exhibit “X Revised” dated, February 7, 2001, and attached hereto
COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE - ZCA 99-02; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of November 2000,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was continued to the 6th day of December
2000, and to the 3rd day of January 2001, and to the 7th day of February, 2001, at said
public hearing, having heard and considered 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.
40
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
B)
Findings:
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE -
ZCA 99-01, based on the following findings:
1. That the proposed Zone Code Amendment ZCA 99-02 is consistent with the General
Plan in that it will implement the associated new General Plan land use category
(Community Facilities) and will implement the new Community Facilities Goals,
Objectives, and Policies section of the Land Use Element.
2. That the Zone Code Amendment will provide consistency between the General Plan and
the Zoning as mandated by California State Law and the City of Carlsbad General Plan
Land Use element, in that the proposed ZCA is consistent with the public
convenience, necessity, and general welfare and reflects sound principles of good
planning.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 7th day of February 2001, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman,
L’Heureux, Nielsen, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
QQ
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J.?&LZtiLLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4855 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
i2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4856
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO BRING THE
DESIGNATIONS ON THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM,
GENERAL PLAN, AND ZONING MAP INTO
CONFORMANCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED CITYWIDE.
CASE NAME: COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE
CASE NO: LCPA 99-02
WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program,
General Plan, and Zoning designations for properties in the Coastal Zone be in conformance; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has filed an application proposing to amend
the City’s Zoning regulations (Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) to create a new
chapter (Chapter 21.25) and amend existing chapters (Chapter 21.38 and 21.42) to require
and regulate community facilities uses in master plans and residential specific plans; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal
Program Amendment as shown on Exhibit “X Revised” attached to Planning Commission
Resolution No. 4855 and Exhibit “Y” attached hereto dated February 7,200l 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 15th day of November 2000,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was continued to the 6th day of December
2000, and to the 3rd day of January 2001, and to the 7th day of February, 2001, at said
public hearing, having heard and considered 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.
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, State Coastal Guidelines require a six week public review period for
any amendment to the Local Coastal Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on August 31,
2000 and ending on October 12, 2000, 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 COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE,
LCPA 99-02 based on the following findings, and subject to the following
conditions:
FindinPs:
1. That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment meets the requirements of, and is
in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and all applicable policies
of the Mello I, Mello II, Agua Hedionda, Village Redevelopment Area, East
Batiquitos Lagoon, and West Batiquitos Lagoon segments of the Carlsbad Local
Coastal Program not being amended by this amendment, in that the proposed
amendment: a) will not create or allow any uses which are not already allowed in
the City and the Coastal Zone; b) will not impact or reduce any requirements for
the protection of coastal resources; c) will not impact or change any restrictions on
development of coastal slopes; d) will not impact public views which are protected
by Coastal regulations and policies; and, e) will not impact or change public access
regulations or policies within (or outside of) the Coastal Zone.
2. That the proposed amendment to the Mello I, Mello II, Agua Hedionda, Village
Redevelopment Area, East Batiquitos Lagoon, and West Batiquitos Lagoon
segments of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program is required to bring them into
consistency with the accompanying proposed zone code amendment (ZCA 99-02).
PC RESO NO. 4856 -2- 43
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 to the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 7th day of February 2001, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman,
L’Heureux, Nielsen, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: I
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4856 -3-
EXHIBIT “Y”
LCPA 99-02
FEBRUARY 7,200l
LCP POLICY
This exhibit includes the proposed text amendment (strikeout/highlight format)
to the Mello I, Mello II, Agua Hedionda, Village Redevelopment Area, East
Batiquitos Lagoon, and West Batiquitos Lagoon segments of the Local Coastal
Program.
NO TEXT AMENDMENT IS REQUIRED.
4 5”
EXHIBIT The Laity of CARLSBAD Planning Department & A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 2 0
Application complete date: n/a
P.C. AGENDA OF: February 7,200l Project Planner: Elaine Blackburn
Project Engineer: n/a
SI BJECT: GPA 99-Ol/ZCA 99-02/LCPA 99-02 - COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE -
Request for approval of a Negative Declaration, citywide General Plan
Amendment, Zone Code Amendment, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to
create a new “CF - Community Facilities” land use designation in the General
Plan and a new “C-F - Community Facilities” zone in Title 21 and to amend the
adopted “P-C” Zone and Conditional Uses regulations and to clarify existing
General Plan wording regarding allowed density.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4853
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a Negative Declaration and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 4854,4855, and 4856 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of GPA
99-01, ZCA 99-02, and LCPA 99-02 based upon the findings contained therein.
II. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION
This item was presented at the public hearing on November 15, 2000. After taking public
testimony and discussing the proposed General Plan and Zoning amendments, the Planning
Commission had some concerns about the equity of the proposed wording with regard to already-
approved master plans and residential specific plans. Staff suggested that the item be continued
and that staff reevaluate the proposed wording and ensure that the requirements are equitable.
The item was then continued to December 6,2000, then to January 3, 2001, and finally to a date
uncertain. During that time staff has made several changes to both the proposed General Plan
wording and the proposed zoning wording.
The proposed General Plan wording has been revised to be less specific. Staff believes this
change is appropriate in that the General Plan is a policy document and the zoning (Title 21) is
the implementing document. Therefore, it is appropriate that the specific standards and
requirements be contained in the zoning text but not in the General Plan text.
The proposed zoning wording has also been revised. The original wording established the size of
the community facilities area based upon the acreage in the plan area. Staff evaluated several
other means of establishing the size of the community facilities area (e.g., the number of units
possible in the plan area). However, staff believes that a formula based upon the net developable
acreage in the plan area provides the best equity between new master plans and new residential
specific plans because it ensures that non-residential portions of the plan are also considered.
Staff has revised the acreage requirement formula for plans being amended. It now bases the
reservation area requirement only on the amount of acreage being amended. This ensures that
GPA 99-Ol/ZCA 99-02/LCfA 99-02 - COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE
February 7,200l
Page 2
the amended area does not have to offset any previous shortfall or lack of community facilities
reservation. (By the same token then, an amendment area would not receive “credit” for any
community facilities areas existing in the portion not being amended.)
Also revised were the requirements for a child daycare facility. Previously that use was to be
allowed by right. Upon further consideration, staff believes the use should require approval of a
Site Development Plan (SDP) if developed as a “stand-alone” facility. All other community
facilities uses require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). If the child daycare use is provided as
part of another community facilities use, the SDP requirement would be waived.
Finally, staff has made a wording change to the community facilities zone and a related change
to the Conditional Uses regulations (Chapter 21.42 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code). The
Conditional Uses chapter of the Code lists the uses allowed in the City by conditional use permit
and the zones in which they may be developed. This chapter currently contains wording which
might be confusing with regard to the C-F Zone because it appears to allow uses by CUP in the
C-F Zone which are not intended to be allowed there. Therefore, staff has added wording to both
the C-F Zone text and the Conditional Uses chapter to clarify the allowed uses.
Staff has attached revised resolutions and exhibits for the GPA, ZCA, and LCPA. The revised
resolutions (4854, 4855, and 4856) have been changed to reflect references to their revised
attachments (exhibits). The revised exhibits (Exhibit W Revised, Exhibit X Revised, and Exhibit
A Revised) contain the revised wording for the General Plan text and zoning text.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4853 (Neg. Dec.)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4854 with Ex. W Revised (GPA 99-01)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4855 with Ex. X Revised (ZCA 99-02)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4856 with original Ex. Y (LCPA 99-02)
Staff Report dated January 3,200l with attachments
Exhibit “A” Revised, dated February 7, 2001 (“Draft ZCA Text - Bold/Italics &
Strikeout”)
EB:cs:mh
47
The City of CARLSBAD Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIONe
Item No. 3 0
Application complete date: n/a
P.C. AGENDA OF: January 3,200l Project Planner: Elaine Blackburn
Project Engineer: n/a
SUBJECT: GPA 99-Ol/ZCA 99-02/LCPA 99-02 - COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE -
Request for approval of a citywide General Plan Amendment, Zone Code
Amendment, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to create a new “CF -
Community Facilities” land use designation in the General Plan and a new “C-F -
Community Facilities” zone in Title 21 and to amend the adopted “P-C” Zone and
to clarify existing General Plan wording regarding allowed density.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4853
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a Negative Declaration and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 4854 Revised, 4855 Revised, and 4856 Revised
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of GPA 99-01, ZCA 99-02, and LCPA 99-02 based upon
the findings contained therein.
II. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION
This item was presented at the public hearing on November 15, 2000. After taking public
testimony and discussing the proposed General Plan and Zoning amendments, the Planning
Commission had some concerns about the equity of the proposed wording with regard to already-
approved master plans and residential specific plans. Staff suggested that the item be continued
and that staff reevaluate the proposed wording and ensure that the requirements are equitable.
The item was then continued to December 6, 2000 and again to January 3, 2001. During that
time staff has made several changes to both the proposed General Plan wording and the proposed
zoning wording.
The proposed General Plan wording has been revised to be less specific. Staff believes this
change is appropriate in that the General Plan is a policy document and the zoning (Title 21) is
the implementing document. Therefore, it is appropriate that the specific standards and
requirements be contained in the zoning text but not in the General Plan text.
The proposed zoning wording has also been revised. The original wording established the size of
the community facilities area based upon the acreage in the plan area. Staff evaluated several
other means of establishing the size of the community facilities area (e.g., the number of units
possible in the plan area). However, staff believes that a formula based upon the net developable
acreage in the plan area provides the best equity between new master plans and new residential
specific plans because it ensures that non-residential portions of the plan are also considered.
Staff has revised the acreage requirement formula for plans being amended. It now bases the
reservation area requirement only on the amount of acreage being amended. This ensures that
the amended area does not have to offset any previous shortfall or lack of community facilities
GPA 99-Ol/ZCA 99-02/LCYA 99-02 - COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE
January 3,200l
Page 2
reservation. (By the same token then, an amendment area would not receive “credit” for any
community facilities areas existing in the portion not being amended.)
Staff has attached revised resolutions and exhibits for the GPA, ZCA, and LCPA. The revised
resolutions (4854 Revised, 4855 Revised, and 4856 Revised) have been changed to reflect
references to their revised attachments (exhibits). The revised exhibits (Exhibit W Revised,
Exhibit X Revised, and Exhibit A Revised) contain the revised wording for the General Plan text
and zoning text.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4853 (Neg. Dec.)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4854 Revised with Ex. W Revised (GPA 99-01)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4855 Revised with Ex. X Revised (ZCA 99-02)
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4856 Revised with original Ex. Y (LCPA 99-02)
5. Staff Report dated December 6,200O with attachments
6. Exhibit “A” Revised, dated January 3, 2001 (“Draft ZCA Text - Bold/Italics &
Strikeout”)
EB:cs:mh
The City of CARLSBAD Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No.
