HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-07; City Council; 17339; Various Code Changes10-7-03 MTG.
Administrative Reviewed Final at Planning by and
Commission Approvals Project application(s)
Environmental Review -
DEPT. PLN~
Reviewed by and
Final at Council
CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
TITLE:
ZCA 00-021 MCA 03-01/LCPA 00-09
VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
Negative Declaration
Zone Code Amendment
Municipal Code Amendment
Local Coastal Program Amendment
T CITY ATTY.
X X
X
X
CITY MGR
Staff
Planning Cornmission
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Minor subdivisions (no more than 4 lots) in the R-1 zone
Minor subdivisions in the
R-A and R-3 zones
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. , ADOPTING a Negative Declaration and
APPROVING Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 00-09 based upon the findings contained
therein, and INTRODUCE Ordinance No. NS-675 and Ordinance No. NS-676 , APPROVING
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance (ZCA 00-02) and Municipal Code (MCA 03-01).
2003-264
Major subdivisions with 5 to 50 lots
ITEM EXPLANATION:
All minor subdivisions with 2 or more panhandle lots and major subdivisions up to 50
lots
This item proposes many changes to both the Zoning Ordinance (Title 21) and other titles of the
Municipal Code. The changes will make the Zoning Ordinance easier to use and improve its
consistency internally and with other city regulations. A summary of the changes follows:
Revise variance findings and standardize the appeal process for most land use proposals;
Revise and clarify some review procedures and development standards;
Repeal and replace outdated or superseded names and titles;
Repeal density provisions inconsistent with the General Plan; and
Define wireless communication facilities and incorporate a city policy on the same.
0
0
0
0
At the August 20, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, no members of the public spoke on this item.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously (6-0, Segall absent), to recommend that the City
Council adopt a negative declaration and approve the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and
Local Coastal Program. The Commission also received and filed the proposed ordinance amending
Municipal Code titles other than the Zoning Ordinance. As part of its motion, the Commission
recommended changes to the revisions staff proposed to the review procedures for subdivisions with
panhandle or flag lots. Details on the existing and proposed review requirements follow.
Existing and Proposed Review Ret
Note: Subdivisions with panhandl
Existing
iirements for Subdivisions with Panhandle Lots
bfs are allowed only in fhe R-A, R-E, and R-1 zones.
Planning Commission
recommended Sta ff-proposed
All minor subdivisions
All minor subdivisions, including those with no more than 1 Danhandle lot
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 17,339
All major subdivisions (5 Major subdivisions with City Council or lots) more than 50 lots
Major subdivisions with more
than 50 lots
Staff‘s purpose in amending the review standards for panhandle lot subdivisions was to make the
standards identical to the existing review process for all other subdivisions. However, Commissioners
believed that minor subdivision proposals with at least two panhandle lots, particularly in in-fill areas,
warranted a public hearing before the Commission. Staff has revised the draft ordinance to reflect the
Planning Commission’s recommendation. The revisions affect Zoning Ordinance sections
21.08.080(b), 21.09.1 20(2), and 21.1 0.080(b).
Concern was also expressed about a proposed new Zoning Ordinance section that would allow
wireless communication facilities in any zone, subject to a conditional use permit and compliance
with Council Policy Statement No. 64. Upon review of this new section, The Commission questioned
why the City would permit such facilities in residential zones. In response, the City Attorney has
reviewed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and has determined the City cannot prohibit wireless
communication facilities from a particular zone or location based on Section 253(a) of the Act, which
states:
IN GENERAL - No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal
requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to
provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed project could not have a significant
effect on the environment and recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff believes the project may have a positive fiscal impact. Because the proposed changes
standardize and clarify procedures and improve consistency, use of the Zoning Ordinance and other
Municipal Code titles should be easier and less time consuming. In addition, Planning Commission
recommended changes should streamline the review of subdivisions with panhandle lots since the
threshold for Council review would increase from five to fifty-one lots.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 2003-264
2. City Council Ordinance No. NS-675
3. City Council Ordinance No. NS-676
4.
5.
6.
7.
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5449, 5450, and 5451
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated August 20, 2003 Bold and strikeout version of proposed ordinances, with Planning Commission recommended
changes
Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated August 20, 2003.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Scott Donnell, (760) 602-461 8, sdonn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
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. 2003-264
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR (1) A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT AND
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO AMEND TITLE
21 OF THE MUNICPAL CODE BY AMENDING VARIOUS
SECTIONS AFFECTING THE REVIEW AND PROCESSING OF
LAND USE APPLICATIONS, INCLUDING: (a) REVISING AND
STANDARDIZING VARIANCE FINDINGS AND THE APPEAL
PROCESS FOR MANY LAND USE PROJECTS; (b) REVISING
AND CLARIFYING SOME REVIEW PROCEDURES AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; (c) REPLACING AND
REPEALING OUTDATED OR SUPERSEDED NAMES AND
TITLES; (d) REPEALING DENSITY PROVISIONS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN; AND (e) ADDING
A DEFINITION FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
AND INCORPORATING A CITY POLICY ON THE SAME; AND
(2) A MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT TO (a) REPLACE IN
VARIOUS MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS “BUILDING AND
PLANNING DIRECTOR,” “DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND
PLANNING,” “LAND USE PLANNING MANAGER,” “LAND USE
PLANNING OFFICE,” AND “PRINCIPAL BUILDING INSPECTOR
WITH CURRENT TITLES; AND (b) AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTIONS 19.04.0808., 19.04.110A., AND 19.04.170
REGARDING APPEAL PROCEDURES.
CASE NAME: VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
CASE NO.: ZCA 00-02 / MCA 03-01 / LCPA 00-09
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did, on August 20, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider a Negative Declaration, Zone Code Amendment ZCA 00-02, and Local Coastal
Program Amendment LCPA 00-09, and received and filed a report on Municipal Code
Amendment (MCA 03-01 ) and adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5449, 5450, and
5451 recommending to the City Council that they be approved and;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 7th day of
October , 2003, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said Negative Declaration,
Zone Code Amendment, Municipal Code Amendment (MCA 03-01), and a Local Coastal
Program Amendment, and at that time received recommendations, objections, protests,
comments from all persons interested in or opposed to ZCA 00-02, MCA 03-01 and LCPA 00-09
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
NOW, THEREFORE, 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. 5449 (Negative Declaration), 5450 (ZCA 00-02), and 5451 (LCPA 00-09)
constitute the findings of the City Council in this matter.
3. That the Negative Declaration is adopted as shown on Exhibits “ND,”
“NOI” and “PII” attached hereto and made a part hereof.
4. That the Local Coastal Program Amendment is approved as shown in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5451 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by
reference.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of October
2003, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Hall, and Packard
NOES: None
Council Member Kulchin
ATTEST:
Page 2 of 2 of Resolution No. 2003-264
-2- i-/
- City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME:
CASE NO:
PROJECT LOCATION:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
lesser extent, other titles of the
VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
Not applicable
ZCA 00-02LCPA 00-09/MCA 03-01
The project revises portions of the text of the Zoning Ordinance and, to a
City’s Municipal Code. A Local Coastal Program Amendment is necessary
because the Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance of the Local Coastal Program. Proposed
changes would (1) revise and standardize variance findings and the appeal process for many land use
projects? (2) revise and clarify some review procedures and development standards? (3) replace and delete
outdated or superseded names and titles, (4) delete density provisions inconsistent with the General Plan,
and (5) add a definition for wireless communication facilities and incorporate a city policy on the same. The
-project proposes no development and does not affect any property or section of the City in particular.
DETERMINATION: 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, the initial study
(EIA Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment, and the City of
Carlsbad finds as follows:
IXI
0
0
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
The proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least
one potentially significant impact 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. (Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that
remained to be addressed).
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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLAMTION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is
required.
A copy of the initial study (EL4 Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file
in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED:
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
- City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
PROJECT LOCATION: CITYWIDE
CASE NO: ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09/MCA 03-0 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of text changes to the Zoning Ordinance and,
to a lesser extent, other titles of the City’s Municipal Code. The changes affect the review and
processing of administrative and discretionary actions for many types of land use proposals. A
Local Coastal Program Amendment is necessary because the Zoning Ordinance is the
implementing ordinance of the Local Coastal Program. The project proposes no physical
development. The proposed changes can be summarized and highlighted as follows:
Revise procedures for the noticing of continued hearings and the review of some
applications, including subdivisions with panhandle lots and incomplete applications.
Revise and standardize the appeal process for most types of land use decisions.
Clarify standards relating to allowed protrusions above building height limits.
Replace outdated titles, such as “land use planning manager” with “planning director”
Update the names of zones to reflect currently adopted zones.
Revising variance findings to be consistent with the California Government Code.
Delete density provisions that are inconsistent with the General Plan.
Adding a definition for “wireless communication facilities” (i.e., cellular antenna
facilities and the like) and incorporating by reference a City policy on the same.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
PROPOSED DETERMINATION: 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 saidxeview, the initial study (EL4 Part 2) did not identify any potentially
significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be
recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council.
A copy of the initial study (EM Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative
Declaration 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 the date of this notice (see deadline date below).
The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and approvaVadoption by
the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be
issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Scott
Donne11 in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4618.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS: MAY 25,2003
b PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 25,2003
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-731 4 - (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us January 30,2003
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: MCA 03-01/ZCAOO-O2/LCPA 00-09
DATE: April 11.2003
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad - 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad,
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUME3ER: Scott Donne11 - (760) 602461 8
PROJECT LOCATION: N/A -The project amlies to properties throughout Carlsbad
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad - 1635 Faraday Avenue,
Carlsbad. CA 92008
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: N/A
ZONING: NIA
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SE’ITING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES: The uroiect consists of a variety of text changes. some “housecleaning” in nature, to the
Zoning Ordinance, and, to a lesser extent, other titles of the Citv’s Municipal Code. The changes
affect the review and processing of administrative and discretionary actions for many twes of
land use Drouosals. A Local Coastal Program Amendment is necessary because the Zoning
Ordinance is the implementing ordinance of the Local Coastal Program. The uroiect proposes no
phvsical development and, since it affects realations apulicable to prouerties citvwide. there is
no specific Droiect site with a specific environmental setting or surrounding land uses. The
changes prouosed to the Zoning Ordinance can be summarized and highlighted as follows:
a. Revise urocedures for the noticing of continued heannvs and the review of some
auplications, includinv subdivisions with panhandle lots and incomplete auplications.
b. Revise and standardize the ameal urocess for most twes of land use decisions.
C. Clarifv standards relating to allowed urotrusions above building height limits. d. Reulace outdated titles. such as reulacinv “land use planning manager” with “ulanning
director”
e. Update the names of zones to reflect currentlv adopted zones.
f. Revise variance findings to be consistent with the California Government Code.
g. Delete densitv urovisions that are inconsistent with the General Plan. h. Add a definition for “wireless communication facilities” (i.e.. cellular antenna facilities
and the like) and incorporate by reference a City Council uolicy on the same.
1 Rev. 07/03/02 7
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Aesthetics 0 Geology/Soils 0 Noise
0 Agricultural Resources 0 HazardsMazardous Materials and Housing
0 Air Quality 0 Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Public Services
0 Biological Resources Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation
0 Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCirculation 0 Cultural Resources
- 0 Utilities & Service Systems u Mandatory Findings of
Significance
2 8 Rev. 07/03/02
DETERMINATION
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
1xI
0
0
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 MITIGATED 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 "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant impact 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. A Negative Declaration 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
Planner Signature Date ' '
4-/10b3 Date
3 Rev. 07/03/02 4
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
State Califomia Environmental Quality Act (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.
Thls checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project
and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported
by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source
document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not
significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
e “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated“ applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.”
The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly
Based on an “EM-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the
adverse.
0
environment, but fl potentially significant adverse 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.
0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if the significant adverse 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 adverse effect on the environment.
0 If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there
are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse 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.
4 Rev. 07/03/02
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to
the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse 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 adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding
Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3)
proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the
EM-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentialiy 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.