Application complete date: n/a
P.C. AGENDA OF: December 6,200O Project Planner: Elaine Blackburn
Project Engineer: n/a
SUBJECT: GPA 99-Ol/ZCA 99-02/LCPA 99-02 - COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE -
Request for approval of a citywide General Plan Amendment, Zone Code
Amendment, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to create a new “CF -
Community Facilities” land use designation in the General Plan and a new “C-F -
Community Facilities” zone in Title 21 and to amend the adopted “P-C” Zone and
to clarify existing General Plan wording regarding allowed density.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4853
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a Negative Declaration and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 4854 Revised, 4855 Revised, and 4856 Revised
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of GPA 99-01, ZCA 99-02, and LCPA 99-02 based upon
the findings contained therein.
II. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION
This item was presented at the public hearing on November 15, 2000. After taking public
testimony and discussing the proposed General Plan and Zoning amendments, the Planning
Commission had some concerns about the equity of the proposed wording with regard to already-
approved Master Plans and Residential Specific Plans. Staff suggested that the item be
continued and that staff reevaluate the proposed wording to see if it could be improved upon. As
a result, staff has made several changes to both the proposed General Plan wording and the
proposed zoning wording.
The proposed General Plan wording has been revised to be more general and less specific with
regard to the size of the required reservation area. Staff believes this change is appropriate in
that the General Plan is a policy document and the zoning (Title 21) is the implementing
document. Therefore, it is appropriate that the wording in the General Plan be more general and
the wording in the zoning contain the specific standards and requirements.
The proposed zoning wording has also been revised. The original wording established the size of
the reservations area based upon the acreage in the plan area. Staff has now revised that wording
to establish the size of the reservation area based upon the number of units possible rather than
based upon the acreage in the plan area. Staff believes this formula provides greater equity
between new and already-adopted plans and between master and specific plans.
Staff has attached revised resolutions and exhibits for the GPA, ZCA, and LCPA. The revised
resolutions (4854 Revised, 4855 Revised, and 4856 Revised) have been changed only to reflect
references to their revised attachments (exhibits). The revised exhibits (Exhibit W Revised,
GPA 99-Ol/ZCA 99-02/LCPA 99-02 - COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE
December 6,200O
Exhibit X Revised, and Exhibit A Revised) contain the revised wording for the General Plan text
and zoning text.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4853 Revised (Negative Declaration)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4854 Revised with Ex. W Revised(GPA 99-01)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4855 Revised with Ex. X Revised (ZCA 99-02)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4856 Revised with original Ex. Y (LCPA 99-02)
Staff Report dated November 15,200O with attachments
Exhibit “A” Revised, dated December 6, 2000 (“Draft ZCA Text - Bold/Italics &
Strikeout”)
EB:cs:mh
The City of CARLSBAD Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION e&L
Item No. 0 9
Application complete date: nla
P.C. AGENDA OF: November 15,200O Project Planner: Elaine Blackburn
Project Engineer: n/a
SUBJECT: GPA 99-Ol/ZCA 99-02/LCPA 99-02 - COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE -
Request for approval of a citywide General Plan Amendment, Zone Code
Amendment, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to create a new “CF -
Community Facilities” land use designation in the General Plan and a new “C-F -
Community Facilities” zone in Title 21 and to amend the adopted “P-C” Zone and
to clarify existing General Plan wording regarding allowed density.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4853
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a Negative Declaration and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 4854,4855, and 4856 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of GPA
99-01, ZCA 99-02, and LCPA 99-02 based upon the findings contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
This project consists of several text changes to the General Plan and to the City’s Zoning
regulations (Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code). The major changes have to do with
creating a new General Plan land use designation and new zoning regulations for “community
facilities” uses. The adopted General Plan (Land Use Element, Residential uses) contains an
objective and a policy which require new master plans and residential specific plans to reserve
areas for day care centers, places of worship, and other community-serving uses. Planning
Department staff has, for the last several years, relied on this objective and policy as a basis to
negotiate for inclusion of land for community-serving uses in master plans and residential
specific plans. Because the existing General Plan wording is not specific with regard to
minimum area, time period of the reservation, or other factors, the resulting land reservations
have varied with different master and specific plans. In an effort to more consistently implement
this requirement, staff has developed the proposed General Plan Amendment and related Zone
Code Amendments. These amendments will better implement the requirement for reservation of
land for community facilities uses within master plans and residential specific plans. The
“community facilities” land use designation would include uses like child care centers, worship
facilities, and a range of other non-profit and some for-profit uses which are not traditional
residential, industrial, or commercial land uses but which serve an important function in the
community. The proposed General Plan Amendment establishes the new “CF” (Community
Facilities) land use designation and establishes a new goal, objectives, and policies for the new
designation.
The new and amended zoning regulations for community facilities establish (among other things)
the specific requirements for size and term of the reservation, uses to be allowed, and locational
criteria. The first change is the creation of a new “C-F” (Community Facilities) zone. This new
GPA 99-Ol/ZCA 99-02KCPA 99-02 - COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE
November 15,200O
zone would contain all of the requirements and development standards for community facilities
areas. The second change would amend the existing P-C (Planned Community) Zone, which
governs master plans, to also address the new community facilities requirements. A Local
Coastal Program Amendment is necessary to implement the proposed zoning amendments in the
Coastal Zone.
In addition, and not related to the community facilities changes, staff has also included a minor
wording change to the General Plan related to existing text discussing density calculation in
special circumstances and a correction of a typographical error. These are “housekeeping”
changes which are minor in nature and are being included with the community facilities
amendment for convenience of processing. The new density wording would clarify the existing
wording and correct an error in that wording. The typographical correction is self-explanatory.
The proposed community facilities changes would apply citywide in master plans and specific
plans with residential components. The clarification wording for the density discussion would
apply citywide. (Implementation of any zoning changes in the Coastal Zone would, of course,
occur only after Coastal Commission approval of the LCPA.) There are no outstanding issues
associated with the proposed amendments. The details of each of the proposed changes is
discussed in detail in this staff report. In addition, staff has attached a “bold/italics & strikeout”
version of the proposed Zone Code Amendments (Exhibit “A”) for ease of reading.
III. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION
Background
Some community-serving uses (particularly non-profit uses) have difficulty locating in
developing residential areas because the cost of the land in such areas is prohibitive for them.
This has proven particularly true in master-planned and specific-planned areas. Developers will
not voluntarily reserve or designate portions of master plans or residential specific plans for uses
of a community-serving nature when there are more profitable uses for such areas. Later, when
the residential development has occurred, there is no longer an opportunity to provide the
community-serving uses near the residences. In addition, the development of these new
residential uses creates its own need for more community-serving uses. This problem was
recognized by the City’s decision-makers a number of years ago during the City’s 1994 General
Plan Update. In that updated General Plan, City Council included a new objective (B.4) and a
new policy (C.12) in the Residential section of the Land Use Element. This new objective and
policy were directed at requiring the reservation of lands for community-serving uses until such
time as surrounding residential development would support these uses.
General Plan Objective B.4 was included “To ensure that new master planned communities and
residential specific plans contribute to a balanced community by providing, within the
development, adequate areas to meet some social/human service needs such as sites for worship,
daycare, youth and senior citizen activities, etc.“.
General Plan Policy C.12 was included to “Require new master planned developments and
residential specific plans of over 100 acres to provide usable acres to be designated for
community facilities such as daycare, worship, youth and senior citizen activities.” It further
53
GPA 99-Ol/ZCA 99-02/LCPA 99-02 - COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE
November 15,200O
Page 3
states that “The exact amount of land will be determined by a titure amendment to the Planned
Community Zone.”
Staff has relied upon this objective and policy to negotiate the inclusion of land for community-
serving uses in master plans and residential specific plans since 1994. This has resulted in land
reservations which vary widely in acreage, time period, and uses provided. The Calavera Hills
Master Plan (1974) contains no requirement for provision of community facilities. (It’s approval
pre-dated both the General Plan policy and the Planning Department policy.) The Aviara Master
Plan (1987) allows, but does not require, a church or day care facility use subject to the approval
of a Conditional Use Permit. The Arroyo La Costa Master Plan (1990) requires a day care
facility and a recreation facility. The Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan (1997) required reservation of
a community facility site for a three-year time period. (The applicant has since requested, and
been denied for the time being, the reversion of that site to other development.)
It is staffs intent with these proposed amendments to establish policies (General Plan) and
regulations (Title 21, Zoning) which will facilitate more consistent implementation of these
requirements. This will result in a more balanced provision of the community-serving facilities
needed, particularly in large master-planned and specific-planned developments.
Proiect Description
The proposed General Plan and zoning amendments (and Local Coastal Program Amendment)
include changes in four areas. Each is discussed below and (in greater detail) in Sections 1V.A
and 1V.B of this staff report.
1. General Plan Amendment to create a new “CF” (Communitv Facilities) land use designation
The first part of the proposed General Plan amendment involves establishing a new land use
designation for “CF” Community Facilities land uges. (See Exhibit “W”) The existing General
Plan (Objective B.4) requires that master plans and specific plans with residential components
contribute to a balanced community by providing areas for uses which meet social/human service
needs. Community facilities uses would include uses which are important and traditional
members of the community but which, because of internal and external financial constraints,
have difficulty locating in new residential areas, particularly master-planned and specific-planned
developments, unless land is reserved for them. In addition, this reservation must be for a long
enough time period to allow adequate residential development to support the community
facilities uses. The existing General Plan language is appropriately broad. However, there has
been no more specific language (typically in a zoning district) to implement the General Plan
wording in a consistent manner. The proposed amendment would remedy this deficiency by
creating a new land use designation and zoning district dedicated to these community facilities.