5 Rev. 07/03/02
ISSUES (and SUDDorting Information Sources)
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Create a new source of substantial light and glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model-1 997 prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would
the project:
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
111. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations.) Would the
project :
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6 Rev. 07/03/02
ISSUES (and Sumortine Information Sources)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
e)
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian,
aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potential] y
Significant
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7 Rev. 07/03/02 /3
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
ISSUES (and SupDorting Information Sources)
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant No
Impact Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
0 0 ow a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in 4 15064.5?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi-
cance of an archeological resource pursuant to
$15064.5?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
*
0 ow
ow 0
0
0
0 ow
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
0 0 ow i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
liquefaction?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
c)
0 nw ow
ow uw
ow
ow
0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
8 Rev. 07/03/02
ISSUES (and SuDportinp Information Sources)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
Would the project:
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Create a significant hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
environment?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
For a project within an airport land use plan, or
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use auport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
9
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl
Potentially Significant
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
0 OIXI
0 OBI
0 OBI
0
0
0
0
0
0
ow
ow
ow
Rev. 07/03/02
ISSUES (and Sumorting Information Sources)
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with ground water recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground water table
level (Le ... the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for whch permits
have been granted)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Impacts to groundwater quality?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in
a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff!
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation
map?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) . Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals,
pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics,
nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash)
into receiving surface waters or other alteration of
receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 0 OB
0 0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
ow ow
OH ow
10 Rev. 07/03/02
ISSUES (and SuDDortinp Information Sources)
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired
water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
IX.
c)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) 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?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.) XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of
other agencies?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbourne vibration or groundboume noise
levels?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Potentially
Significant
impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
0 ON
ON
0 ON
0 OIXI
0
0
0
0
0
01x1
01x1
01x1
11 Rev. 07/03/02 /7
ISSUES (and Sumortinp Information Sources)
For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
MI. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered government facilities, a
need for new or physically altered government
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
(See,Discussion' of Environmental Evaluation.)
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
. neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ixl
(XI
IXI
(XI
IXI
IXI
12 Rev. 07/03/02
ISSUES (and Sumortine Information Sources)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Result in inadequate emergency access?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Result in insufficient parking capacity?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-
outs, bicycle racks)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant environmental effects?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Potentially Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
El
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
0 om
0
0
0
0
0
om
ow
ow
ow ow ow
ow
ow
ow
ow
13 Rev. 07/03/02
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources)
Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
XVIII.
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 prehstory?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula-
tively 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?)
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.)
EARLIER ANALYSES
Potentially
Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Mitigation Significant NO
Incorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
‘U
0 ow
0 IXI
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.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,”
describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document
and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
14 Rev. 07/03/02
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONRlENTAL EVALUATION
AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
No Impact (a, b, c, and d) - The project neither proposes any new development, standard, or procedure nor
changes any existing standard or procedure in a way that would have an adverse affect on a scenic vista or resource,
on visual character, or on any view. Land use applications processed in accord with the proposed requirements and
procedures will be subject to environmental review as required by the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) at which time aesthetic impacts can be assessed.
The project may make a positive contribution toward visual quality by proposing to incorporate by reference into the
Zoning Ordinance the existing City Council policy on wireless communication facilities (which include structures
such as cellular towers and antennas). As a result, effectiveness and awareness of this policy, which includes
location and appearance guidelines, would increase.
AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
No Impact (a, b, and c) - The project’s text amendments propose no development nor do they affect any existing
standard or propose any new standard that would (1) convert farmland to a non-agricultural use; (2) conflict with
existing zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract; or (3) involve other changes in the existing
environment that would result in conversion of farmland to a non-farm use.
AIR QUALITY-Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact. None of the project’s text changes involves or affects standards for implementation of an air quality
plan.
Carlsbad is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone (03), and a
state non-attainment area for paiticulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMlo). The periodic
violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for
ozone in dand foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be
undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the
Regional Air Quality Strategies (UQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).
A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state-
mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having
serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by
the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to
15 Rev. 07/03/02
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly
regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996.
Development projects relate to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are
incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and the
County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project
presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that
a project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact.
Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific
reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality
management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set
forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California
Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the
following:
0
0
Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being
implemented. As previously mentioned, the project involves text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Municipal
Code and Local Coastal Program and proposes no development of any property. Furthermore, the project does not
propose any change that would conflict with or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan. The City will
evaluate future development proposals processed and reviewed in accord with the proposed amendments for
consistency with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is
consistent with the regional air quality plan because it will not in any way conflict with or obstructs its
implementation.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
No Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to Carlsbad is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for
this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the
state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal 8-hour
average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of
any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. The proposed amendments, which consist of general
processing and review requirement changes for land use projects, propose no physical development or air quality
planning or standard changes. Future development proposals processed and reviewed in accord with the
amendments proposed will be subject to CEQA review to determine any air quality impacts.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
No Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended tine particulates. The
project’s amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, and Local Coastal Program do not
propose or affect any standard that would result in a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net
increase in emissions throughout the air basin. Additionally, these amendments do not include a proposal for
physical development of any property in Carlsbad. Future development proposals processed and reviewed in
accord with the amendments proposed will be subject to CEQA review to determine any air quality impacts.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No Impact. The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site, nor does it propose or
affect any standards relating to air quality or pollution. Future development proposals processed and reviewed in
accord with the amendments proposed will be subject to CEQA review to determine any air quality impacts.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact. The project does not propose or affect any standard relating to air quality. The City will evaluate future
development projects subject to the proposed text revisions through the CEQA process to determine if the project
would create objectionable odors that would affect a large number of people.
16 Rev. 07/03/02 J&
BIOLOGICAL, RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
d)
No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The project does not propose or affect any standard that would result in an adverse effect
on any sensitive habitat or species, or interfere with any native or migratory wildlife corridor or native wildlife
nursery site. Future development proposals processed and reviewed in accord with the amendments proposed will
be subject to CEQA review to determine any biological resource impacts.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? f)
No Impact (e & f) - The project does not propose nor affect any standard that would result in a conflict with local
policies and ordinances that protect biological resources or the provisions of any habitat conservation plan.
g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive?
No Impact - The project’s text amendments do not include a proposal for any physical development of any site, and
none of the amendments affects or proposes any standard that would result in an adverse impact to any
environmentally sensitive tributary area. Future development proposals processed and reviewed in accord with the
amendments proposed will be subject to CEQA review to determine any potential impacts.
CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site.
Additionally, the project does not propose any new standard or affect any existing standard that would result in a
disturbance of any human remains or an adverse impact to any historical, archeological, or paleontological resource.
Since Carlsbad contains cultural resources near its lagoons, future development proposals processed and reviewed in
accord with amendments proposed by the project will be subject to CEQA review and the City’s Cultural Resource
Guidelines.
17 Rev. 07/03/02
GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
No impact (i - iv.) The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project
also does not affect or propose any standard relating to geology and soils. Though no particular site analysis is
possible, general information about earthquake and landslide impacts to Carlsbad is known. There are no Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within the City of Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active of potentially
active faults within the City. However, there are several active faults throughout Southern California, and these
potential earthquakes could affect Carlsbad. Landslides are also a potential threat in parts of the City. All
development proposals in Carlsbad are subject to site-specific environmental review pursuant to CEQA, which
results in the application of requirements such as the Uniform Building Code earthquake construction standards and
soil remediation that when necessary ensure potential adverse effects are not significant.
b3 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
No Impact - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. In addition, the
project does not affect or propose any standard regarding the control of soil erosion or topsoil loss. Any future
development subject to the project's revised processing requirements and review procedures will be subject to
mher environmental review according to CEQA and the City's Engineering standards, and done on a site specific
basis.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact (c, d & e) - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. Future
development proposals processed and reviewed in accord with the amendments proposed will be subject to CEQA
review and the City's Engineering standards on a site-specific basis.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) . Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
18 Rev. 07/03/02
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or environment?
NO Impact (a, b, c & d) - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site or a
change or adoption of any standard that would result in exposure to hazardous materials. Future development
proposals processed and reviewed in accord with the amendments proposed will be subject to CEQA review to
determine the extent and, if necessary, mitigation of hazardous materials.
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area? f)
No Impact (e & f) - The project’s proposed amendments do not affect nor propose any standard relating to the
safety of people working near an airport. The individual CEQA review of land use proposals within the influence
area of the McClellan-Palomar Airport will include evaluation of potential safety hazards based on the airport’s
Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
No Impact
response or
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
(g & h) - The project neither affects nor proposes any standard relating to an adopted emergency
evacuation plan or a standard that might expose people to a significant wildfire risk. The City will
evaluate risks associated with development projects in wildland-urban interface areas upon the submittal of the
individual project.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
0 Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
No Impact (a, b, c, d, e, f & g) -The project does not affect or propose any standard that would have an adverse
effect on water quality, groundwater, stormwater drainage, capacity, or patterns, or erosion or flooding. Future
19 Rev. 07/03/02
development proposals processed and reviewed in accord with the project’s text amendments proposed will be
subject to CEQA review to determine any potential hydrology and water quality impacts
h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map?
i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact (h & i) - Project amendments propose no development and do not affect or propose any standard that
would result in placing a building or structure with a flood hazard area. Future development proposals processed
and reviewed in accord with the amendments proposed will be subject to CEQA review to determine any potential
impacts.
j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact
would expose people to flooding risks, including flooding caused by dam breaks or tsunamis.
development subject to the proposed changes will be subject to further CEQA review on a site-specific basis.
& k) - Project amendments propose no development and do not affect or propose any standard ‘that
Any future
1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters.
m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic
organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or
other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following
construction?
0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) list?
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or
degradation of beneficial uses?
No Impact (1, m, n, o & p) - The project does not propose any development nor affect or propose any standard that
would result in increased erosion or pollutant discharges into any surface waters, a change to receiving water
quality, or an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives. Future development proposals processed and
reviewed in accord with the amendments proposed will be subject to CEQA review to determine any potential
impacts.
LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site nor does it affect any
standard that would result in the division of an established community. Any future development subject to the
project’s text amendments will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific
basis.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project (including but not limited .to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
No Impact - Proposed changes do not propose or affect any standard that would conflict with any City land use
plan, policy, or regulation. Conversely, the revisions eliminate existing conflicts and improve awareness of city
standards by (1) deleting density provisions in the Zoning Ordinance that conflict with General Plan density ranges
20 -’& Rev. 07/03/02
and Growth Management control points, and; (2) incorporating by reference into the Zoning Ordinance a city po1:cy
on wireless communication facilities.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
No Impact - The project does not affect any particular site in the site and it proposes no development.
Additionally, proposed text amendments neither affect nor propose any standard that would conflict with any habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Instead, any potential conflicts with the conservation
plans will be determined as part of the individual environmental review that land use proposals undergo.
MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) 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?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No Impact (a & b) - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site and it does
not propose or affect any standard that would result in the loss of a mineral considered important or valuable on a
local, regional, or state level. Future development processed according to the project’s text amendments will be
subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis.
NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne
noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. It also
does not affect or propose any standard that would result in exposing people to excessive noise levels or
groundbourne vibrations, or increase noise levels. Future development processed according to the project’s text
amendments will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people’residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact (e & f) - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site, and it does
not affect or propose any standard that would result in exposing people to excessive noise levels associated with an
airport. Land use proposals processed in accord with the proposed requirements and procedures will be subject to
individual environmental review. As necessary, required compliance with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for
McClellan-Palomar Airport will ensure that future development avoids exposure to excessive airport noise levels.
POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
21 Rev. 0 7/03/02
No Impact (a) - The project does not include a component to develop land or infrastructure or make land available
or more feasible for development. Future development processed according to the project’s text amendments will be
subject to CEQA review on a site-specific basis.
All future development within Carlsbad must comply with the City’s growth projections contained in the Growth
Management Program. Because the City has planned all public facilities (roads, infrastructure, etc) to accommodate
the growth
necessary.
b)
c)
No Impact
anticipated in the Growth Management Program, no substantial new roads or infrastructure will be
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
(b & c) - The project proposes not development nor does it propose or affect any standard that would
result in the displacement -of any existing housing or people. Future development processed according to the
project’s text amendments will be subject to CEQA review on a site-specific basis.
PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:
1. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
V. Other public facilities?
No Impact (a.i to a.v.) - The project does not affect or propose any standard that would result in adverse impacts to
the maintenance of acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any public service.
Future development processed according to the project’s text amendments will be subject to CEQA.review on a site-
specific basis.
RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact (a & b) - The project proposes no development, and it does not affect existing recreational facilities in
any way. Moreover, it does not include any recreation component or generate the need for the same.
A performance standard for parks is part of the City’s Growth Management Program. Future development that is
processed according to the project’s text amendments will be required to comply with this performance standard,
which ensures future development will not adversely impact any park facilities.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system?