Further, establishing a unique General Plan designation for community facilities uses, as well as
a unique zoning district, will make these areas more readily identifiable when master plans and
residential specific plans are adopted. All of the uses which would be considered “community
facilities” uses are already allowed in the City. They include things like places of worship,
charities, senior citizens facilities, day care centers, and other non-profit and for-profit uses. No
“new” uses are being created or identified. (A more detailed discussion of specific uses can be
found below in Section 1II.B. of this report.)
s-
GPA 99-Ol/ZCA 99-02/LCt’A 99-02 - COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE
November 15,200O
Page 4
Also, new wording has been developed to state the goal, objectives, and implementing policies
for the new land use designation. The implementing policies contain the essential wording
governing the requirement for reservation of land, the size of the reservation, and the general
location guidelines for the community facilities areas, (See Exhibit “W”)
2. General Plan Amendment to clarifv the densitv allowed in special circumstances
The second (housekeeping) part of the proposed General Plan amendment involves revising
some wording in the Land Use Element to clarify the calculation of allowed density in special
circumstances. The Land Use Element of the adopted General Plan (Residential uses) contains a
discussion of allowed density on sites with exceptional circumstances. This occurs in situations
where the base zone of a site is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of the site,
but would allow a slightly higher yield than that recommended in the low (RL) and low-medium
(RLM) density residential classifications. This section of text was intended to apply only to in-
fill lots, primarily in the older areas of the City (generally within Local Facilities Management
Zones 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6). The potential for this situation to occur in those areas was identified
early on. Thus, the original Growth Management dwelling unit projections considered these
areas as subdivided and anticipated the resulting dwelling units. Later, City Council Policy No.
43 addressed this situation. Policy 43 identifies these types of sites as one of the “First Priority”
categories to receive dwelling units from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. Unfortunately, the
existing General Plan wording is somewhat confusing and, when applied literally, actually
further restricts allowed density rather than allowing additional density as it was intended to do.
Therefore, staff is proposing new wording which would clarify the maximum density allowed in
these exceptional circumstances and would correct the calculation wording error. (See Exhibit
‘V’.)
3. Correction of tvpographical error
The current General Plan contains a typographical error in the discussion (Growth Management)
of various quadrants of the City. The text refers to the Southwest Quadrant twice. One of those
references should be the Southeast Quadrant. (See Exhibit “W”.)
4. Zone Code Amendment to create a new “C-F” (Communitv Facilities) Zone
The existing General Plan (Policy C.12) requires that the City process an amendment to the P-C
Zone to codify this requirement for reservation of land in master plans and residential specific
plans for community facilities uses. Thus, staff is proposing an amendment to the P-C Zone
(Item 4, below). However, implementation of this General Plan Objective also requires the
creation of a new zone, the “C-F” Community Facilities Zone. The P-C Zone regulates only
master plans, and not specific plans, and it requires the designation of underlying zoning.
Therefore, amendment of the P-C Zone alone would not effectively implement this General Plan
requirement. By creating a new C-F zone, the requirements will continue to be applied to both
master plans and residential specific plans as required by the General Plan and it will be possible
to designate an underlying zone as required. (See Exhibit “A”, pages l-4.)
GPA 99-Ol/ZCA 99-02/LCrA 99-02 - COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE
November 15,200O
The proposed new wording also allows for uses not specifically listed but determined by the
Planning Director to be “community facilities” uses. (See Exhibit “A”, page 3.)
The General Plan (Objective B.4 and Policy C.12) requires that new master plans and residential
specific plans reserve sites for community-serving uses. Policy C.12 would be deleted with the
approval of the proposed amendments since it is no longer necessary, and would be replaced with
similar wording in the new Community Facilities Goals, Objectives, and Policies section. (See
Exhibit “W”.)
Finally, new wording has been developed to state the goal, objectives, and implementing policies
for the new land use designation. The implementing policies contain the essential wording
governing the requirement for reservation of land, the size of the reservation, and the general
locational guidelines for the reservation. (See Exhibit “W”.) Staff is proposing that the time
period for the reservation be ten years and that the time period begin following complete
occupancy of the first residential planning area. This is a longer time period than has previously
been required by policy. However, staff believes this is necessary in order to ensure that
sufficient residential development has occurred to support the community facilities use(s).
Experience has shown that five years is not a sufficient time period to allow development of the
residential uses needed to support the community facilities uses. The Calavera Hills Master Plan
was originally approved in 1974 and is still not fully built out. The Aviara Master Plan (1987) is
also still not built out.
2. General Plan Amendment to clarifi/ the densitv allowed in special circumstances
The second part of the General Plan amendment involves revising some wording in the Land Use
Element to clarify the allowed density in exceptional circumstances. The Land Use Element of
the adopted General Plan (Residential uses) contains a discussion of allowed density on sites
with exceptional circumstances. This occurs in situations where the base zone of a site is
consistent with the General Plan land use designation of the site, but would allow a slightly
higher yield than that recommended in the low (RL) and low-medium (RLM) density residential
classifications. In such circumstances the General Plan states that the City can find the project is
consistent with the Land Use Element if the project is compatible with objectives, policies, and
programs of the General Plan and “does not exceed 25% of the maximum allocation”. The intent
of this wording was to reconcile the two different yield figures which could occur (one from an
application of the General Plan density range and the other from the application of the minimum
lot size requirement in the zoning regulations).
An example of this situation would be a 2.582-net acre site which has a General Plan designation
of RLM and R-1-7,500 zoning. R-l-7,500 zoning is consistent with and implements the RLM
General Plan designation. Under the General Plan density controls the site would yield 10
dwelling units (at the top of the RLM range). However, the underlying zoning would allow 15
lots (7,500 square feet each). The intent of the adopted General Plan wording in this case was to
allow some number of units above the General Plan top of the range (10) but not more than the
zoning (15). Unfortunately, application of the existing wording results in a yield of only two
dwelling units (25% of 10 du = 2.5 du and round down), actually reducing the potential yield to
far less than the General Plan allows. This is the result of two wording problems. The first
problem is the term “maximum allocation”. The term is not defined, although the theoretical
“maximum allocation” is the top of the range. To correct this problem staff is proposing to 56
GPA 99-Ol/ZCA 99-02iLCPA 99-02 - COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE
November 15,200O
Pane 7
delete the term “maximum allocation” and replace it with “the top of the range”. This is
consistent with the original intent of the section and reflects the way in which this section has
been implemented over the years. The second problem is the use of “25%” in the calculation.
Staff is proposing wording to clarify that the 25% is to be in addition to or above the top of the
range. This will correct the calculation problem. (See Exhibit “W”.)
Finally, staff is also proposing to add wording to ensure that all necessary infrastructure is in
place to support the proposed development. This has always been a requirement for allowing
additional density, but it was not clearly stated previously in this section.
In the example situation, the proposed revised wording would result in an allowed yield of 5.0
du/ac (12 units). This would be 25% above the top of the range (4 du/ac) and would be between
the number allowed at the top of the range (10 du) and the number possible under the R-l-7,500
zoning (15 lots). The additional unit(s) resulting from this application would continue to require
approval of units from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank as has been required previously.
B. Zone Code Amendment
The proposed zone code amendment involves two changes necessary to address the community
facilities requirements. These are discussed below.
1. Zone Code Amendment to create a new “C-F” (Communitv Facilities) Zone
The proposed new “C-F” (Community Facilities) zone will be a new chapter (Chapter 2 1.25) of
Title 21 and will implement the new “CF” Community Facilities General Plan land use
designation. (See Exhibit “A”, pages l-4.)
The existing General Plan wording (Policy C. 12) anticipated that an amendment to the P-C Zone
would be necessary to implement the General Plan policy requiring community facilities uses.
However, later analysis determined that the creation of a separate zoning district was necessary.
Since the P-C Zone does not regulate or apply to specific plans, amendment of that section would
not be adequate to implement the requirements in residential specific plans as the General Plan
requires. In addition, since the P-C Zone requires that master plans designate underlying zoning,
the new zoning district is also necessary to implement the P-C Zone. Therefore, it is necessary to
create a new zone (new Chapter 21.25, “C-F”) to implement the community facilities
requirements in both master plans and residential specific plans. This new zone is the primary
means of implementing the requirement for community facilities uses.
First, the new C-F zone identifies the intent and purpose (Section 21.25.010) of the new zone.
The intent and purpose is to implement the General Plan objective and policy of requiring master
plans and residential specific plans to reserve adequately-sized sites for community facilities
uses, to identify those sites during the master plan/specific plan process, and to establish
development standards for community facilities uses. (See Exhibit “A”, page 1.)
Second, the new zone will ‘apply (Section 21.25.020) to those properties proposed for
development through a new master plan or residential specific plan approved after the effective
date of the new ordinance and to some of those already approved but which are sufficiently
undeveloped as to still allow reasonable inclusion of community facilities. Most existing master 57
GPA 99-Ol/ZCA 99-02/LCPA 99-02 - COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE
November 15,200O
plans and specific plans have some wording relating to either community facilities uses generally
or to day care facilities. It would be infeasible to expect all existing master/specific plans to meet
the requirements of the proposed new regulations. However, those which still contain large areas
of undeveloped acreage (100 or more gross acres) could be subject to the community facilities
requirements. (See Exhibit “A”, page 1.)
Third, the new zone (Section 21.25.030) establishes the minimum time period for the reservation
of a community facilities site(s) as ten years. The ten-year period will commence when final
inspections have been approved for 100% of the units in the first residential planning area. In
previous master/specific plans the time period has varied in both duration and start point. The
new wording would establish a longer time period (10 years) than has previously been standard
and would start the time period later. However, staff believes this is necessary in order to truly
encourage community facilities to develop and be sustainable. This section also eliminates any
automatic reversion of the reserved site to other uses. It allows the developer to propose
elimination of the reserved site after 10 years if he can demonstrate the total infeasibility of
development of the site with community facilities uses. (See Exhibit “A”, page 2.)
Fourth, the new zone (Sections 21.25.040 and 21.25.050) establishes that the only use allowed
“by right” is a child day care center. This is consistent with other applicable sections of Title 21
in that child day care centers are allowed “by right” in many zones. All other community
facilities uses would require approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Staff believes the
CUP requirement is important because community facilities uses may, by their very nature,
involve operational characteristics which need to be evaluated before they are approved. Further,
it may be necessary to condition such uses for specific time periods to ensure on-going
compatibility with neighboring residential uses. (See Exhibit “A”, page 2.)
Fifth, the new zone (Section 21.25.070) establishes the minimum size of the area to be reserved.
For large developments (100 or more gross acres), reservation of a 2-gross acre day care facility
site and 1% of the net developable acreage of the entire master plan or specific plan area for other
community facilities uses is required. For smaller developments (less than 100 gross acres)
reservation of the 2-gross acre day care facility is all that is required. (See Exhibit “A”, page 3.)
Sixth, the new zone (Section 2125.080) establishes the maximum building height for the zone as
35 feet/3 levels if a pitched roof is incorporated and 24 feet/2 levels if a flatter roof is
incorporated. This is the typical height limitation incorporated in most zones in the City which
would allow this type of development. (See Exhibit “A”, page 3.)
Seventh, the new zone (Section 21.25.090) directs that the setback/yard requirements for the
zone be established through the master/specific plan. This is the way in which the development
standards for such uses are established now. (See Exhibit “A”, page 3.)