No Impact - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site, and it does not affect
or propose any standard that might cause an increase in traffic.
22 Rev. 07/03/02
A performance standard for traffic is part of the City’s Growth Management Program. Future development that is
processed according to the project’s text amendments will be required to comply with this performance standard,
which ensures future development will not exceed the traffic load and capacity of the city’s street system. In
addition, future development will also undergo CEQA review on a site-specific basis.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
No Impact - SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho
Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two tughway segments in Carlsbad as part of the
regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these
designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is:
Existing ADT* Los Buildout ADT*
Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 “A-C” 28-43
El Camino Real 21-50 “A-C” 32-65
Palomar Airport Road 10-52 ‘‘A-B” 29-77
SR 78 120 “F’ 144
*The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. ’
1-5 183-198 “D” 2 19-249
The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E’, or LOS “F” if
that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990). Accordingly, all designated
roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS.
Note that the buildsut ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and community
plans. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E” standard assumes implementation of the ‘
adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and
implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short-term and at
buildout.
This project proposes no physical development of a property. Further, it does not propose to change or add a
standard that would affect levels of service as established by the CMP. The City will assess a development proposal
processed in accord with the text amendments for compliance with CMP standards as part of its environmental
review.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change
in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact - The project does not include any aviation components. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air
traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact (d, e, f) - The project’s proposed text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, and Local
Coastal Program do not affect or propose any standard that might hinder adequate emergency access, result in
insufficient parking capacity, or substantially increase a hazard because of design or a use.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
No Impact - The project proposes no physical development of any property or a change in or adoption of a standard
supporting alternative transportation. Furthermore, the proposed text changes will not affect the required CEQA
review of all development projects.
23 Rev. 07/03/02
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
No Impact - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development or to change or add any standard
that would cause wastewater treatment requirements to be exceeded. Future development processed according to the project’s text amendments will be subject to further environmental review, including an analysis of wastewater
treatment impacts, pursuant to CEQA and on a site-specific basis.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
No Impact (b, c, d & e) - All public facilities, including water facilities, wastewater treatment facilities and
drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out.
The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. Additionally, the project does not
affect or propose any standard that would increase the need for or conflict with the current growth projections for
water facilities, wastewater treatment or drainage facilities. Future development processed according to the
project’s text amendments will be subject to CEQA review, including an analysis of wastewater, water, and
infrastructure impacts, on a site-specific basis.
0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact (f & g) - The project contains no development component and thus generates no waste. Moreover, its
proposed text amendments do not conflict with any regulations related to solid waste, including regulations that
might affect landfill capacity. Future development processed according to the project’s text amendments will be
subject to CEQA review, including analysis of solid waste impacts on a site-specific basis.
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?
No Impact - The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code and Local Coastal Program do
not include a component to physically develop any site. Moreover, the project does not affect or propose any
standard that would have the potential to degrade or reduce environmental quality, fish or wildlife habitat or
populations, or eliminate key examples of state hstory or prehistory. Any future development processed in accord
with the revised text amendments will be subject CEQA review on a site-specific basis.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
24 Rev. Q71031Q2 93
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects.)
No Impact - San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San
Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based upon those
projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation,
congestion management standards, etc, are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the
region. All of the City’s development standards and regulations are consistent with the region-wide standards. The
proposed project does not affect or recommend any standard that would conflict with City or region-wide standards.
The City’s standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic
standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development
within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact.
There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively
considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As discussed above, the project does
not include a proposal for any physical development of any site or a proposal that would have an effect on an air
quality or regional circulation standard. Construction of fbture projects processed in accord with the project’s
proposed text amendments would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in
emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with fbture development
would be minimal. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a)(4), the contributions of these future
developments to the cumulative impact would be ‘considered de minimus. Any impact would be assessed as less
than significant.
In addition, as discussed above, the County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roads
(Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of
the regional circulation system. The CMA has determined, based on the City’s growth projections in the General
Plan, that these designated roadways will fbnction at acceptable levels of service in the short-term and at build-out.
The project does not affect the City’s growth projections. Further, city standards and regulations will ensure that
future development subject to the proposed project will not result in a significant cumulative considerable impact.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
No Impact - The project does not include a proposal for any physical development of any site. The project does not
affect or propose any standard that would adversely affect people either directly or indirectly. Future development
processed according to the project’s text amendments will be subject to CEQA review on a site-specific basis.
EARLIER ANALYSES USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
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.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01).
City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
2. Carlsbad General Plan, September 6, 1994.
3. Zoning Ordinance (Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code)
25 Rev. Q7lQ3IO2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5449
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ZONE
CODE AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT TO AMEND TITLE 21 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE BY AMENDING VARIOUS PROCEDURES
AFFECTING THE REVIEW AND PROCESSING OF LAND
USE APPLICATIONS, INCLUDING: (1) REVISING AND
STANDARDIZING VARIANCE FINDINGS AND THE
APPEAL PROCESS FOR MANY LAND USE PROJECTS; (2)
REVISING AND CLARIFYING SOME REVIEW
PROCEDURES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; (3)
REPLACING AND REPEALING OUTDATED OR
SUPERSEDED NAMES AND TITLES; (4) REPEALING
DENSITY PROVISIONS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
GENERAL PLAN; AND, (5) ADDING A DEFINITION FOR
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES AND
INCORPORATING A CITY POLICY ON THE SAME.
CASE NAME: VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
CASE NO.: ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09
WHEREAS, the Planning Director, has prepared an amendment to Title 21 of the
Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) amending various standards related to the review and
processing of land use applications proposed throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of August, 2003 hold
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
53
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) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration,
Exhibit “ND,” according to Exhibits “NOI” dated April 25, 2003, and “PII” dated
April 18, 2003, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following
findings:
Findinps:
1.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
.I.
The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration for the
Various Code Changes (ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09), the environmental impacts
therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
b. 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
c. It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
d. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PC RES0 NO. 5449 -2-
1
1
-
4
4 i
6
7
8
9
io
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 20th day of August 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Segall
ABSTAIN: None
E&LQ-- Chairperson
CARLSE&)&)4NNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HO-MIL&R
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5449 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5450
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT TO AMEND
VARIOUS PROCEDURES OF TITLE 21 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE AFFECTING THE REVIEW AND PROCESSING OF
LAND USE APPLICATIONS, INCLUDING: (1) REVISING
AND STANDARDIZING VARIANCE FINDINGS AND THE
APPEAL PROCESS FOR MANY LAND USE PROJECTS; (2)
CEDURES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; (3)
REPLACING AND REPEALING OUTDATED OR
SUPERSEDED NAMES AND TITLES; (4) REPEALING
DENSITY PROVISIONS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
GENERAL PLAN; AND, (5) ADDING A DEFINITION FOR
PORATING A CITY POLICY ON THE SAME.
CASE NAME: VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
REVISING AND CLARIFYING SOME REVIEW PRO-
WIRELESS COMI"ICATI0N FACILITIES AND INCOR-
CASE NO: ZCA 00-02
WHEREAS, the Planning Director has prepared a proposed Zone Code
Amendment pursuant to Section 21.52.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to amend various
standards of Title 21 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) related to the review and
processing of land use applications proposed throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is set forth in the draft City Council
Ordinance, Exhibit "X" dated, August 20, 2003, and attached hereto VARIOUS CODE
CHANGES - ZCA 00-02; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of August 2003, hold
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Zone Code Amendment; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
fi
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
1.
2.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
That the proposed Zone Code Amendment ZCA 00-02 is consistent with the goals and
objectives of the General Plan in the following ways:
a. The proposed amendment clarifies and improves the development review
process. This is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element Overall
Land Use Pattern Goal A.l, which seeks to enhance the image of Carlsbad as
a desirable community.
b. The proposed amendment repeals density provisions that are inconsistent
with General Plan. State law (Government Code Section 65860(c)) mandates
that the Zoning Ordinance be consistent with the General Plan.
c. The proposed amendment incorporates by reference the City Council policy
on wireless communication facilities. This is in keeping with General Plan
Land Use Element Overall Land Use Pattern Objective B.2, which states in
part, “To create a visual form for the community, that is pleasing to the eye.
99 ..
That the proposed ZCA reflects sound principles of good planning in that it (a) complies
with the General Plan, (b) ensures consistency between the Zoning Ordinance and
Local Coastal Program, and (c) amends several provisions that improve and clarify
the development review process.
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
02, based on the following findings:
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of VARIOUS CODE CHANGES - ZCA 00-
Findings:
PC RES0 NO. 5450 -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
Commission
vote, to wit:
.I
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
f the City of Carlsbad, held on the 20th day of August 2003, by the following
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Segall
ABSTAIN: None
JULIE Bwerson
CARLSB ING COMMISSION
ATTEST: .
MICHAEL J. H~LZ~LER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5450 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5451
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT TO AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE
‘ 21 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AFFECTING THE REVIEW
AND PROCESSING OF LAND USE APPLICATIONS,
INCLUDING: (1) REVISING AND STANDARDIZING
VARIANCE FINDINGS AND THE APPEAL PROCESS FOR
MANY LAND USE PROJECTS; (2) REVISING AND
CLARIFYING SOME REVIEW PROCEDURES AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; (3) REPLACING AND
REPEALING OUTDATED OR SUPERSEDED NAMES AND
TITLES; (4) REPEALING DENSITY PROVISIONS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, AND; (5)
TION FACILITIES AND INCORPORATING A CITY POLICY
ON THE SAME.
CASE NAME: VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
ADDING A DEFINITION FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICA-
CASE NO: LCPA 00-09
WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program and
Zoning Ordinance be in conformance, and therefore, an amendment to the Local Coastal
Program is required in conjunction with an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to ensure
consistency between the two documents; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director has prepared text amendments to Title 21
of the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) relating to the review and processing of land
use applications proposed throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance for the
City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, “Applicant,” has filed a verified application
for an amendment to the Local Coastal Program; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal
Program Amendment as shown on Exhibit “X” dated August 20, 2003, attached to Planning
Commission Resolution No. 5450 and incorporated herein by reference, as provided in
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
Public Resources Code Section 305 4 and Article 15 of Subchapter 2, Chapter 8, 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 20th day of August 2003, hold
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment.
WHEREAS, in accordance with California Coastal Commission requirements, the
Local Coastal Program Amendment was subject to a six-week public review period, starting on
April 24, 2003, and ending June 5, 2003, and the Planning Commission considered all
comments received, if any.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
- LCPA 00-09, based on the following findings:
Findinm:
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 11, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, East Batiquitos Lagoon, West
Batiquitos Lagoon, and the Village Redevelopment Plan segments of the Carlsbad
Local Coastal Program not being amended by this amendment, in that it ensures
consistency with the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance and does not alter any coastal zone
regulations, land use designations or policies, with which future projects processed
according to the Local Coastal Program Amendment’s proposed changes must
comply.
That the proposed amendment to the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program is required to bring
it into consistency with the proposed Zone Code Amendment (ZCA 00-02).
2.
PC RES0 NO. 5451 -2- la
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting to the Planning
Cornmi sion of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 20th day of August 2003, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Segall
ABSTAIN: None
G COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H~Z~LER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5451 -3-
EXHIBIT 5
’the City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. @
Application complete date: N/A
P.C. AGENDA OF: August 20,2003 I Project Planner: Scott Donne11
Project Engineer: N/A
SUBJECT: ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES - Request for a
recommendation of adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval of a Zone
Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment for a variety of
changes to the text of the Zoning Ordinance. Also presented as a receive and file
item only are related, minor changes to other titles of the Municipal Code besides
the Zoning Ordinance that the City Council will review and consider for approval.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5449, 5450 and
545 1 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration and RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL of ZCA 00-02 and LCPA 00-09 based upon the findings contained therein and
RECEIVE AND FILE the proposed ordinance amending titles of the Municipal Code other
thm the Zoning Ordinance.
11. INTRODUCTION
The Planning Department, in conjunction with the City Attorney, proposes a significant number
of revisions to the text of the Zoning Ordinance, or Title 21 of the Municipal Code. While the
proposal affects dozens of Code sections, it is not a comprehensive overhaul; instead, the project
focuses on specific aspects of the Zoning Ordinance, such as review requirements for
subdivisions with panhandle lots, the appeal process for most land use applications, and titles of
various city officials involved in land use review. Many of the project changes are also minor
and “housecleaning” in nature.
Furthermore, some of the planned Zoning Ordinance revisions are also amendments proposed to
other Municipal Code titles. For example, staff has proposed revisions to Title 19, which
establishes environmental protection procedures, to ensure consistency with proposed Zoning
Ordinance changes to the appeal process. Additionally, changes to the titles of various city
officials are proposed throughout the Municipal Code. Since city ordinances and state planning
law (Government Code Section 65 103) limit the Planning Commission’s review to zoning and
land use matters, changes proposed to Municipal Code titles other than the Zoning Ordinance are
provided as a receive and file attachment to this report.
Because the City’s Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance for the City’s Local Coastal
Program (LCP), staff has also prepared an LCP Amendment to ensure consistency between the
proposed amended Zoning Ordinance and the LCP. The proposed changes to Municipal Code
titles besides the Zoning Ordinance are not a part of the LCP Amendment.
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The Zone Code Amendment consists of text changes only that would apply citywide.
Accordingly, the project proposes no development and it does not affect any particular property
or section of the City. In addition, though the project does not propose a complete Code
revision, proposed changes would still improve the Zoning Ordinance:
A. Consistency, both internally and with other titles of the Municipal Code;
B. Usability, by standardizing and clarifying some procedures; and,
C. Relevancy, through updates that incorporate current terms and procedures.
A list of the recommended changes follows:
A. Revise standards for the noticing of continued public hearings;
B. Revise the review requirements for subdivisions with panhandle lots;
C. Amend procedures for incomplete application;
D. Revise and standardize the appeal process for most types of land use decisions;
E. Revise variance findings to be consistent with the California Govemment Code;
F. Change provisions affecting the review of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
G. Repeal density provisions that are inconsistent with the General Plan;
H. Update Chapter 2 1.05 to reflect currently adopted zones;
I. Replace outdated titles, such as “land use planning manager,” with current titles, such as
“planning director”;
J. Add a definition for “wireless communication facilities” and incorporate by reference a
City Council policy on the same; and,
K. Miscellaneous, minor changes.
amendments;
Staffs analysis of each proposed change follows.
IV. ANALYSIS
Two attachments to this staff report show all proposed Zoning Ordinance changes. One
attachment is a strikeout, bold version of the proposed ordinance, showing all existing, affected
text, and all proposed edits. A second attachment, part of the recommending resolution
approving Zone Code Amendment ZCA 00-02, is the “clean” version of the proposed ordinance
that references the section numbers affected and shows only how the sections would appear after
completing all recommended deletions and additions, except title changes. The sections found in
both attachments are listed in the same order as found in the Zoning Ordinance.
As in the attached strike-out and bold version, throughout this analysis section, proposed
deletions to the text of the Zoning Ordinance are shown as s&=&ea& and proposed additions are
shown in bold.
A. Revise standards for the noticing of continued hearings
Background
Zoning Ordinance Section 21.54.100 states that when a decision-making body such as the
Planning Commission holds a public hearing, it may continue the public hearing without
renoticing surrounding property owners only if the date, time and place to which the matter will
6 5
3
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VAFUOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
be continued is publicly announced at that initial hearing. While implied for all public hearings,
the Zoning Ordinance explicitly requires renoticing for public hearing items continued to a date
uncertain only if the items are located in the Coastal Zone.
The City adopted the text for this section in 1956 as part of Ordinance 9060, one of Carlsbad’s
first zoning ordinances. In 1996, the City amended the section to include the Coastal Zone
noticing requirement.
Proposal
Staff recommends revising Section 21.54.100 so it clearly requires the renoticing of all public
hearing items continued to a date uncertain, not just those in the Coastal Zone. Below are staffs
recommended revisions, which also broaden the renoticing requirement to include any public
hearing item, rather than just development permits.
“2 1.54.100 Hearing continuance with& public notice.
If, for any reason, testimony on any case set for public hearing cannot be
completed on the date set for such hearing, the person presiding at such public
hearing may, before adjournment or recess thereof, publicly announce the time
and place to, and at which, said hearing will be continued, and no further notice is
required. However, , if a decision on a matter set for
public hearing is continued by the decision-making body
..
’
to a time which is not
bi.J 31 < 44@+w+j . announced at the hearing to be
ee&kw&e a time certain, the city shall provide notice of the further hearings for
action on the proposed developmentj in the same manner and within the same
time limits as established in Sections 21.54.060 and 21.54.061.”
B. Revise review requirements for subdivisions with panhandle lots
Background
As their name implies, panhandle lots, also known as flag lots, have a long, narrow throat that
connects to a developable area. Three separate Zoning Ordinance sections provide review
standards for subdivisions with panhandle lots. In the first two sections, Sections 21 .OS.OSO(b)
and 21.09.120(2), found in the R-A and R-E zone standards, respectively, require City Council
approval of major subdivisions (5 or more lots) with panhandle lots and Planning Commission
approval of minor subdivisions with panhandle lots. The City adopted these provisions in the
late 1970s. The third section regulating panhandle lots is Section 21.10.080(b), part of the
standards for the R- 1 zone. However, this section’s review requirements are slightly different
from the other two. In 1981, the City amended this section to allow the “land use planning
manager,” (the term “Planning Director” is used today), rather than the Planning Commission, to
approve minor subdivisions (4 or fewer lots) with panhandle lots. Apparently, the City felt
minor subdivisions with panhandle lots could be approved administratively because they were
routine approvals. It is unclear why the amendment did not also extend to panhandle
subdivisions in the R-A and R-E zones.
Review requirements for subdivisions with panhandle lots are unique. As stated in Title 20
(“Subdivisions”) of the Municipal Code, all other subdivisions require city engineer approval if
they contain fewer than five lots (see Section 20.24.090 (4)); planning commission approval if
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
Page 4
they contain between five and fifty lots (see Section 20.12.080(2)(A)); and city council approval
if they contain more than fifty lots (see Secjion 20.12.080(2)(B)).
Proposal
Proposed amendments would change each of the three Zoning Ordinance sections regulating
review of subdivisions with panhandle lots to require a review process identical to the existing
review process for all other subdivisions. Accordingly, staff has proposed to revise Sections
2 1.08.080(b) and 2 1.09.120(2) as follows:
“The official or decision-making body with the authority to otherwise
approve the subdivision &; cxci! ff
approve panhandle or flag-shaped lots where the lot width and yards shall be
measured in accord with this section if the following circumstances are found to
exist : ”
. .. .. . .. . .. : may
Shown below are the planned revisions to the slightly different wording of Section 21.10.080(b).
“The official or decision-making body with the authority to otherwise
approve the subdivision 7 3 may approve panhandle or flag-shaped
lots where the lot width and yards shall be measured in accord with this section if
the following circumstances are found to exist:”
. .. . ..
Additionally, in Sections 21.08.080(d)(10) and 21.10.080(d)(10) of the R-A and R-1 zones,
respectively, the following amendments are proposed. Note that the second section differs from
the first in that it references the “land use planning manager,” instead of the “planning
commission.”
“2 1 .08.080(d)( 10) Any other condition the official or decision-making
body with the authority to otherwise approve the subdivision e+ewwks
may determine to be necessary to properly develop such
property.”
“21.10.080(d)( 10) Any other condition the official or decision-making
may determine to be necessary to properly develop
body with the authority to otherwise approve the subdivision
such property.”
Staffs analysis of panhandle review requirements also determined the appropriateness of other
related changes as follows.
1. Sections 2 1 .08.080(d)( 1) and 2 1.10.080(d)( 1) of the R-A and R-1 zones, respectively,
indicate that either the planning commission or land use planning manager may approve
certain modifications to panhandle lot site plans. Staffs proposed changes to Section
21.08.08O(d)(l) are as follows (note that the changes to the R-1 zone section are
essentially the same, except that it cites the “land use planning manager” rather than
“planning commission”): 17
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
“21.08.08O(d)(l) The area of the buildable portion of the lot shall be a
minimum ten thousand square feet or the minimum required by the zone
whichever is greater. In zone districts permitting less than ten thousand square-
foot lots, the buildable portion of the lot may be less than ten thousand square feet
provided the official or decision-making body with the authority to otherwise
approve the subdivision finds from evidence submitted on
a site plan that all requirements of this section will be met; however, in no case
shall the buildable portion of the lot be less than eight thousand square feet in
area. If a site plan for a subdivision with panhandle lots, with a buildable portion
of less than ten thousand square feet, is approved, development within such
subdivision shall conform to the plan as approved.
..
Besides the recommended wording to allow subdivisions with panhandle lots to be reviewed
as are all other subdivisions, staff has also proposed to delete the last portion of the section
regarding approval or denial of modifications. This deletion is recommended for reasons of
flexibility and simplicity. If this section, for example, tied the approval of a modificatio’n to
either the appropriate official or decision-making body, it might require City Council
approval of small changes proposed to the parking areas of flag lots in an approved 60-lot
subdivision. In reality, these changes may only warrant staff review and approval. Staff
believes that the City’s review procedures and the conditions placed on tentative maps are
sufficient to address the review and processing of planned modifications.
2. In the R-A and R-1 zones, Sections 21.08.080(d)(2) and 21.10.080(d)(10) require the
width of the buildable portion of a panhandle lot to be the same as the width required for
interior lots in the zone district. Since both zones require a general minimum lot width
but not a specific interior lot width, staff recommends deleting the word “interior.”
3. Finally, in the R-E zone, Section 21.09.120(2)(F) requires the design of parking and
access on a panhandle lot to be to the satisfaction of the land use planning manager. In
the R-A zone (see Section 21.08.080(d)(7)) and R-1 zone (see Section 21.10.O8O(d)(7)),
the other two zoning districts that contain panhandle lot provisions, the city engineer,
rather than the land use planning manager, is the approving official. Staff believes the
city engineer is the proper reviewing authority, and therefore recommend the following
changes to the section:
“Each lot shall have at least three nontandem parking spaces, with an
approach not less than twenty-four feet in length, with proper turnaround space to
permit complete turnaround for forward access to the street. This parking and
access arrangement shall be designed to the satisfaction of the city engineer lam4
9,
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
Pane 6
C. Amend incomplete application procedures
Background
Zoning Ordinance Section 21 ~4.010 establishes the basic requirements for the filing and review
of land use applications. Included are the processing procedures for applications the City
determines incomplete. An incomplete application or proposal is one that fails to provide all the
required filing information. From the date the Planning Director determines an application
incomplete, the Section states the applicant has six months to resubmit the application or else it
will be deemed withdrawn. Additionally, the Section also provides that the applicant may file an
appeal of an incompleteness determination with the Planning Commission within 20 days of the
date of the incompleteness determination. Upon the proper filing of an appeal, the Commission
must act on it within 60 days.
While contained in the current Zoning Ordinance, the processing requirements for incomplete
applications, as stated above, are invalid. Section 21.54.010(e) states the requirements became
ineffective on January 2, 1991, unless extended by ordinance. To date, no such extension has
taken place.
Proposal
The primary change to amend the incomplete application procedures is simply to repeal all of
subsection (e), thereby eliminating any sunset clause and reinstating the requirement that
applications inactive for more than six months will be deemed withdrawn. Other recommended
changes to the Section are proposed to ensure the City’s process for an applicant to appeal a
Planning Director’s determination of incompleteness is (1) consistent with state planning law and
(2) part of this Zone Code Amendment’s efforts to standardize the appeal process throughout the
Zoning Ordinance. Regarding the former, state law (Government Code Section 65943) mandates
the hearing of an appeal of an incompleteness determination before the Planning Commission
and City Council within 60 days of its filing with the Planning Commission. The present Zoning
Ordinance, in Section 21.54.010(c), requires only the Planning Commission to act within 60
days. Regarding the latter, among, the changes proposed as part of the appeal process
standardization is the decrease in the appeal filing period from 20 to 10 days. The next item
below provides more details on the proposed changes to the appeal procedures found throughout
the Zoning Ordinance.