Finally, the new zone (Section 21.25.120) requires that full disclosure be made to all buyers of
surrounding residential units and owners of surrounding properties that the reserved area will be
developed with community facilities uses. Not all buyers of residences in master/specific plans
are aware of the intended use of neighboring sites within their master/specific plan. After a
significant time period, neighboring resident opposition could hinder the development of these
community facilities uses. Therefore, staff believes it is important to have full and early
3-i
GPA 99-Ol/ZCA 99-02/LCPA 99-02 - COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE
November 15,200O
disclosure to buyers regarding the intended development of these sites. (See Exhibit “A”, page
3.1
2. Zone Code Amendment to P-C Zone for communitv facilities uses
The existing P-C Zone governs master plans and establishes the zoning (P-C) to be placed on
properties developed as master plans. It also has some wording requiring reservation of a day
care center site for a five-year time period. This wording (along with the existing General Plan
objective and policy) has served as the basis for requiring provision of day care centers and other
community-serving uses in master plans. However, General Plan Objective B.4 has more
comprehensive wording regarding the nature of and requirement for community facilities
reservations. Therefore, only minimal changes to the P-C Zone will be necessary to implement
the CF General Plan designation, since the detailed requirements will be contained in the new C-
F Zone. The amendment to the P-C Zone consists of only the following three specific changes:
a. the addition of a new intent/purpose to Section 21.38.010; (This new purpose specifically
refers to the reservation of a site(s) for community facilities.)
b. the deletion of wording in Section 21.38.020 (Permitted uses and structures) which is no
longer needed; (This wording refers to day care centers only, and will be replaced by
more inclusive wording in the new C-F chapter.) and,
C. the inclusion of a reference (Section 21.3802 1) to the new Chapter 21.25 as the source of
all applicable development requirements and standards for community facilities. (See
Exhibit “A” page 5.)
C. Local Coastal Program Amendment
The City’s zoning regulations (Title 21) implement the Local Coastal Programs for the various
Coastal Zone segments. Since this amendment would apply to properties citywide, it would
apply to all of the City’s Local Coastal Program segments. In effect, however, the proposed zone
code amendment does not conflict with, and would not alter, any Coastal Zone plans, policies or
regulations. The proposed amendment has the effect of requiring the reservation of property for
some already-allowed uses within master plans and residential specific plans.. The uses which
would be required are already allowed throughout the City. Thus, no new uses are being
required. In addition, the development standards for such uses would not be changed. Currently,
the development standards for all uses within a master plan or residential specific plan are based
upon an underlying zoning district as modified by the master plan wording. This would continue
to be the case. The proposed amendment does not alter any existing Coastal regulations or
policies. Consequently, the proposed amendment would not result in any impacts to coastal
resources, coastal slopes, public views, or public access.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIW
The Planning Director has determined that this General Plan Amendment/Zone Code
Amendment/Local Coastal Program Amendment (GPA 99-Ol/ZCA 99-02/LCPA 99-02) to
amend the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, zoning regulations, and Local Coastal
Program will not have a significant impact on the environment and therefore has issued a 59
GPA 99-Ol/ZCA 99-02/LCPA 99-02 - COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE
November 15,200O
Page 10
Negative Declaration on August 28, 2000. The environmental analysis (EIA Part II) concluded
that this GPA/ZCA/LCPA will not result in’any physical, biological or human environmental
impacts and that the amended General Plan text and zoning regulations are no different from the
existing wording and regulations with regard to environmental protection. Therefore, no
significant environmental impacts are anticipated to occur. There were no letters of comment
received during the public review period for this Negative Declaration.
A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the
filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to
determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was
certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no
substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was
certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport
Road and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance.
Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have
been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to
review later projects.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4853 (Negative Declaration)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4854 with Ex. W (GPA 99-01)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4855 with Ex. X (ZCA 99-02)
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4856 with Ex. Y (LCPA 99-02)
5. Exhibit “A”, dated November, 15,200O (“Draft ZCA Text - Bold/Italics & Strikeout”)
EB:cs
EXHIBIT 5
Planning Commission Minutes February 7,ZOOl Page 9 2. GPA 99-Ol/ZCA 99-021LCPA 99-02 - COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE: Request for
approval of a negative Declaration, citywide General Plan Amendment, Zone Code
Amendment, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to create a new “CF - Community
Facilities” Land Use Designation in the General Plan and a new “CF - Community
Facilities” zone in Title 21 and to amend the adopted “PC” Zone and Conditional Uses
regulations and to clarify existing General Plan wording regarding allowed density.
Mr. Wayne stated that agenda item No. 2 is a request for a general plan amendment, a zone code
amendment and a local coastal program amendment to create a new General Plan Designation and
zoning to implement it and that would be the Community Facilities zone. This is a continued public
hearing and tonight’s presentation will be by Senior Planner, Elaine Blackburn. Since it has been some
time since the first public hearing on this, she is going to try and provide some more detailed background
than would normally be on a continued item.
Chairperson Segall opened the Public Hearing.
Ms. Blackburn informed everyone of her intent is to refresh everyone’s memory on this, while also trying
not to go overboard on some of the slides which the Commission has already seen. This is a General
Plan Amendment, a Zone Code Amendment and a Local Coastal Program Amendment. The General
Plan Amendment actually involves two items, one is to create the new Community Facilities’ Land Use
Designation and the other has really nothing to do with Community Facilities, but because of convenience
it is bundled in with this package, and that was just a couple of housekeeping items: one of which was a
typo in the Land Use Element and the other a clarification of some density wording in the General Plan.
The Zone Code Amendment involves the creation of the new Community Facilities zoning
regulations, an Amendment to the PC Zone which makes reference to the need for Community Facilities
and also an amendment of the Conditional Uses chapter which is for consistency of the wording. The
Local Coastal Program Amendment is to maintain consistency. As indicated at the previous meeting, the
General Plan does already contain an objective and a policy that calls for staff to process this particular
amendment. Staff has tried to get these Community Facilities Uses through policy over the years and
have had mixed results, generally disappointing results. The Community Facilities General Plan
Amendment creates a new goal, objective and policies in keeping with the format of the other Land Use
designations in the General Plan that requires the reservation of this Community Facilities area and a
sufficient time period of reservation to allow development of the uses necessary to support it, and it
references generally the types of sites most likely to effectively serve the community. It also directs that
we create the zone for Community Facilities. The Zone Code Amendment primarily creates the new
Community Facilities Zone which establishes the allowed uses, the development standards for
Community Facilities and is the primary means for implementing this requirement. Again, the
Amendment to the PC Zone and the Conditional Uses Chapter are both very minor in nature and just
maintain consistency throughout the code. The intent and purpose in the new zone is to ensure the
reservation of Community Facilities sites, to identify the uses which would meet that requirement and to
establish development standards for the uses. The applicability of this requirement would be for new
Master Plans and new residential Specific Plans (that would be those that have a minimum of 100 gross
acres and have some residential component in them). It would also apply to some previously approved
Master Plans or residential Specific Plans. The only ones that it would apply to would be those where the
developer comes in requesting an amendment to that plan and the amendment involves at least 100
acres. This 100 acre base was used throughout the formula in order to create an equitable situation
between existing and new Master Plans and residential Specific Plans and also to create equity between
Specific Plans and Master Plans. The time period of the reservation is no different than what we
originally proposed to you, that is 10 years from the time that final inspections have been approved for all
of the residences in the first planning area. One change we have made in the permitted uses: originally,
we were considering the Child Day Care Facility to be allowed by right and all other uses to be by
Conditional Use Permit. What we are proposing now is that the Child Day Care Facility be allowed by
SDP, which ensures that it comes back to you for some control over the appearance and operating of the
facility and then all other uses would be by CUP. If it were a combined facility, and the Day Care were
perhaps provided within a Church, which required a CUP, then we would of course waive the Site
Development Plan requirement, so there was no redundancy of permitting. The formula for this
requirement for new Master and residential Specific Plans would be two net acres plus one percent of the
net developable acreage in the plan area. (That’s the entire Master Plan or Specific Plan.) That is for
Planning Commission Minutes February 7,200l Page 10
new ones. For previously approved plans, which are coming in for this amendment, and remember that
only counts if they are amending a 100 acre portion, then the requirement would be two net acres and
one percent of the net developable acreage in the amendment area only. Staff is striving to keep an
equitable approach between existing and new plans.
A Child Day Care Facility would be a required use somewhere in this reservation area. It does not have
to be a free standing use and doesn’t have a minimum size requirement. There is no change from the
draft you saw originally with regard to building heights and yards. The building height is typical for what is
applied city-wide for these types of facilities and setbacks and other development standards are typically
developed through the Master Plan or Specific Plan, and that would remain the case. There is no change
in the location and design standards, we’re looking for compatibility with adjacent uses. We’re looking for
some buffering for surrounding residential uses, architectural compatibility. Generally speaking, it is
expected that these sites would be centrally located unless another location is more effective. And
generally speaking we would expect to see one unified side, although it is not being required. It might be
appropriate in some plans to provide two separate sites-two smaller ones in different places. That
possibility has been left open. A disclosure to buyers of residences within 600 feet is included as a
required notification to inform potential buyers that a Community Facilities area is going to be there when
they buy their residential units. The draft ordinance doesn’t get too specific about what the nature or
appearance or form of that notice would be, but that will be addressed through each Master Plan to
ensure that it is adequate. The amendment to the PC Zone, again--just clarification to refer to the CF
Zone for the development standards and allowed uses. The clarification to the Conditional Uses, makes
sure that there is not confusing wording between two chapters.
Chairperson Segall thanked Ms. Blackburn for her presentation and asked that she define the difference
between a Master Plan and a residential Specific Plan.
Ms. Blackburn explained that a Master Plan is a City document. Our Title 21 addresses the need for
Master Plans when you have 100 acres, or more, of contiguous ownership property. The Specific Plan is
actually a creature of State law. There are specific requirements to be contained in a Specific Plan and it
has certain regulations under State law that apply to it and it has a different standing, because the nature
of those Specific Plans are defined by State law. In terms of substantive differences in the City, there are
not necessarily a lot of differences mainly because, when we process Master Plans in the City, we are
actually pretty conservative and tend to require more or less the same things. State law says that a
Specific Plan has to designate underlying zoning, for example, in the planning areas. The City typically
does for Master Plans as well. So in essence there are not very many differences. There are a couple of
differences in terms of what might be required as submittal requirements for review, but again, the City
tends to be conservative and to require mostly the same things.
Seeing no questions Chairperson Segall opened Public Testimony.
Mike Howes, Hofman Planning Associates, 5900 Pasture Court, Carlsbad stated that he has reviewed
the revised ordinance and has concerns about the prohibition of schools in the Community Facilities
zone. He questioned what is more of a Community Facility than a school. They are kind of like the
backbone of our communities really. Children go to school there, there are events at nights at schools,
and there are events on weekends at schools. Even if schools aren’t considered as meeting the needs of
the Community Facility zone, they shouldn’t be prohibited from being within the Community Facility zone.
As an example, Mr. Howes cited one of the projects he is involved in which is considered putting
together a campus. He mainly wanted to get a flexibility to plan for a good project-a good integrated
project.
Chairperson Segall asked if he were referring to private schools and not public schools.
Mr. Howes pointed out that he’s referring to private and that public schools don’t have a school zoning.
Commissioner Compas questioned Mr. Howes as to whether he has some specific wording that he may
like to see put in there.
Planning Commission Minutes February 7,200l Page 11
Mr. Howes’ suggestion was to put under Allowed Uses, possibly like a school associated as part of a
Church campus.
Commissioner Nielsen asked Mr. Howes if he reviewed the formula, two acres plus and recalled that Mr.
Howes did have some problems with that last time.
Mr. Howes thought the way it was revised was acceptable.
Commissioner Nielsen asked how many acres total are involved in that project?
Mr. Howes said it was about 600 acres, but on the Community Facilities site it is about 13 acres, of which
a part is going to be for the school and part of it is going to be for the Church. Covering the whole site, he
was wondering where to draw the line. He says they are also in a situation where they would like the
flexibility, if the Church goes forward but doesn’t want to put the school, they would want to use the rest of
that site for more Community Facilities, not having to rezone it to go back to put in more Community
Facilities. Under this existing proposal, they would have to give part of that site a Community Facilities
zone, part of that site another zone and then if the school went away for some reason, it would have to be
rezoned back to Community Facilities to put more Community Facilities in. He stated they were not trying
to get out of meeting their requirement, the acreage requirement. He agreed with Commissioner Nielsen
that it would require a CUP which possibly could be handled in the CUP venue because it is only a
temporary situation which Commissioner Nielsen was suggesting. Mr. Howes pointed out that the
proposed revision by staff to the CUP Ordinance would prohibit schools with a CUP, private schools or
public schools, in the CF Zone.
Commissioner Compas asked if there was any limitation that Mr. Howes would put on this school? How
small of a school would be reasonable?
Mr. Howes stated that he had not thought about size of schools, not a minimum size, and shared that
they would not use that to meet the Community Facilities requirement. The Church would have it as an
insular use, that they just don’t want to jury-rig it with another zone that doesn’t work.
Commissioner Trigas, in looking at the permitted uses by the CUP in places of worship, youth and then
other uses, asked Mr. Howes if he was saying there could be no school function along with the church?
Mr. Howes referred to the amendment to the Section 2142010(2) which deals with Conditional Use
permits--in the CUP section which says all zones, including residential with the exception of Community
Facilities zones, basically the way it is written would prohibit schools and these other uses in the
Community Facilities zone (page 5 Section V, on the Ordinance, Exhibit X, Resolution 4855.
Commissioner Trigas suggested she address this to the staff afterwards as she may be reading this a
little differently if it is Church related and she does see a flexibility in the language, but she wanted to ask
staff that.
Commissioner Segall, seeing no one else who wished to testify on this item, closed Public Testimony.
Ms. Blackburn commented that the situation Mr. Howes was referring to has to do with a Master Plan
under review. She agreed that what the applicant in that case is proposing to do is indeed to exceed the
minimum requirements of the proposed Community Facilities area. They are certainly trying to provide
what they are required to and then some. The dilemma to which Mr. Howes is referring comes in that in
essence we do have zoning for schools in the City. They are allowed in almost all zones with the CUP.
We don’t have a separate designated zoning chapter for schools, but they are allowed by CUP just about
everywhere. What we have typically done in previous Master Plans where we have attempted to get
some of these Community Facilities Uses-when we set up this Community Facilities zone, we were
looking to get certain types of uses that obviously serve the community. Those are uses which very often
don’t have much opportunity for economic reasons or other reasons to come into an area. Master Plans
and residential Specific Plans typically create enough residential units as well as other uses to generate a
real need for these things. Then the uses cannot really afford the land. The situation that Mr. Howes is
talking about is where they would like to designate an area for Community Facilities that is larger than is
required, but also have a school share that land. Staff believes there is another way to resolve that in
Planning Commission Minutes February 7,200l Page 12
that Master Plan review and we certainly are not proposing’to prohibit the school in the project they are
proposing, we are simply saying that it can’t come in under CF Zoning, but it can come in under the other
zoning that allows it by CUP.
Commissioner Trigas asking if the proposing to share the land is with the Church with a school as part of
it or is it an entirely separate school?
Ms. Blackburn stated that actually the situation is (and you are all familiar with the way our Master Plans
work where we create planning areas and we give them numeric or letter designations, planning areas l-
5 will be residential and planning area 6 and 7 will be commercial etc.). So what they would like to do in
their project is take one planning area and use it for both of these uses, which is fine. But what we have
indicated is that for the school itself, you just need to have split zoning on that planning area, so that you
can accommodate a school on part of it and your Community Facilities on another part of it and you can account for it that you are meeting your minimum requirement for Community Facilities separately from
the school. It doesn’t mean they couldn’t share parking and so forth.
Mr. Wayne stated that the City allows churches by CUP and we allow churches by CUP to have all sorts
of accessory uses including day care, by right, including schools in almost every zone except one. And
the one zone that we don’t allow the day care and that we don’t allow the schools is the industrial zone
and it is because of the tremendous hazards that a group of children would be exposed to. So we have a
separate process for that even. What Ms. Blackburn is saying is absolutely correct. There are other
ways to do that. We would envision in the CF Zone a house of worship could have an accessory school.
It couldn’t be a school that was not accessory. In other words, it couldn’t really be the primary use of the
property. Also it is inappropriate at this time to be discussing a Master Plan that is under review. There
are a number of ways and she is absolutely correct; there are a whole bunch of ways for us to address
that issue at the time it comes before you. Master Plans have their own tailor-made zoning built into
them, as do Specific Plans by law. They are adopted by Ordinance and so they are uncodified zones.
Commissioner Trigas reiterated that her interpretation is that there is that flexibility, that Mr. Howes is not
going to be ruled out of having this type of project, that depending on the specifics it would be looked at
and worked through, rather than saying no, you can’t have a school attached to a religious center.
Ms. Blackburn agreed that that was absolutely correct.
Commissioner Trigas stated that she read it as a flexible document in that regards, that staff would look
at it and make a determination. So she feels comfortable.
For clarification, Commissioner Baker asked if you have the church and you have a school which is a
private school attached to the church, K-12, and it takes up the requirements, but if you take away the
school, then you are under your acres of the Community Facilities requirement. Then you end up with a
piece of property left over because your requirements say you must have seven acres, but the church is
only taking up five and you’ve got two left over.
Ms. Blackburn went on to state that what they are trying to do with this Ordinance is get a general amount
of this Community Facilities in that area and one of the things that staff was careful to do is build in this
Allowed Use which says other similar uses as determined to be appropriate by the planning director. And
that is what we want to do. What we don’t want to do is build so much detail and rule into an Ordinance
that while it may accommodate one plan, it totally distorts another one. Our primary concern here about
schools frankly is not small schools associated with churches. We have the latitude to do that, but what
happens if an applicant comes in and proposes a large private school that is not affiliated with anything,
but is now qualified to satisfy all their Community Facilities requirement. One applicant may not propose
that, but the next one might.
Commissioner Baker concurred, but asked what happens though, we have a land requirement here and
they put a Community Facility in but that Community Facility doesn’t take up all the land that we are
requiring for it? Are we going to be able to be a little flexible about that?
Planning Commission Minutes February 7,200l Page 13
Mr. Wayne replied yes and no. The ordinance calls for ten years and if at the end of ten years, the
applicant files an application for an amendment on that parcel and lets say they have a seven acre
requirement and they have five acres under community facilities use and they can’t find a user for these
last remnant two acres, it becomes the discretion of the Planning Commission to turn it into multi-family
residential, as an example. So it’s certainly a possibility, to covert the parcel to non-community facilities
uses, but it is under the amendment process and that is why we put the requirement in the ordinance. If
you recall, you had an item before you just recently dealing with exactly the same issue and so we
decided to address that issue here. If after ten years the Commission finds it is OK to convert the
community facilities parcels to other uses, then so be it.
Commissioner Nielsen referred to that particular site that had a two acre parcel on it that we couldn’t find
anyone, it was too small for anybody to use and it looks like we’re coming back with this same acreage
as a minimum.
Mr. Wayne stated that staff doesn’t agree. The reservation in Arroyo La Costa is a similar size and two
acres-that was two acres net and two acres net is sufficient. It is not sufficient for some of the larger
places of worship that want five, ten acres, but it is for a lot of the others, as an example. For these
examples we are using house of worship but for a boys and girls club or senior center-two acres is
certainly sufficient.
DISCUSSION
None
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded by Commissioner L’Heureux
that the Planning Commission Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 4853
recommending approval of a Negative Declaration and adopt Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 4854, 4855 and 4856 recommending approval of
GPA 99-01, ZCA 99-02 and LCPA 99-02 based upon the findings contained
therein.
VOTE: 7-o-o
AYES: Segall, Trigas, Nielsen, Heineman, L’Heureux, Baker, Compas
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
PLANNING COMMISSI( 114 January 3,200l Page 6
Mr. Wayne responded that in most cases it must be zero and in some cases they might be able to get five
feet. Any more than that, the house would probably fall off the cliff.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
7-o-o
Segall, Trigas, Nielsen, Baker, Heineman, L’Heureux, Compas
None
None
3. GPA 99-Ol/ZCA 99-02/LCPA 99-02 - COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE - Request for
approval of a citywide General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment, and Local
Coastal Program Amendment to create a new “CF - Community Facilities” land use
designation in the General Plan and a new “C-F - Community Facilities” zone in Title 21
and to amend the adopted “P-C” Zone and to clarify existing General Plan wording
regarding allowed density.
Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne, advised the Commission that Staff is again requesting a
continuance and explained that the City is still in negotiations with the affected major property owners within
the city. He further stated that there have been some significant issues raised and those issues are
currently being studied and, with that in mind, Staff wishes to continue this item to a date uncertain. He
added that they anticipate that this item will be back, perhaps, for the first or second meeting in February
and it will be re-noticed.
Chairperson Segall asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to address this item. Seeing no one
wishing to speak, Chairperson Segall called for a motion.