D. Revise and standardize the appeal process for most types of land use decisions
Background
The most significant component of this Zone Code Amendment is the proposed changes to
appeal procedures. Amendments are proposed to every Zoning Ordinance section (there are
more than 30) regarding appeals, except in two cases: the appeal provisions found in Chapter
21.41, the Sign Ordinance, and Chapter 21.43, the Adult Entertainment Ordinance. Staff has not
proposed to revise these chapters because their appeal provisions must be expressly tailored to
address First Amendment issues related to freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
Furthermore, the City’s update of the Sign Ordinance in 2001 included the necessary appeal
provisions, and the redrafting of Adult Entertainment Ordinance is currently underway.
s9
ZCA OO-OZ/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
Pane 7
Although the City has amended many Zoning Ordinance appeal standards at least twice in the
past ten years, it has not done so in a comprehensive fashion. The lack of a complete revision
helps to underscore the problem of inconsistency between the various appeal provisions, many of
which the City adopted at different times and to address different needs. For example, Section
21.201.120 A. of the Coastal Development Permit Procedures Chapter, specifies the following
about appeals to the Planning Commission:
“The decision of the planning commission is final and effective ten
calendar days after the adoption of the resolution of decision unless within such
ten-day period the applicant or any other interested person files a written appeal
with the city clerk. An individual member of the city council can be an interested
person. The written appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the
appeal and the manner in which the decision of the planning commission is in
error. The decision of the planning commission shall be affirmed by the city
council unless the appellant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the
decision of the planning commission is in error, inconsistent with state law, the
general plan, LCP, or any applicable specific plan, master plan, zoning ordinance
or policy of the city. Upon the filing of an appeal, the city clerk shall set the
matter for public hearing. Such hearing shall be held within thirty days after the
date of filing the appeal. Within ten days following the conclusion of the hearing,
the city council shall render its decision on the appeal. The decision of the city
council is final.”
Described in Section 2 1.10.080(e) is a different, simpler appeal process for planning director
decisions on subdivisions with panhandle lots in the R-1 zone.
“Any decision of the land use planning manager shall promptly be
reported to the planning commission and city council and is final unless appealed
within ten days to the planning commission. The decision of the planning
commission is final unless appealed within ten days to the city council. The
decision of the council is final.”
In Section 2 1.54.140(b), another appeal process is established for all planning director decisions
or determinations for which an appeal process is not already established.
“Whenever the planning director is authorized, pursuant to this title, to
make a decision or determination, such decision or determination is final unless
the determination or decision is appealed by an interested person to the planning
commission. An individual member of the city council can be an interested
person. The written appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the
appeal and the manner in which the decision of the planning director is in error.
The burden of proof is on the appellant to establish by substantial evidence that
the reason(s) for the appeal exist. The hearing before the planning commission is
de novo, but the planning commission shall determine all matters not specified in
the appeal have been found by the planning director and are supported by
substantial evidence. If the planning commission finds one or more grounds set
forth in the notice of appeal supported by substantial evidence, it may,
nevertheless, affirm, modify, or reverse the action of the planning commission,
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
Page 8
(sic) and make such order supported by substantial evidence as it deems
appropriate, including remand to the planning director with directions for further
proceedings. The appeal shall be filed in writing with the secretary of the planning
commission within ten calendar days after the date of the planning director’s
decision. The planning director’s decision or determination shall be made in
writing. The date of the decision shall be the date the writing containing the
decision or determination is mailed or otherwise delivered to the person or
persons affected by the decision or determination. The planning commission
action on an appeal shall be final. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall
be established by resolution of the city council.”
Proposal
Staff recommends the following comprehensive changes to the appeal procedures of the Zoning
Ordinance. As discussed above, proposed changes do not apply to the Sign Ordinance and Adult
Entertainment Ordinance.
1. To ensure consistency, consolidate all Zoning Ordinance appeal procedures into two
sections. Staff proposes modifying Section 21 S4.140, partly quoted above, to contain
the procedure for the appeal of Planning Director or Housing and Redevelopment
Director decisions to, as appropriate, the Planning Commission or Design Review Board.
Staff also recommends adding a second, new section (Section 21.54.150) to contain the
same procedure, but for the appeal of Planning Commission or Design Review Board
decisions to, as appropriate, the City Council or Housing and Redevelopment
Commission.
2. Amend all zoning ordinance sections currently containing appeal procedures so they refer
the reader to one of the two sections mentioned above with wording similar to the
following:
“The effective date of the planning commission’s decision and
method for appeal of such decision shall be governed by Section
21.54.140 of this Code.”
3. Establish in the two recommended sections a standardized, consistent process to address
all aspects of filing an appeal. To this end, staff does not propose to change the ten-day
appeal-filing period that most Zoning Ordinance appeal sections presently allow.
However, staff does recommend reformatting and modifying existing Section 21.54.140
so it provides appeal requirements in a clear, comprehensive manner. (The new
recommended Section 21 S4.150 will be identical to Section 21.54.140, except that it will
address Planning Commission and Design Review Board appeals.) Some of the changes
proposed include:
a. Adding that appeal procedures also apply to decisions made pursuant to the
Environmental Protection Procedures Ordinance, which is Title 19 of the Municipal
Code. Staff has also proposed related amendments to Title 19.
b. Establishing how and when a decision becomes final and effective.
c. Clarifying that a properly filed appeal’stays the effect of the director’s decision until
the Planning Commission or Design Review Board acts on the decision.
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
Page 9
d. Removing the requirement that the appellant demonstrate the manner in which the
director’s decision was in error. With the existing requirement that the appellant
demonstrate substantial evidence exists to support the appeal, there is no reason to
further require proof of an erroneous decision.
e. Requiring that the appeal be noticed and heard in the same manner as was required of
the original decision.
f. Establishing that the appeal hearing will occur as soon as practicable. This will
replace some existing timeframes that require the hearing of appeals within 20 or 30
days of the appeal filing. While still emphasizing that staff needs to schedule appeal
hearings in an expeditious manner, it also allows for accommodation of full meeting
agendas, holidays, and scheduling needs. (Please note that to remain consistent with
state law, staff will not change the 60-day deadline for hearing of an appeal on an
incompleteness determination, as discussed in item C.)
g. Establishing that reversal of a Planning Commission (or Design Review Board)
decision on appeal by the City Council (or Housing and Redevelopment Commission)
will require three affirmative votes. This requirement is consistent with a recent
amendment to state law as found in Government Code Section 36936.
For the Planning Commission’s information only, staff has attached proposed changes to Chapter
19.04 (“Environmental Protection Procedures”) of Municipal Code Title 19. For appeal
procedures, sections of this chapter reference the Zoning Ordinance. Staffs proposed revisions
to Title 19 are necessary to ensure consistency with the recommended Zoning Ordinance appeal
changes described previously.
E. Revise variance findings to be consistent with the California Government Code
Background
Local governments may approve a variance to allow deviations from development standards,
such as setbacks, lot sizes, and building height. However, a city may grant a variance only if it
can make specific findings that unique circumstances exist to justify deviating from standards.
The Zoning Ordinance contains the following three sections that list the necessary findings to
grant a variance:
1. Section 21.35.130, in the Village Redevelopment Zone chapter, contains the findings for
the Housing and Redevelopment Director, Design Review Board, and Housing and
Redevelopment Commission to grant variance.
2. Section 2 1 S0.030, Variances-Conditional Use Permits chapter, contains the variance
findings for Planning Commission and City Council.
3. Section 21.51.010, Administrative Variances chapter, lists the findings for the limited
number of variances the planning director can grant.
Sections 21.50.030 and 21.51.010 list the variance findings the City adopted in 1956 as part of
Ordinance 9060, one of its first zoning ordinances. To ensure protection of its coastal resources,
the City, in 1996, added a finding requiring consistency with coastal zone requirements to
Section 21 S0.030 only. Variance findings in Section 21.35.130 of the Village Redevelopment
Zone, adopted in 1995, are slightly different from the findings contained in the other two
sections.
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
Page 10
State law (Government Code Section 65906) specifies the findings under which Carlsbad and
other general law cities may consider variance proposals. The three findings, each of which
must be made to grant a variance, are:
1.
2.
3.
Variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance shall be granted only when,
because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning
ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the
vicinity and under identical zoning classification; and,
Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the
adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in
which such property is situated; and,
A variance shall not be granted for a parcel of property, which authorizes a use, or
activity, which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulation
governing the parcel of property.
Carlsbad’s variance findings are not consistent with state law. For example, Carlsbad’s variance
findings applicable outside the Village Redevelopment Zone allow “exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances” of either a property or an intended use as a basis for granting a variance.
Conversely, state law allows only the “special circumstances” of a property, and not of the
intended use, as a basis for granting a variance. Moreover, unlike state law, all three Zoning
Ordinance sections require that a variance approval “not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare.”
Additionally, though not listed as findings specific to a variance, approval of a variance, as with
any land use approval, must be consistent with the General Plan and, when applicable, the Local
Coastal Program. Present variance findings for the Village Redevelopment Zone (Section
21.35.130) do not include a finding of consistency with either the General Plan, and neither this
section nor Section 2 1.5 1.010 require a finding of consistency with the Local Coastal Program.
Proposal
Staff has proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance’s three sections on variances to ensure
each section:
1. Is consistent with the other;
2. Matches the wording found in the State Government Code; and,
3. Includes findings for consistency with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program.
Furthermore, for Sections 21.50.030 and 21.5 1.010, which provide the findings for variance
applications outside the Village Redevelopment Zone, staff recommends an additional finding
requirement of consistency with any applicable specific or master plan.
F. Change provisions affecting the review of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
amendments
Background
Chapter 21.52 of the Zoning Ordinance (“Amendments”) establishes the procedures for
amending both the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The City adopted most of the contents 73
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
Page 11
of this chapter as part of Ordinance 9060 in 1956. Although subsequently amended, much of the
chapter remains as originally adopted.
Proposal
Staff recommends amendments to Chapter 21.52 for the following reasons:
1. To revise appeal requirements
Revision of the chapter’s appeal provisions is recommended as discussed in item “D.”
above.
2. To limit the Planning Director’s review authority
In 1974, the City revised Section 21.52.030 regarding the review and filing of
amendment applications. The revision added the following paragraph to address the
planning director’s (formerly land use planning manager) role in considering an
amendment proposal:
“The land use planning manager shall review all such applications
and determine whether or not the requested amendment, supplement to or
change in regulations for the subject property will be consistent with all
applicable specific and general plans. If he determines the application will
be consistent, he shall file it with the planning commission for processing
in accord with this chapter. If he determines that the application will result
in an inconsistency, he shall so inform the applicant in writing and return
the application. Notwithstanding an inconsistency, the manager may file
an application with the planning commission for action if the commission
has approved a general plan amendment removing the inconsistency. The
manager’s determination may be appealed to the planning commission and
city council in accord with the provisions of this chapter.”
‘
Unlike the determination a planning director makes regarding the completeness of an
application, which is based on specific criteria, the paragraph above gives the director the
additional and unfettered authority to return to the applicant an amendment application if
the director believes it is inconsistent with the general plan or an applicable specific plan.
Staff believes the appropriate limits of the Planning Director’s authority is to make a
recommendation, not a decision, regarding consistency. Staff recommends striking this
paragraph completely.
3. To eliminate time constraints on the council’s review of an amendment application
Section 21.52.100 requires the City Council to hold a noticed public hearing within 30
days of receipt of a Planning Commission resolution recommending approval of an
amendment or within 30 days of receipt of an appeal. Section 21.52.120 also places a 30-
day time restriction on Council review. Since it allows little time to accommodate
scheduling needs, full agendas, and holidays, staff recommends replacing this time
constraint with the phrase “as soon as practicable.”
74
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
Pane 12
G. Repeal density provisions that are inconsistent with the General Plan
Background
In 1981, the City Council added the following section to the standards of the Residential
Multiple-Family (R-3), Residential Professional (R-P), Residential Tourist (R-T), and
Residential Waterway (R-W) zones.
“Maximum Allowable Density. The maximum allowable density shall be
twenty units per acre. A density of up to thirty dwelling units per acre may be
established by the planning commission or city council, whichever is the final
decisionmaking body for a project requiring a discretionary permit or entitlement
under this code, or the planning commission for all other projects if said body
finds that the density is consistent with the general plan and the provisions of this
code.
Except when the city council is the final decision making body for a project, a
decision of the planning commission establishing density may be appealed to the
city council not later than ten days after the decision or not later than the time for
appeal of the discretionary permit or entitlement for the project, whichever is
later.”
The City adopted this provision to reduce the maximum density permitted in the above zones and
achieve consistency with the density allowed by the General Plan in 1981. At that time, in
addition to the General Plan density ranges, another acceptable method for determining density
existed for apartment projects, based on a designated minimum lot area per unit. While the
maximum General Plan residential density was 30 unitdacre, this alternative density method
allowed 5 1 to 72 apartments/acre, depending on the zone.
Decreases to the General Plan density ranges have occurred since 198 1. Today, the General Plan
establishes a maximum residential density range of 15-23 unitslacre with a corresponding
Growth Management Control Point of 19 unitdacre. Since the above section allows a density of
up to 30 unitdacre, it is clearly inconsistent with today’s General Plan.
Proposal
State law (Government Code Section 65860) mandates zoning ordinance consistency with the
general plan. Furthermore, it is Carlsbad’s General Plan Land Use Element, not a particular zone
or group of zones, that sets density ranges. Staff recommends repealing the Zoning Ordinance
sections (21.16.070; 21,18.050(2); 21.20.100; and 21.22.080) that contain the provision
highlighted above.
H. Update Chapter 21.05 to reflect currently adopted zones
Background
Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.05 (“Zone Establishment - Boundaries”) lists the different zones
in the City and provides other clarifying information about the City’s classes of zones and the
zoning map.
75
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
Page 13
Proposal
Section 21.05.010, last updated in 1983, identifies 27 different zones, including overlay zones.
Three of the zones listed no longer exist, and several current zones are unidentified. Staff
proposes to amend this section to:
1. Eliminate the three zones that no longer exist (Commercial Limited Residential Zone, or
C-LR; Limited Multiple-family Residential, or R-3L; and Residential Density-High, or
2. Add the 11 zones the section does not currently identify, bringing the correct and current
total number of zones in the City to 35.
RD-H).
Section 2 1.05.020 identifies the “degree of restrictiveness” of the zones. “Restrictiveness” refers
to the types of uses a zone allows. For example, a residential zone is considered and identified as
more restrictive than a commercial zone. Amendments proposed to this section would simply
remove those zones (R3-L, RD-H and C-LR) that no longer exist.
I. Replace outdated titles, such as “land use planning manager,” with current titles,
such as “planning director”
Background
Over the years, Carlsbad has used different titles for the individuals and offices involved in the
land use process. In 1982, the City amended the Zoning Ordinance to perform the following
changes:
1. Replace “planning director,” “director of planning,” “director,” and “city planner,” with
“land use planning manager” or “manager.”
2. Replace “planning department” and “office of the planning department” with “land use
planning office.”
Despite the 1982 amendments, subsequent Zoning Ordinance revisions have continued to use the
titles “planning director” and “planning department.” Moreover, both titles are commonly used
today, whereas “land use planning manager” or “land use planning office” are not.
Similarly, though “community development director” appears in the Zoning Ordinance, the
previous name given to the position, “building and planning director,” does too. Adding to the
confusion is the Zoning Ordinance definition of “land use planning manager,” which states that
“building and planning director” means the same as “land use planning manager” and “planning
director.”
Proposal
The title “land use planning manager” occurs well over 70 times in the Zoning
Ordinance. Staff estimates “planning director” occurs an equal or greater number of times.
Since use of both titles creates confusion, staff proposes to replace “land use planning manager”
with “planning director” in all but the following two exceptions.
1. Zoning Ordinance Section 2 1.1 O.OSO(d)( 1) currently gives the land use planning manager
authority to approve a substandard size for the buildable portion of a flag lot in the R-1
zone, subject to specific requirements. Staff believes the authority to approve a
substandard size should coincide with the official or decision-making body that approves
the subdivision containing the panhandle lot. Therefore, staff recommends replacing 76
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
Pane 14
“land use planning manager” in this section with “official or decision-making body with
the authority to otherwise approve the subdivision.”
2. In the R-E zone, Section 21.09.120(2)(F) requires the design of parking and access on a
panhandle lot to be to the satisfaction of the land use planning manager. In the R-A and
R-1 zones, the other two zoning districts that contain panhandle lot provisions, the city
engineer, rather than the land use planning manager, is the approving official. Staff
believes the city engineer is the correct review authority, and therefore recommends the
following change to Section 21.09.120(2)(F):
“Each lot shall have at least three nontandem parking spaces, with
an approach not less than twenty-four feet in length, with proper
turnaround space to permit complete turnaround for forward access to the
street. This parking and access arrangement shall be designated to the
satisfaction of the city engineer w. 99
Additionally, staff recommends repealing the Zoning Ordinance definitions of both “director”
and “land use planning manager” and adding a new definition for “planning director” as follows:
“21.04.292 Planning Director.
‘Planning director’ means the director of planning of the city or his or her designee. In
addition, the term ‘director’ as used throughout this Title shall also mean the planning
director unless the context clearly requires otherwise.”
As with “land use planning manager,” staff recommends replacing “land use planning office”
with “planning department” wherever it occurs, except in the following two instances:
1. Zoning Ordinance Section 21.18.040, part of the standards of the R-P Residential
Professional Zone, indicates the land use planning office may approve a variety of uses
by conditional use permit. This conflicts with Chapter 2 1.50 (“Variances-Conditional
Use Permits”), which in Section 21 ~0.040 states the Planning Commission has the
authority to grant a conditional use permit. Staff has also recommended citing Chapter
2 1.42 (“Conditional Uses”) as this chapter contains additional relevant requirements for
the review of conditional use permits. Therefore, Section 21.18.040 is proposed with the
following changes:
“21.18.040 Uses and structures permitted by conditional use
permit.
Subject to the provisions of Chapters 21.42 and 21.50, tThe following
uses and structures are permitted by conditional use permit appwhm&
(1) Circuses and carnivals and private clubs;
(2) Health facilities, long-term;
(3) Radio, television and microwave stations or towers;
(4) Professional care facilities.”
2. Section 21.46.130 states the land use planning office and the building and planning
department may approve a six-foot high fence in a required side yard or street side yard
77
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
Page 15
of a comer or reversed comer lot, subject to special conditions. Staff recommends that
the planning director, rather than the land use planning office or building and planning
department, have the ability to approve such a fence. This change will identify that a
person, rather than a department, makes the decision. Furthermore, the special conditions
(e.g., topography, building location) listed in the section on which a wall approval is
based are appropriate planning director concerns.
The final recommended Zoning Ordinance title change would replace “building and planning
director,” “building official,” ‘‘principal building inspector,” and, in most instances, “director of
building and planning,” with “community development director.” This replacement would affect
about 60 Zoning Ordinance sections. Further, because the Zoning Ordinance uses but does not
define “community development director,” staff recommends adding the following definition to
Chapter 21.04, Definitions.
“21.04.099 Community Development Director.
‘Community development director’ means the director of community
development of the city or his or her designee.’’
Staff recommends replacing all but eight uses of “director of building and planning” with
“community development director.” Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2 1.80 (“Coastal Development
Permits - Agua Hedionda”) contains the eight exceptions. This chapter, adopted in 1983,
provides coastal development permit standards for the Agua Hedionda Lagoon segment of the
City’s Local Coastal Plan. Further, the sections (e.g., 21,80.040) in this chapter in which
“director of building and planning” occurs discuss filing and processing of coastal development
permits. Review of these sections clearly shows that “planning director,” not “community
development director,” is the appropriate replacement.
Besides the recommended changes to the Zoning Ordinance, staff has proposed to replace “land
use planning manager,” “director of building and planning,” “building and planning director,”
“principal building inspector” and “land use planning office” throughout the rest of the
Municipal Code in the same manner as described above. The ordinance proposing these title
changes is attached as a receive and file item for the Planning Commission’s information only.
Please note that staff has not proposed a complete replacement of the title “building official” as
the change requires additional review.
J. Add a definition for “wireless communication facilities” and incorporate by
reference a City Council policy on the same
Background
In October 2001, the City Council adopted Council Policy Statement 64, approving review and
operation guidelines for wireless communication facilities (WCFs), commonly referred to as
“cell sites.” To effectively carry out and communicate the purpose and guidelines of the policy
statement, the Council directed staff to prepare a zone code amendment that would incorporate
the policy statement.
The Zoning Ordinance contains no standards specifically for WCFs, nor does it specifically list
WCFs or antennas as permitted uses. Instead, the City permits such facilities through Zoning
Ordinance Section 21.42.010(2)(J), which is found in Chapter 21.42 (“Conditional Uses”). This 38
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
Pane 16
section allows accessory public and quasi-public utility buildings and facilities by conditional
use permit in all zones.
Proposal
Staff recommends amending Chapter 21.42, Conditional Uses, by adding a new section that
would specifically identify WCFs as a conditionally permitted use in all zones, subject’ to
Council Policy Statement 64. The proposed section is as follows:
“21.42.01 O(16) All zones: Wireless communication facilities, which
must comply with City Council Policy Statement No. 64.”
Furthermore, since wireless communication facilities is a new term to the Zoning Ordinance,
staff further recommends adding the following new definition to Chapter 21.04, Definitions:
“21.04.379 Wireless communication facility.
‘Wireless communication facility’ means any component, including antennas
and all related equipment, buildings, and improvements for the provision of
personal wireless services as defined by the federal Telecommunications Act
of 1996 and as subsequently amended. Personal wireless services include but
are not limited to cellular, personal communication services (PCS), enhanced
specialized mobile radio (ESMR), paging, ground based repeaters for
satellite radio services, micro-cell antennae and similar systems which exhibit
technological characteristics similar to them.”
K. Miscellaneous, minor changes
Three additional minor changes are proposed:
1. Delete an unnecessary word in Section 21.45.020D of Chapter 21.45 (“Planned
Developments”) as follows:
“If there is a conflict between the regulations of this chapter and
any regulations approved as part of the city’s certified local coastal
programs, or a master or specific plan, the regulations of
the local coastal program or the master or specific plan shall prevail.”
2. In Chapter 21.83 (“Child Care”), correct a word in Section 21.83.030A. as follows:
“Any child day care home providing care for the children of only
one family in addition to the provider’s owner children.”
3. In Chapter 21.04 (“Definitions”) and in Chapter 21.46 (“Yards”), amend Sections
2 1.04.065(a)(4) and 2 1.46.020, respectively, regarding allowed protrusions above
building height limits. Proposed changes will make the standards regarding roof
structures, towers, chimneys, and the like easier to understand and apply. Recommended
revisions are as follows:
“21.04.065(a)(4) Building height is measured to the peak of the
structure. Per Section 2 1.46.020 of this title, protrusions above height 79
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
limits may be allowed 1
we.”
“21.46.020 Allowed protrusions above height limits. Roof
structures specifically for the housing of elevators, stairways, tanks,
ventilating fans or similar equipment required to operate and maintain the
building, fire or parapet walls, skylights, architectural features or towers,
flagpoles, chimneys, smokestacks, wireless masts and similar structures
may be erected above the height limits prescribed in this title but no roof
structure or any other space above the height limit prescribed for the zone
in which the building is located shall be allowed for the purpose of
providing additional floor space, or be taller than the minimum height
requirement to accommodate or enclose the intended use. However, the
exception in this section does not apply if there is a specific provision
protrusions under elsewhere in this title for the
consideration 1.
*
9,
General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal Program Consistency
The proposed Zoning Code Amendment will not result in any inconsistencies with the General
Plan, Local Coastal Program, or Zoning Ordinance, as demonstrated below:
A. General Plan Consistency
1.
2.
3.
The proposal serves to clarify and improve the processing of land use applications
and use of the Zoning Ordinance. This is consistent with the General Plan Land
Use Element Overall Land Use Pattern Goal A.l, which seeks to enhance the
image of Carlsbad as a desirable community.
The proposal repeals density provisions that are inconsistent with the General
Plan. State law (Government Code Section 65860(c)) mandates that the Zoning
Ordinance be consistent with the General Plan.
The proposal incorporates by reference the City Council policy on wireless
communication facilities. This is in keeping with General Plan Land Use Element
Overall Land Use Pattern Objective B.2, which states in part, “To create a visual
form for the community, that is pleasing to the eye . . .”
B. Local Coastal Program Consistency
1. The Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance for the Local Coastal
Program (LCP). Accordingly, staff has prepared an LCP amendment to ensure
consistency between the LCP and Zoning Ordinance.
ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
August 20,2003
Pane 18
2. The proposed amendment does not alter any coastal zone regulations, land use
designations or policies, with which future projects processed according to the
amendment must comply.
C. Zoning Ordinance Consistency
1. Proposed amendments make the Zoning Ordinance easier to use. This is
consistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 21.02.010), which
is “. . .to serve the public health, safety and general welfare and to provide the
economic and social advantages resulting from an orderly planned use of land
resources.”
2. Proposed amendments do not conflict with other Zoning Ordinance provisions.
Rather, they correct some current inconsistencies.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The initial study (EL4 Part 11) prepared for this project did not identify any potentially significant
environmental impacts. Staff recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration.