MOTION:
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas, and duly seconded, to return this item to Staff
and that it be continued to a date uncertain.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
7-o-o
Segall. Trigas, Nielsen, Baker, Heineman, L’Heureux, Compas
None
None
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
2. PUD 97-04(A) - KELLY RANCH VILLAGE “E” - Request for approval of amendments to add
disclosure regarding a potential permanent sewer pump station adjacent to the subdivision, to
address changed circumstances regarding the provision of the inclusionary housing, and to allow
on-site recreational vehicle storage within the subdivision boundaries of Kelly Ranch Village “E”,
generally located east of El Camino Real and south of Cannon Road in Local Facilities
Management Zone 8.
In the absence of the Project Planner, Christer Westman, and Project Engineer, Mike Shirey, Assistant
Planning Director, Gary Wayne presented the staff report as follows: This is a request for an amendment to
the Planned Unit Development 97-04(A), which is Village “E” for Kelly Ranch. Originally this project was
approved as a 144 unit Planned Unit Development, all single-family, detached houses on smaller than
normal R-l -7,500 square foot lots. It complied with all of the ordinances and the policies at the time it was
approved by the City. Two of the responsibilities of the project that were to be satisfied, off-site, were the
inclusionary housing responsibility, which is approximately twenty-two dwelling units, and the R.V. storage
responsibility, which is approximately 2,880 square feet. Subsequent to the approval of this project, the City
PLANNING COMMISSION December 6,200O Page 2
MOTION:
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Segall, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4881 and 4882
approving PCDlGPC 00-04 and PCDlGPC 00-05, including the errata sheet
dated December 6,2000, based upon the findings contained therein.
VOTE ON MOTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
7-o-o
Compas, Heineman, Trigas, Nielsen, L’Heureux, Baker, Segall
None
None
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne stated that staff is recommending that agenda items #2, #3 and
#lO be continued until the Planning Commission regular meeting of January 3, 2001.
Chairperson Compas asked if there was anyone wishing to speak on the aforementioned agenda items,
Seeing no one wishing to testify or stating opposition to having any of the items continued Chairperson
Compas called for a Motion.
MOTION:
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, that agenda items #2,
#3, and #lo, be continued until the regular meeting of the Planning Commission
on January 3,200l.
2. GPA 99-OllZCA 99-02/LCPA 99-02 - COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE - Request for
approval of a citywide General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment, and Local
Coastal Program Amendment to create a new “CF - Community Facilities” land use
designation in the General Plan and a new “C-F - Community Facilities” zone in Title 21
and to amend the adopted “P-C” Zone and to clarify existing General Plan wording
regarding allowed density.
3. PUD 97-04(A) - KELLY RANCH VILLAGE “E” - Request for approval of amendments
to add disclosure regarding a potential permanent sewer pump station adjacent to the
subdivision, to address changed circumstances regarding the provision of inclusionary
housing, and to allow on-site recreational vehicle storage within the subdivision
boundaries of Kelly Ranch Village “E” generally located east of El Camino Real and south
of Cannon Road in Local Facilities Management Zones 8. 9.
10. PP 24(l) - PLAZA CAMINO REAL TEMPORARY PROMOTIONAL OUTDOOR EVENTS
- Request for a Precise Plan Amendment to allow the occasional use of the Plaza
Camino Real parking lot for outdoor promotional sales events, on property generally
located at the northeast corner of Marron Road and Monroe Street in Local Facilities
Management Zone 1.
VOTE ON MOTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
7-o-o
Compas, Heineman, Nielsen, Trigas, L’Heureux, Baker, Segall
None
None
Chairperson Compas proceeded to the next public hearing.
PLANNING COMMlSSlOh November 15,200O Page IS
Chairperson Compas asked how the 480~seat auditorium would be utilized.
Mr. Grider stated that it would be a multi-purpose auditorium.
Referring to the membership numbers, Commissioner Nielsen raised question’s regarding the small
facility. - .
Mr. Grider replied that fiscal constraints dictated the size of the facility.
Chairperson Compas asked if more than one service would be conducted.
Mr. Grider stated that the plan is to offer services and ministries seven-day a week, in the evening as well
as during the day.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if the youth services would be in the classroom or public assembly area.
Mr. Grider stated that the 225-youths come to the facility for various programs during the week.
Chairperson Compas asked the anticipated date of the first service, if the project is approved.
Mr. Grider anticipated grading April 15, 2001 and completing construction early 2002, thereby having the
first service in February or March of 2002.
Commissioner Segall asked if the building was being designed to allow add-ons in the future.
Mr. Grider stated that there are no immediate plans for adding on to the facility, but high utilization of the
facility is the intent.
As there were additional questions of staff, Chairperson Compas opened public testimony.
Seeing no one wishing to testify, Chairperson Compas closed public testimony and called for a motion.
MOTION:
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Segall, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4868, 4869 and 4870,
approving Site Development Plan SDP 00-06, Conditional Use Permit CUP OO-
06, and Coastal Development Permit CDP 00-09, based on the findings and
subject to the conditions contained therein.
VOTE ON THE MOTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN :
7-o-o
Compas, Heineman, Trigas, Nielsen, L’Heureux, Baker, Segall
None
None
Chairperson closed the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne mentioned that the Planning Commission’s action on agenda
item #9 is a recommendation and advisory to the City Council.
9. GPA 9991KCA 99-021LCPA 99-02 - COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE - Request for
approval of a citywide General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment, and Local
Coastal Program Amendment to create a new “CF - Community Facilities” land use
designation in the General Plan and a new “CF - Community Facilities” zone in Title 21
and to amend the adopted “P-C” Zone and to clarify existing General Plan wording
regarding allowed density.
PLANNING COMMISSION November 15,200O Page 19
Referring to overhead slides, Senior Planner, Elaine Blackburn, the author of the ordinance, presented
agenda item #9 as follows: This project consists of several text changes to the General Plan and to the
City’s Zoning regulations (Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code). The major changes have to do with
creating a new General Plan land use designation and new zoning regulations for “community facilities”
uses and a housekeeping item not related to “community facilities”.
Proposed Changes
GPA 99-01
9 Community Facilities requirements
New CF land use category
New CF goal, objective, policies
9 Housekeeping items
Clarification of density calculation
Typographical correction
ZCA 99-02
9 New C-F (Community Facilities) Zone
9 Amendment of P-C (Planned Community Zone
LCPA 9942
9 Zoning and Local Coastal Program consistency
Ms. Blackburn stated that the zone code amendment would create a new “CF” (Community Facilities)
zone, which would implement the General Plan Land Use designation and involves some minor word
amendment to the existing “PC” zone, which is applied to Master Plans making it consistent with the new
General Plan wording and the “CF” zone that is being created. A local Coastal Amendment is included
and is necessary to ensure the consistency between the coastal program wording and the zoning.
Ms. Blackburn stated that in 1994 when the General Plan was updated; City Council requested that
wording be included to ensure that the Community Facilities requirements were met. Objective 8.4 was to
ensure that new master planned communities and residential specific plans contributed to a balanced
community by providing, within the development, adequate areas to meet some social/human service
needs such as sites for worship, daycare, youth and senior citizen activities, etc. Policy C.12 requires
new master planned developments and residential specific plans of over 100 acres to provide usable
acres to be designated for community facilities such as daycare, worship, youth and senior citizen
activities. The exact amount of land will be determined by a future amendment to the Planned Community
Zone. The results are as follows:
Calavera Hills (1974) - no provision
Aviara (1987) - church or daycare allowed
Arroyo La Costa (1990) - daycare required
Zone 20 (1993) - no requirement
Poinsettia Shores (1994) - no requirement
Ranch0 Carrillo (1997) - site reservation for 3 years
Poinsettia Properties (1997) - no requirement
Villages of La Costa - 2 acre daycare 8 1% of net developable acreage for
other CF
The proposed General Plan amendment involves two types of changes. The first part of the proposed
General Plan amendment involves revising the wording of the Land Use Element to create a new land use
designation for “CF” (Community Facilities) land uses. The second part of the amendment involves
revising existing wording in the Land Use Element to clarify the allowed density on sites with exceptional
circumstances. The second part is not related to community facilities. Ms. Blackburn discussed each of
these aspects in detail.
Addressing questions of lot size raised by Commissioners Trigas and Baker, Ms. Blackburn stated that it
was difficult to get too specific in allowing different degrees of requirements and sizes in an ordinance
because the ordinance cannot be made to fit every conceivable situation.
Citing a scenario with a 1 IO-acre subdivision and a request for a 5-acre church site; Commissioner
Nielsen asked if the project would have to be brought before the Commission for a CUP. d
PLANNING COMMISSION November 15,200O Page 20
Ms. Blackburn replied that uses other than daycare under the draft ordinance would require a CUP.
Continuing the presentation, Ms. Blackburn stated that the Time Period, as it is called out in the General
Plan, should be sufficient to allow development. of supporting residential uses; centrally located unless
non-central is more effective; one unified site, unless more smaller sites are more effective and amend
Municipal Code to create a “CF” Zone.
Regarding the Zone Code Amendment, She stated that the draft ordinance creates a new chapter in the
Municipal Code, Chapter 21.25; all of the development standards and regulatory requirements for the
community facilities are included in thecode. The new chapter is the primary means of implementing the
General Plan CF requirements and land use designation.
Commenting that the phrase adult senior daycare was condescending, Commissioner Trigas expressed
objections to referring to the senior centers as adult senior daycare facilities.
Ms. Blackburn replied that it was the term that planning association documents use and that there are
“adult daycare centers” which serve just that purpose.
Referring to the staff report and outlining the intent and purpose of the draft ordinance, Ms. Blackburn
discussed in detail the various key aspects of the draft ordinance: She noted that a letter from Thomas
Hageman was received on November 15, 2000. In conclusion, Ms. Blackburn stated that staff
recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of agenda item #9, including the memo
dated November 15,200O.
Referring to the letter received from Mr. Hageman, Commissioner Segall asked if staff worked with
anyone in the private sector during the creation of this draft ordinance.
Ms. Blackburn replied no.
Commissioner Segall asked how and to whom the staff report was distributed.
Ms. Blackburn stated that a special noticing or mail out of the staff report was not done. She stated that
typically staff reports are not mailed, but mentioned that a number of developers were aware of the draft
ordinance and picked up the staff report. They also knew about it during the process of drafting it.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if there was any provision for the maintenance of the properties during the
ten-years.
Ms. Blackburn stated that the maintenance of the site in the draft ordinance is not addressed; the
developer is either going to maintain ownership until it develops or is sold. Owners are responsible for
maintaining sites.