Staff published a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration in the newspaper and mailed
the notice to the California Coastal Commission, State Department of Fish and Game, State
Clearinghouse, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Staff received no comments in response to
the notice during the 30-day public review period.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5449 (Negative Declaration)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5450 (ZCA)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 545 1 (LCPA)
4. Background Data Sheet
5. Proposed amendments to other titles of the Municipal Code (MCA 03-01 - for
information only)
a. Changes to Title 19 regarding appeals
b. Changes to various titles of the Municipal Code amending the titles of various
city officials involved in land use review.
Strike-out and bold version of proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments (ZCA)
Strike-out and bold version of proposed Municipal Code amendments (MCA)
6.
7.
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09/MCA 03-01
CASE NAME: Various Code Changes
APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
REQUEST AND LOCATION: The proiect revises portions of the text of the Zoning
Ordinance and, to a lesser extent, other titles of the City's Municipal Code. A Local Coastal
Program Amendment is necessary because the Zoning Ordinance is the implementinq ordinance
of the Local Coastal Program. The proiect includes no development and it does not affect any
particular property or section of Carlsbad; instead, the prouosed text changes would affect the
processing and review of land use applications proposed throughout Carlsbad by:
Revising and standardizing variance findings and the appeal process for many land use
projects;
Revising and clarifying some review procedures and development standards;
Replacing and repealing outdated or superseded names and titles;
Repealing density provisions inconsistent with the General Plan, and;
Adding a definition for wireless communication facilities and incorporate a city policy
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N/A
A€": N/A Acres: N/e Proposed No. of LotskJnits: N/A
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: N/A
Density Allowed: N/A
Existing Zone: N/A
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: N/A
Density Proposed: N/A
Proposed Zone: N/A
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: N/A Water District: N/A Sewer District: N/A
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Negative Declaration recommended for adoption
-8 a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 6
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM AND TITLE 21 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY
AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS AFFECTING THE REVIEW
AND PROCESSING OF LAND USE APPLICATIONS,
INCLUDING: (1) REVISING AND STANDARDIZING VARIANCE
FINDINGS AND THE APPEAL PROCESS FOR MANY LAND USE
PROJECTS; (2) REVISING AND CLARIFYING SOME REVIEW
PROCEDURES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; (3)
REPLACING AND REPEALING OUTDATED OR SUPERSEDED
NAMES AND TITLES; (4) REPEALING DENSITY PROVISIONS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN; AND (5) ADDING A
DEFINITION FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
AND INCORPORATING A CITY POLICY ON THE SAME.
CASE NAME: VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
CASE NO.: ZCA 00-02
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That Section 21.04.065(a)(4) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21.04.065(a)(4) Building height is measured to the peak of the structure. Pel
Section 21.46.020 of this title, protrusions above height limits may be allowed E&&W&W
SECTION II: That Chapter 21.04 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by
the addition of Section 21.04.099 to read as follows:
“21.04.099 Community development director.
‘Community development director’ means the director of community
development of the city or his or her designee.’’
SECTION Ill: That Section 21.04.108 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is repealed
as follows:
SECTION IV: That Section 21.04.201 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is repealed
as follows:
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION V: That Section 21.04.292 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended
by its renumbering to Section 21.04.293.
SECTION VI: That Chapter 21;04 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by
the addition of new Subsection 21.04.292 to read as follows:
“21.04.292 Planning director.
‘Planning director’ means the director of planning of the city or his or hei
designee. In addition, the term “director” as used throughout this Title shall also mean
the planning director unless the context clearly requires otherwise.”
SECTION VII: That Chapter 21.04 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by
the addition of Section 21.04.379 to read as follows:
“21.04.379 Wireless communication facility.
‘Wireless communication facility’ means any component, including
antennas and all related equipment, buildings, and improvements for the provision 01
personal wireless services as defined by the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and
as subsequently amended. Personal wireless services include but are not limited to
cellular, personal communication services (PCS), enhanced specialized mobile radia
(ESMR), paging, ground based repeaters for satellite radio services, micro-cell antennae
and similar systems which exhibit technological characteristics similar to them.”
SECTION VIII: That Section 21.05.010 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21.05.010 Names of zones.
In order to classify, regulate, restrict and segregate the uses of land and buildings,
to regulate and restrict the height and bulk of buildings, to regulate the area of yards and othei
open spaces. about buildings, and to regulate the density of population, thirty-five W~R~~WX
classes of zones are established by this title to be known as follows:
Q--Qualified Development Overlay Zone
E-A--Excl usive Ag ricu I t u ral Zone
R-A--Residen tial Agricultural Zone
R-E--Residential Estate Zone
R-I --One-family Residential Zone
R-Z--Two-family Residential Zone
R-3--Multiple-family Residential Zone
R-P--Residential-Professional Zone
R-T--Residential Tourist Zone
H-0 -- Hospital Overlay Zone
R-W--Residential Waterway Zone
RD-M--Residential Density-Multiple Zone
ax LL ..
U
-2- 84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C-F -- Community Facilities Zone
RMHP--Residential Mobile Home Park
CL!? cc
C-1 --Neighborhood Commercial Zone
0 -- Office Zone
C-2--General Commercial Zone
C-T-- Commercial Tourist Zone
C-M--Heavy Commercial-Limited Industrial Zone
F-P--Floodplain Overlay Zone
M--Industrial Zone
0-S--Open Space Zone
P-M--Planned Industrial Zone
P-U--Public Utility Zone
P-C--Planned Community Zone
L-C--Limited Control Zone
S-P--Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone
VR--Village Redevelop men t Zone
BAO -- Beach Area Overlay Zone
T-C -- Transportation Corridor Zone
Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone
Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone
Coastal Resource Overlay Zone Mello I LCP Segment
CN-SO -- CommercialNisitor-Serving Overlay Zone”
. ..
SECTION IX: That Section 21.05.020(2)(a) of the Carlsb d Municip I Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21.05.020(2)(a) All other uses are less restrictive in the order they are firs1
permitted in the respective zones. All other zones are less restrictive in the order established by
this subsection. Residential zones are more restrictive than commercial zones and commercia
zones more restrictive than industrial zones.
(a) The degree of restrictiveness for residential zones shall be in a sequence from
most restrictive to least restrictive as follows:
R-I , R-E, R-A, equally restrictive except as provided in subsection (3);
R-2, RMHP equally restrictive;
R-3, RD-M, equally restrictive;
R-T, RW, equally restrictive;
W, R-P, eqtd&wd least restrictive.
(b) The degree of restrictiveness for commercial zones shall be in a sequence
from most restrictive to least restrictive as follows: GLR, C-I , C-2, C-T, C-M.
(c) The degree of restrictiveness for eemwwad ’ industrial zones shall be in a
sequence from most restrictive to least restrictive as follows: P-M, M.”
SECTION X: That Section 21.05.020(4) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
repealed as follows and the following subsection shall be sequentially renumbered:
-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION XI: That Section 21.06.1 30 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amendec
to read as follows:
“21.06.130 Effective date of order and appeal of planning commission
decision.
The effective date of the planning commission’s decision and method foi
appeal of such decision shall be governed by Section 21.54.150 of this Code. ?%&asw ..
SECTION XII: That Section 21.06.140 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is repealec
as follows:
SECTION XIII: That Section 21.06.150 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
renumbered and amended to read as follows:
“21.06.140158 Final site development plan.
After approval the applicant shall submit a reproducible copy of the site
development plan which incorporates all requirements of the approval to the planning director
for signature. Prior to signing the final site development plan, the
planning director wtanagw shall determine that all applicable requirements have been
incorporated into the plan and that all conditions of approval have been satisfactorily met 01
otherwise guaranteed.
The final signed site development plan shall be the official site layout plan for the
property and shall be attached to any application for a building permit on the subject property.”
-4- 86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION XIV: That Section 21.06.160 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
renumbered to be Section 21.06.150.
SECTION XV: That Section 21.08.080(b) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21.08.080(b) The official or decision-making body with the authority tc
otherwise approve the subdivision e:
may approve panhandle or flag.
shaped lots where the lot width and yards shall be measured in accord with this section if the
following circumstances are found to exist.: For a minor subdivision application with two 01
more panhandle lots, the authority for approval shall be with the planning commission.”
... ... ... ..
SECTION XVI: That Section 21.08.08O(d)(l) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21.08.080(d)(l) The area of the buildable portion of the lot shall be a minimum
ten thousand square feet or the minimum required by the zone whichever is greater. In zone
districts permitting less than ten thousand square-foot lots, the buildable portion of the lot may be
less than ten thousand square feet provided the official or decision-making body with the
authority to otherwise approve the subdivision finds from evidence
submitted on a site plan that all requirements of this section will be met; however, in no case
shall the buildable portion of the lot be less than eight thousand square feet in area. If a site plar
for a subdivision with panhandle lots, with a buildable portion of less than ten thousand square
feet, is approved, development within such subdivision shall conform to the plan as approved.
..
SECTION XVII: That Section 21.08.080(d)(2) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21.08.080(d)(2) The width requirements for the buildable portion of the lot shall
be met as required for i&e&w lots in the zone district.”
SECTION XVIII: That Section 21.08.080 (d)(lO) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
is amended to read as follows:
“21.08.080(d)(lO) Any other condition the official or decision-making body with
may .. the authority to otherwise approve the subdivision
determine to be necessary to properly develop such property.”
SECTION XIX: That Section 21.09.120(2) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21.09.120(2) The official or decision-making body with the authority to ... *.. otherwise approve the subdivision a, e:
-5- 87
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
.. ... 8 may approve panhandle or flag.
shaped lots where the lot area width and yards shall be measured as follows+. For a minoi
subdivision application with two or more panhandle lots, the authority for approval shal
be with the planning commission.”
SECTION XX: That Section 21.09.120(2)(F) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code i:
amended to read as follows:
“21.09.120(2)(F) Each lot shall have at least three nontandem parking spaces
with an approach not less than twenty-four feet in length, with proper turnaround space to permil
complete turnaround for forward access to the street. This parking and access arrangement shal
be designated to the satisfaction of the city engineer -.”
SECTION XXI: That Section 21.10.080(b) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21.10.080(b) The official or decision-making body with the authority tc
otherwise approve the subdivision 9 6 may approve panhandle or flag-shaped lots where the
lot width and yards shall be measured in accord with this section if the following circumstances
are found to exist+. For a minor subdivision application with two or more panhandle lots,
the authority for approval shall be with the planning commission.”
...
...
SECTION XXII: That Section 21.10.080(d)(l) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21.10.080(d)(l) The area of the buildable portion of the lot shall be a minimurr
ten thousand square feet or the minimum required by the zone whichever is greater. In zone
districts permitting less than ten thousand square-foot lots, the buildable portion of the lot may be
less than ten thousand square feet provided the official or decision-making body with the
authority to otherwise approve the subdivision finds frorr
evidence submitted on a site plan that all requirements of this section will be met; however, in nc
case shall the buildable portion of the lot be less than eight thousand square feet in area. If a site
plan for a subdivision with panhandle lots with a buildable portion of less than ten thousand
square feet is approved, development within such subdivision shall conform to the plan as
approved. t:: k, 3: .. .
SECTION XXIII: That Section 21.10.080(d)(2) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“Section 21.10.080(d)(2) The width requirements for the buildable portion of the
lot shall be met as required for-btefkf lots in the zone district.’’
SECTION XXIV: That Section 21.10.080(d)(10) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
-6- 88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“21.10.080(d)(lO) Any other condition the official or decision-making body with
SECTION XXV: That Section 21.10.080(e) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
the authority to otherwise approve the subdivision
may determine to be necessary to properly develop such property.”
repealed as follows:
SECTION XXVI: That Section 21.16.070 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
repealed as follows and all following sections of Chapter 21 .I6 shall be sequentially renumbered:
Section XXVII: That Section 21.18.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21.18.040 Uses and structures permitted by conditional use permit.
Subject to the provisions of Chapters 21.42 and 21 SO, tThe following uses and structures are
permitted by conditional use permit z:
(1) Circuses and carnivals and private clubs;
(2) Health facilities, long-term;
(3) Radio, television and microwave stations or towers;
(4) Professional care facilities.”