Commissioner Nielsen commented that there was no mention of cost.
Noting that the cost of land was extremely high and voluntary reservation of these lands are not
forthcoming and non-profits don’t have an opportunity to locate in the Master Plans, Ms. Blackburn replied
that an ordinance was not the appropriate place to discuss cost.
Commissioner Baker asked what precipitated the ordinance, since the developers are required to set
aside property for community facilities use.
Ms. Blackburn replied that the General Plan has a policy that directs staff to do an amendment to
accomplish this. Staff has tried by policy to have developers reserve sites for community facilities; a
codified requirement would make it easier to accomplish.
Commissioner Baker asked how manJ parcels the draft ordinance would affect.
Ms. Blackburn replied that the Robertson Ranch property is a prime candidate for a Master Plan and
possibly a few others.
PLANNING COMMISSION November 15,200O Page 2 I
Commissioner Baker asked how the draft ordinance would affect projects already in the works.
Ms. Blackburn stated that developers of projects in the works, Villages of La Costa Master Plan and Bressi
Ranch Master Plan, are designing Master Plans that comply fully with the anticipated requirements.
Chairperson Compas opened public testimony.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY:
Paul Klukas, Planner with Planning Systems, 1530 Faraday Ave, Carlsbad, acknowledging that the
creation of a community facility zone is a good idea, he expressed concern regarding the way the draft
ordinance is written; noting that it is a requirement for potentially huge community facility obligations and
can be imposed on beginning Master Plans as well as Master Plans in the latter stages of development
and build-out of the Master Plans. He stated that if it is the City’s intention to retrofit the projects that are
the latter stages of development, it could be an extreme hardship on the final portions of the Master Plans
and developers, unless the ordinance provides some degree of discretion and flexibility. He stated that he
believed this was not a Master Plan issue at this point, but that it could be a City planning issue or an
overall land use issue. He stated that on the surface staffs approach may seem attractive; in practice the
approach may create unworkable circumstances for projects that are in the latter portion of the
development of Master Plan areas. He suggested that it would be worthwhile to explore other ways of
dealing with the problem; possibly in consultation with the private sector. He recommended that the item
be continued, so that other options could be discussed in order to determine the most equitable and
workable way to resolve the problem.
Commissioner Nielsen asked for examples of the inequities.
Mr. Klukas stated that there are projects in the City that are three-quarters or two-thirds built out and if
these projects have to provide community facilities for their section of the Master Plan, that perhaps would
be equitable, but a circumstance where the shortfall has to be made up before this ordinance went into
effect it could be a huge effort. He stated that he was particularly concerned about the wording in the staff
report on page 8, paragraph 4, “Fifth, the new zone (Section 21.25.070) establishes the minimum size of
the area to be reserved. For large developments (100 or more gross acres), reservation of a 2-gross acre
day care facility site and 1% of the net developable acreage of the entire master plan or specific plan area
for other community facilities uses is required.” He stated the entire master plan area would be very
onerous on projects that are only building a portion of the master plan.
Commissioner Trigas stated that it was her understanding that it is only on the undeveloped land.
Ms. Blackburn stated that if a developer proposes an amendment that involves loo-acres or more of
undeveloped land, the developer would have to provide the daycare site and 1% of the net developable
acreage of the entire master plan. The key is that most of the master plans have net developable acreage
that is considerably less than gross.
Mike Howes, Hoffman Planning Associates, 5900 Pasteur Court, Carlsbad, stated that Section 21.25070,
Exhibit A, of the ordinance addresses the minimum size requirements, but not does state specifically that
any combination of the allowed community facility uses can be applied.
Noting the lateness of the hour and acknowledging that agenda item ##9 needed further discussion, Mr.
Wayne suggested that the item be continued. He noted that it was not the intent of the draft ordinance
that a developer would have to make up for the already developed portion of a 1 ,OOO-acre master plan. In
addition, he stated that there are clarifications that need to be made on several points and in the interim
discussions can take place with the affected parties.
Chairperson Compas closed public testimony.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Segall asked if the item were continued, could the development and building community be
alerted about the draft ordinance and input gathered before it comes back before the Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION November 15,200O Page 22
Ms. Blackburn stated that special noticing could be sent out prior to the Council hearing. Mr. Wayne
pointed out that those affected parties were currently in the room.
MOTION:
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas, and duly seconded, that agenda item #9 be
continued, until the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on December 6,
2000.
VOTE ON MOTION:
VOTE: 7-o-o
AYES: Compas, Heineman, Trigas, Nielsen, L’Heureux, Baker, Segall
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chairperson Compas closed the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS:
Commissioner Nielsen requested that staff provide the Commission with information regarding how many
large undeveloped parcels the draft ordinance would apply to.
Chairperson Compas asked how much below loo-acres would still require that a 2-acre community
facility.
PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTS:
Mr. Wayne stated that guidelines for traffic impact studies would be included in the Commission’s package
and it will be placed on the next agenda.
Mr. Wayne stated the on November 13, 2000 the Coastal Commission approved the inclusionary housing
ordinance as submitted, over the objections of their staff.
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS:
None
By proper motion, the Regular meeting of the Planning Commission of November 15, 2000 was adjourned
at 9:59 p.m.
I
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRllTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
REVISED
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council 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 Tuesday, March 27, 2001 to consider a
request for approval of a citywide General Plan Amendment, Zone Code
Amendment, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to create a new “CF -
Community Facilities” land use designation in the General Plan and a new “C-F -
Community Facilities” zone in Title 21 and to amend the adopted “P-C” Zone and
to amend the conditional uses regulations and to clarify existing General Plan
wording regarding allowed density.
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 March
16, 2001. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the
Planning Department at (760) 602-4621.
If you challenge the General Plan Amendment, 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: GPA 99-Ol/ZCA 99-02/LCPA 99-02
CASE NAME: COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE
PUBLISH: FRIDAY, MARCH 9,200l
CITY OF CARLSBAD
City Clerk’s Office
Janice Breitenfeld,
Deputy City Clerk
mULED 3-8-01
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive l Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989 - (760) 434-2808 a9
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING a7
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the ’ y of Carlsbad will
hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 C
4”’
sbad Village Drive,
Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 2 2001 to consider a
request for approval of a citywide General Plan Amendment, Zone Code
Amendment, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to create a new “CF -
Community Facilities” land use designation in the General Plan and a new “C-F -
Community Facilities” zone in Title 21 and to amend the adopted “P-C” Zone and
to amend the conditional uses regulations and to clarify existing General Plan
wording regarding allowed density.
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 March
16, 2001. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the
Planniw Department at (760) 602-4621.
If you challenge the General Plan Amendment, 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: GPA 99-Ol/ZCA 99-OZ/LCPA 99-02
CASE NAME: COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE
PUBLISH: FRIDAY, MARCH 9,200l
CITY OF CARLSBAD
City Clerk’s Office
Janice Breitenfeld,
Deputy City Clerk
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, CA 92008-l 989 * (760) 434-2808 e9
City of Carlsbad
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, February 7, 2001, to consider a request for approval of a citywide
General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to
create a new “CF - Community Facilities” land use designation in the General Plan and a new
“C-F - Community Facilities” zone in Title 21 and to amend the adopted “P-C” Zone and to
amend the conditional uses regulations and to clarify existing General Plan wording regarding
allowed density.
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 February 1, 2001. If you have
any questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4621.
If you challenge the GeneFat Plan Amendment, 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: GPA 99-Ol/ZCA 99-02/LCPA 99-02
CASE NAME: COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE
PUBLISH: JANUARY 2542001
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559 l www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
Smooth Feed S heetsTM
City Clerk 1 .Ibl
Use template for 5:t;< :
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST
801 PINE AVE 1 CIVIC CENTER DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008 SAN MARCOS CA 92069
SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST LEUCADIA CNTY WATER DIST
701 ENCINITAS BLVD 1960 LA COSTA AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024 CARLSBAD CA 92009
CITY OF ENCINITAS CITY OF SAN MARCOS
505 S VULCAN AVE 1 CIVIC CENTER DR
ENCINITAS CA 92024 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
VALLECITOS WATER DIST
788 SAN MARCOS BLVD
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STE 50 STE B
330 GOLDENSHORE 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD
LONG BEACH CA 90802 SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE CA COASTAL COMMISSION
2730 LOKER AVE WEST STE 103
CARLSBAD CA 92008 7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
JACK HENTHORN & ASSOC PLANNING SYSTEMS
STE D STE 100
5375 AVENIDA ENCINAS 1530 FARADAY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY
SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
DEPT
2/23/2001
AVERY@ Address Labels
ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST
101 RANCH0 SANTA FE RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
OLIVENHAIN WATER DIST
1966 OLIVENHAIN RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOC
STE 150
5900 PASTEUR CT
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BRIAN MILICH
MCMILLIN HOMES
2727 HOOVER AVE
NATIONAL CITY CA 91950
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Laser 5160@
@09TS 1asE-J
City Clerk 1 .Ibl
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
ELAINE BLACKBURN
2/23/2001
VW1 =aJPPV @jAUM)f @ iw
wlwaqs paad wow
CALTRANS DISTRICT 11 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY BD
BILL FIGGE STACEY BACZKOWSKI
MAIL ST 50 STE B
P 0 BOX 85406 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92186-5406 SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMIN WESTERN REG
BARRY BRAYER, AWP-8
PO BOX 92007
LOS ANGELES CA 90009
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
RONALD M JAEGER
2800 COlTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION & HSG AGENCY CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
PATRICIA W NEAL DEPUTY SEC HOUSING STE 103
STE 2450 7575 METROPOLITAN DR
980 NINTH ST SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK
SUPERINTENDENT
1901 SPINNAKER DR
SAN BUENA VENTURA CA 93001
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CHAIRMAN
722 JACKSON PL NW
WASHINGTON DC 20006
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
STE 1100
1330 BROADWAY
OAKLAND CA 94612
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
GARY RESOURCE CONSER
STE 102
2121-C SECOND ST
DAVIS CA 95616
DEPARTMENTOFDEFENSE
LOS ANGELES DIST ENGINEER
PO BOX 2711
LOS ANGELES CA 90053
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
STE 400
611 RYAN PLAZA DR
ARLINGTON TX 7601 l-4005
DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIV
P 0 BOX 944246
SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
DOUG WICKIZER, ENVIR COORD
P 0 BOX 944246
SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460 ’
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
RM 700
IIOWESTAST
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
DEPARTMENTOFDEFENSE
COMMANDANT, 1 ITH NAVAL DIST, DIST CIVIL
ENGR
SAN DIEGO CA 92132
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
CLIFFORD EMMERLING, DIR
STE 350
901 MARKET ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD & AGRICULTURE
STEVE SHAFFER, AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
RM 100
1220 N ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVE
DUNCAN LENT HOWARD, REG ADMIN
450 GOLDEN GATE AVE
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RM 5504
1120NST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
ENERGY RESOURCES, CONSERVATION &
DEVELOPMENT COMM
CHUCK NAJARIAN
1516 NINTH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
MARINE resources REGION, DR & G
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, SPR
350 GOLDEN SHORE
LONG BEACH CA 90802
OFFICE OF PLANNING & RESEARCH
OFFICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
PO BOX 3044
SACRAMENTO CA 93044
NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC
ADMIN OCRM,55MC4
N/ORM - 3
1305 EAST-WEST HWY
SILVER SPRING MD 20910
RESOURCESAGENCY SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION &
RM 1311 DEVMT COMMISSION
1416 NINTH ST BILL TRAVIS
SACRAMENTO CA 95812 STE 2600
SO REGION TECHNICAL SERVICES
JOHN WALSTROM
8885 RIO SAN DIEGO DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108
U. S. BUREAU OF LAND MGMT
STE RM WI834
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
50 CALIFORNIA ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 9411 l-4704
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
DWIGHT SANDERS
STE 1005
100 HOWE AVE
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202
U. S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
LOWER COLORADO REG
PO BOX 427
BOULDER CO 89005
U. S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
MID-PACIFIC REGION
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
LILY ALYEA
STE 702
333 MARKET ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105-2197
WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BD
PO BOX 100
SACRAMENTO CA 95801
REG WATER QUALITY CONTROL BD
REGION (9) SAN DIEGO
STE B
9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331
U. S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE
STE W-2605
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-l 888
USDA - RURAL DEVLOPMENT
DEPT 4169
430 ST
DAVIS CA 95616
SANDAG-LAND USE COMMISS
JACK KOERPER
STE 800
401 “B” STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
JAN SOBEL
5620 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE SERVICE
JOHN MARTIN
2730 LOKER AV WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TABATA FARMS
PO BOX 1338
CARLSBAD CA 92018
SIERRA CLUB SAN DIEGO CHAPTER
CRAIG ADAMS
3820 RAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
-LESLIE ESPOSITO
1893 AMELFI DRIVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
ANTHONY & DICKY BONS
25709 HILLCREST AVE
ESCONDIDO CA 92026-8650
CITY OF ENCINITAS
COM DEV DEPT
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
SANDAG - EXEC DIRECTOR
KENNETH E SULZER
STE 800
1 ST INT’L PLAZA 401 “B” ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
GUY MOORE JR
6503 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CYRIL AND MARY GIBSON
12142 ARGYLE DRIVE
LOS ALAMITOS CA 90702
LAKESHORE GARDENS
BILL MCLEAN
7201 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN LAMB
1446 DEVLIN DRIVE
LOS ANGELES CA 90069
SAN DIEGO GAS 8, ELECTRIC
KIM SEIBLY
PO BOX 1831
SAN DIEGO CA 92112
COUNTY OF SD SUPERVISOR BILL HORN
ART DANELL
RM 335
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
SD CO PLANNING & LAND USE DEPT
JAON VOKAC
STE B-5
5201 RUFFIN ROAD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
LANIKAI LANE PARK
SHARP SPACE 3
6550 PONTO DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SPIERS ENTERPRISES
DWIGHT SPIERS
STE 139
23 CORPORATE PLAZA
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
STATE LANDS COMMISSSION
MARY GRIGGS
STE 100s
100 HOWE AVE
SACRAMENTO CA 958258202
PERRY A LAMB
890 MERE POINT ROAD
BRUNSWICK ME 04011
CRA PRESIDENT
LEE ANDERSON
5200 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
RICHARD RETECKI
STE 1100
1330 BROADWAY
OAKLAND CA 94612
DALE/DONNA SCHREIBER
7163 ARGONAURA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FLOYD ASHBY
416 LA COSTA AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
GEORGE BOLTON
6583 BLACKRAIL ROAD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
z .II v .m 0 Q
9 .u
iii
l v
8
Tr
8
LL
v
3 aJ
z a
L: l m
s
3
E
I=
E
0 .m
s O-
” 5
a
s 0 .m
ir a&
2
ou -
5
E Q
2! ba 0
R I-
O
0 u
v
-a
a3 cd 0 r) 0 L n
w s 0 N
E 0
v
l -
S
-+
E
E 0
u
w
iii
S
crj
fL
v d
%
S W
E w S w
E
<
l
-us SU mc
bn3 s .”
‘E 2
00 Nu
c/) a3 l u
l u
0 w
-- 0 PI
u &E ,.u 8w 4-a
f= v)
-
S m h L l -
S
E s E E 0 u
e+ W E a 0
0
3:
S 3 l -
r l -
u
5 l -
S
s!
w
S
m
w
g S m
W s m
-. CE!
3
E 0 v) n
W
E
-VI
a& s Q) +;
fs’ 0 WC)
U I 0 A
-u =, L l u 3w 33 S-
.N a *- l - -
u l -
L 3
W s
0
S W
E 73 S W
E m
z s
3
m
A a
w
iis *m
E
5 W w
ow z s
s
m \ .5 3 WS W sw
2 .v,
l - W =rL
2
g 0 N
mm S I
E
E 0
w
w
E S
rrJ a
n
m L ala I a3
u mw OW 0% - cl 5 0
“0 W a
S 0 l w
l m
F
0
k
s W
i!
s l m
m 0 I
S
u
I
0 c\)
E 0 N
2 m l m
>
4
n
-w S 0 v
s m w &
-0 s
I
xl l -
L. W Q 0 L L1.
m .- I I w
2 .- 0 911
t
I c w
E W L ou 3 u W L
t
w _c I 0
L
w tm
gLL -w
cfl) S 0 mu c/) s
v s 0
u
c v a 0 L Q Q m
A 0 l -
3
S w
in l n
m c 0 u S
0
0 on m
2 w
li? L
m W
3 W L
+
W
> W v
L W
ti m
W > an
r” w h 9.m
x2 W
0% 0 s + 3;
f
c/lr
w
l u
mu
E E 0 w
-S 0 l -
s
S
bt) l -
s W
%
-1
W
S
m
S m
ti?
l -
u .m
0 Q
2s
c l -
s W l -
a
0
W?
m
0
ba
S
m
n
2 W S W
w
3 W
z
+
2 W S W
w
3 W
z
t
.* CL
T v) 4 CL
t:
M s .m ‘t;: .m
aJ
2 m
3 aJ
E
0
QI
in 0
QI S 0 N
2 L I U 2
m
3
it v
0
Q)
z u -
ii .m v .w s 3
t:
2 ah
E
<
0
4 v N
w w
l u
u
m
L
on s L
E 0 U
W S- 0 N
Ln w
0
3 W
z
t
S
2 n
3
E W U
bn S
l w
E W
E W cI_ E ;z 0
S 0
l w
2
bl) l -
z
W
tit
3
W S
m
W S m
L S W
E
2 l w
s
m
2
L
u
W S 0 N
I
PI.
0 9
E W
E n S W
E
t
cd S 0 on I on = S 0
w
0
E W
E ‘0 S W
E
4
+
2 0 N
L I v
0
k e W cd a
0
N
3 w
z
I
c/1) w l -
l m
Q m
l w
S
3 w m 0 c) L s n
m S m
s w
S
S W W
l -
u
a
3 l W
S
3
E
E 0
u
22
l -
E W W l -
0
f-
a
W S m S 0 l - on u m
Ir_
on
S
s
W
l m
w l -
l -
-u
e
3 a-
S
3
E
E 0
u
0 t- 0
w a
u ti
l W
u W . Q v) m 0. s W W l -
cn
W S (0
2 m Q
5 % E
3 W
z
a
S
s 0 CT
b u
m l -
E W W
l -
2
m l -
E W W l -
z!
L
0
3
VI
m
E
W
s!
0
ii
Q
T
L S W
E W S W
E m
5
W
St 0
8 kb
0 0
u G
l -
v W Q m
m S .w
->
> c l W
0
7 s c
S W s 3
bn S en
ti m I v)
2 crj W A
0
E CT
E l n
S on
t:
+
0
m
L
n W > 0 L Q Q m
S W W a
W > m _1
v) S 0 l m
‘t; W Q VI
bo c l -
S
s
m
Q
3 am
_I
S W n l -
z
L
in
1
ti
W s
S l -
3 l -
S
n
m
i
l w
u
‘s;
h
0
m 9,
s
w 73
w
l w
l m
v
e
L 2 w n
0 3
75 s L W s
0 n
a -- 4 +
a
+
m l .-
I
S
w
m l u
ti?
&
‘;:
w
s
co
t.
‘0
w
I
Q 0
‘d
m
I
*
a 0 on > w sm CL
t
l *
‘0
w
‘b
s
w
E
cd
bl)
s l u
w
s
2
m
z 2
s W
E m s W
E a
s .-
W b.0 m
2
%
u ti
bn
l u
W
3=
m
c 0 0 L
w W z u
l m
a
l u
W > W
m \ 4 0 t*r)
t
c 0 0 3u
z c
m
cl, > W
@+I \ 4
d”
@4
t
W r)
< L W
in m E
W L 0
f c/)
-a L
a
n
s
m
m
s
m
l u
c/) W
n
n s m
s 0
l u
m
u
0
a
L W - m L
s W u
k 0
E v)
W 1 0
E
f l w
T3 S
t3 0 3;
‘0 W
z u 0 0
,I-
bn
*u fw Q)e WW
t
1.
l u
0
u W
h/
W L
3; v) 0
u m l W
m
4
0
0
a
t
W
I S 0 GN l u
ZV mu
l u I
h .
I * s ‘2 Q) I
E E v F s
0 W
; E
4
W S 0 N
L I v
0 I
L
2 W L
0 I
bl) S l W ‘b L 0 3
-a W -a S W
E
4
t
I
VI W mu
l u -
l u
I)
co
L
S
E E 0
v
m
S 0 l u
l u
m
S 0
v
0
W
n
S W
S 0 l W
s
u
u=
l u
L
a
u
t
W I
bn
l u
c) W W & W m
0
EC
u m L
h II l u
S
3
E
E 0
u
0
I
m W
s
W L
I 0
z
t
S 0 l u
El
u
c l u
L
m
c
A
r .-
E W
n
t
S l -
S
0 l w
s
m
* 0 Ln w
F 3
E .m
S 0 l u
m
n
S W
0 u W
cd
w -
E -I
E 0 I
0 m
va