SECTION XXVIII: That Section 21.18.050(2) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
repealed as follows and all following subsections of Section 21.18.050 shall be renumberec
sequentially:
-7- B?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION XXIX: That Section 21.20.100 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
repealed as follows and all following sections of Chapter 21.20 shall be renumbered sequentially:
SECTION XXX: That Section 21.22.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
repealed as follows and all following sections of Chapter 21.22 shall be renumbered sequentially:
SECTION XXXI: That Section 21.34.050(e) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21.34.050(e) Effective date of order and Appeal of Planning Director kmd
Decision. The effective date of the planning director’s decision and
method for appeal of such decision shall be governed by Section 21.54.140 of this Code.
-8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION XXXII: That Section 21.34.050(f) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21.34.050(f) Effective Date of Order and Appeal of Planning Commission
Decision. The effective date of the planning commission’s decision and method for appeal
of such decision shall be governed by Section 21.54.150 of this Code.
SECTION XXXIII: That Section 21.35.090(f) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21.35.090(f) The effective date of order of a Housing and Redevelopmenl
Director decision and the method for appeal of such decision shall be governed by
Section 21.54.140 of this Code. e: E .. ..
SECTION XXXIV: That Section 21.35.100 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21.35.1 00 Design review board action.
(a) The design review board shall hold a public hearing on:
(1) Appeals of decisions made by the director on administrative redevelopmenl
permits as defined in Section 21.35.080 or administrative variances;
(2) Minor or major redevelopment permits; and
(3) Nonadministrative variances for which the board has final decision making
authority pursuant to Section 21.35.1 30(b).
-9- 91
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
.. .. .. w 1. ?!x - nr
(b) 0 For major redevelopment projects, the board shall consider the evidence
and by resolution report and recommend to the housing and redevelopment commission
approval, conditional approval, or denial of the project. Such resolution shall state, among other
things, the facts and reasons why the board determined the approval, conditional approval or
denial to be consistent with this chapter. The action to approve, conditionally approve or deny is
advisory to the commission ~
SECTION XXXV: That Section 21.35.1 10 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21.35.110 Effective date of order and appeal of design review board
decision 5.
The effective date of the design review board’s decision and method for
appeal of such decision shall be governed by Section 21.54.150 of this Code. &6ept-a
..
SECTION XXXVI: That Section 21.35.130 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21.35.130 Variances.
(a) The housing and redevelopment commission may grant variances from the
limits, restrictions and controls established by this chapter for major redevelopment permits if the
commission finds that:
(1) Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property,
including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the
zone regulation deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the
-10- 9a
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
vicinity and under identical zoning classification fi .. ..
(2) The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privileges
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which
the subject property is located and is subject to any conditions necessary to assure
compliance with this finding nz cr ..
tn
(3) Thegm&wj&a variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not
otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing the subject property will
v; am4
(4) Thew variance is consistent with the general purpose and
intent of the general plan, Carlsbad village are redevelopment plan, and the Carlsbad
village redevelopment master plan and design manual; k
(5) In addition, in the coastal zone, that the variance is consistent with and
implements the requirements of the certified local coastal program and that the variance
does not reduce or in any manner adversely affect the protection of coastal resources as
specified in the zones included in this title, and that the variance implements the
purposes of zones adopted to implement the local coastal program land use plan. W
(b) An application for a variance shall be processed in the same manner
established by this chapter for a redevelopment permit.
(c) 4+) The design review board may grant variances from the limits, restrictions
and controls established by this chapter for minor redevelopment projects (or otherwise
administrative projects consolidated or on appeal from a director decision), if the board makes
the variance findings set forth in subsection (a) of this section.
(d) &I The director may grant administrative variances in accordance with section 21.35.090(e), if the director makes the findings set forth in subsection (a) of this section.”
SECTION XXXVII: That Section 21.40.140 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21.40.140 Effective date of order and appeal of planning commission decision
-. The effective date of the planning commission’s decision and method for
appeal of such decision shall be governed by Section 21.54.150 of this Code. Tbe+ck&
LI. .I IW, LI.W”. m-w, hI.W”. w, &I.W”. 14(! , &I. 34 . 34 5(! din 31 c;n 431-1 31 F;n en 31 F;n
-1 1- 93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION XXXVIII: That Chapter 21.42 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code i:
amended by the addition of Section 21.42.01 O( 16) to read as follows:
“21.42.010(16) All zones: Wireless communication facilities, which musl
comply with City Council Policy Statement No. 64.”
SECTION XXXIX: That Section 21.44.060(7) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21.44.060(7) Administrative Hearing. Any person objecting to a decision made
pursuant to subsection (2)(C) above may request in writing within ten days of the determinatior
by the planning director, an administrative hearing with the planning director. The planning
director shall apply the criteria of this section in making his determination. The decision of the
director shall be final unless the director’s decision is appealed to the planning commission G@ 3. The effective date of the planning director’s decision and method for appeal for such decision shall be governed by Section 2154.140
of this Code.”
. .. ..
SECTION XL: That Section 21.45.020D. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21.45.020D. If there is a conflict between the regulations of this chapter and any
regulations approved as part of the city’s certified local coastal programs, or a
master or specific plan, the regulations of the local coastal program or the master or specific plan
shall prevail.”
SECTION XLI: That Section 21.46.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21.46.020 Allowed protrusions above height limits. Roof structures specifically
for the housing of elevators, stairways, tanks, ventilating fans or similar equipment required to
operate and maintain the building, fire or parapet walls, skylights, architectural features or
towers, flagpoles, chimneys, smokestacks, wireless masts and similar structures may be erected
above the height limits prescribed in this title but no roof structure or any other space above the
height limit prescribed for the zone in which the building is located shall be allowed for the
purpose of providing additional floor space, or be taller than the minimum height requirement to
accommodate or enclose the intended use.
However, the exception in this section does not apply if there is a specific
provision elsewhere in this title for the . protrusions under consideration edw
I,
Section XLII: That Section 21.46.130 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended
to read as follows:
“21.46.1 30 Walls, fences or hedges.
-12- 94
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
In any “R zone, no fence, wall or hedge over forty-two inches in height shall bc
permitted in any required front yard setback. In the required side yard or street side of either i
corner lot or reversed corner lot, a six-foot high fence may be permitted when approved by thc
when thc planning director $
safety and welfare of the general public are not imposed upon. The issuing of a permit upon thc
approval of the planning director
topography, building placement and vehicular or pedestrian traffic. On an interior lot a wall 01
fence not more than six feet in height may be located anywhere to the rear of the required fron
yard. In any “RO zone, any fence that exceeds six feet in height, for special uses or undei
special circumstances, shall be granted by the planning commission and subject to thc
conditions imposed by this commission.”
..
..
n5 the-aty shall be subb
SECTION XLIII: That Section 21.47.073 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code i:
amended to read as follows:
“21.47.073 Effective date of order and Appeal of planning commissior
decision.
(@ The effective date of the planning commission’s decision and method for
appeal of such decision shall be governed by Section 21.54.150 of this Code. Tlw-&xw ..
SECTION XLIV: That Chapter 21.47 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended by the addition of Section 21.47.075 to read as follows:
“21 i47.075 Effective date of order and appeal of planning director decision.
?5 -13-
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
The effective date of the planning director’s decision and method for appea
of such decision shall be governed by Section 21.54.140 of this Code.”
SECTION XLV: That Section 21.47.1 lO(b) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
is amended to read as follows:
“21.47.1 10(b) A site plan and elevations for such projects which include all desigr
criteria and development standards as contained in this chapter shall be submitted to the
planning director who may approve, conditionally approve 01
disapprove the permit. The planning director shall approve 01
conditionally approve a permit if he makes all of the findings specified in Section 21.47.072. The
planning director’s decision may be appealed in accordance witt
the procedures of Section 21.47.075 244WF3 of this chapter.”
SECTION XLVI: That Section 21.50.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code i:
amended to read as follows:
“21 50.030 Required findings sbwwg for variances.
Before any variance may be granted, it shall be shown:
(1) That because of #weam special circumstances applicable to the subjeci
property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strici
application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by othei
(2) That the & variance shall not constitute a grant of special privileges
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which
the subject property is located and is subject to any conditions necessary to assure
compliance with this finding
(3) That the gfadwg cf SA variance does not authorize a use or activity
which is not othenrvise expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing the subjecl .. . property - !x x 3: -
3
(4) That the variance is consistent with the general purpose
the 6mpdwww . general plan, and any applicable and intent of
specific or master plans. c: In -- (5) In addition, in the coastal zone, that the variance is consistent with and
implements the requirements of the certified local coastal program and that the variance
does not reduce or in any manner adversely affect the protection of coastal resources as
specified in the zones included in this title, and that the variance implements the
purposes of zones adopted to implement the local coastal program land use plan.”
-14-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION XLVlI: That Section 21.50.100 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21 .50.100 Effective date of order and appeal of Planning Commission decision
The effective date of the planning commission’s decision and method foi
appeal of such decision shall be governed by Section 21.54.150 of this Code. TbwMet4
Ti
.. bc -2. ?hc 2
SECTION XLVIII: That Sections 21.50.1 IO, 21.50.120, 21.50.130, 21.50.140, and
21 50.150 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code are repealed as follows:
-15-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION XLIX: That Section 21.51.010 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21 SI .010 Authority of planning director to grant
certain variances.
The planning director shall have the following
powers and duties:
(1) To grant such variances from the zoning provisions of this code as will not be
contrary to its intent or to the public health, safety and general welfare when, due to special
circumstances Q of the property or of its location or
surroundings as specified in subsection (2) of this section, strict and literal interpretation and
enforcement of the provisions of this code would result in unusual difficulties or unnecessary
hardship or be inconsistent with the general purpose of this code.
may grant a variance from
the zoning provisions of this code when it appears from the facts contained in the application and
from information obtained by the planning director that the following
findings can be made:
(a) That because of #weare special circumstances applicable to the subject
property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict
application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other
.. ..
(2) The planning director
(b) That the stsh variance shall not constitute a grant of special privileges
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which
the subject property is located and is subject to any conditions necessary to assure
compliance with this finding
(c) That the variance does not authorize a use or activity
which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing the subject .. . property - 52 z 2: -
(d) That the gmekg sf W variance is consistent with the general
purpose and intent of the general plan and any applicable specific or master plans. W R&
In addition, in the coastal zone, that the variance is consistent with
and implements the requirements of the certified local coastal program and that th&
variance does not reduce or in any manner adversely affect the protection of coastal
(e)
-16- 98
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
resources as specified in the zones included in this title, and that the variance implements
the purposes of zones adopted to implement the local coastal program land use plan.
SECTION L: That Section 21.51.060 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended
to read as follows:
“21.51.060 Effective date of order and appeal of planning director decision
(aj The effective date of the planning director’s decision and method for appeal of such decision shall be governed by Section 21.54.140 of this Code. Tbe-wch
SECTION LI: That Section 21 52.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended
to read as follows:
“21 52.030 Application.
Whenever the owner of any land or building desires an amendment, supplement
to or change in any of the regulations prescribed for his property, he shall prepare an application
requesting such amendment, supplement or change on the prescribed form and forward it with
the required fee to the planning director w.
SECTION LII: That Section 21.52.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21 52.080 Commission action to be final when denying application.
The action of the planning commission in denying an application for amendment
shall be final and conclusive unless appealed.: The effective date of the decision and method
for appeal of such decision shall be governed by Section 21.54.150 of this Code. +,&Mkh
-17- 79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION LIII: That Section 21.52.090 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
repealed as follows:
SECTION LIV: That Section 21.52.100 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows and all following sections of Chapter 21.52 shall be sequentially
renumbered:
“21.52.090188 Public hearing on commission’s recommendations on
amendments ad+ppAs.
Ffollowing receipt of a %e resolution from the
planning commission recommending the adoption of the amendment
as provided in
this chapter, the city council shall conduct a duly advertised public hearing on the matter as
soon as practicable, public notice of which shall be given as provided in Section 21 52.040.”
.. .. .. ..
SECTION LV: That Section 21.52.120 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21 52.1 1 Om The city council shall render its decision as soon as practicable
following the termination of proceedings of the hearing or upon the
receipt of report from the planning commission when a matter has been referred back to the
planning commission.”
SECTION LVI: That Section 21.54.010(c) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21 S4.01 O(c) If the application together with the materials submitted in response
to a determination of completeness are determined by the planning director
mafqef to not be complete pursuant to this section the applicant may appeal the decision if7
w&mg to the planning commission pursuant to Section 21.54.140 . The applicant may also appeal the
decision of the planning commission to the city council pursuant to Section 21.54.150.
The city council pktwtt~g ccmmwiw shall make a final written determination of the
completeness of the application not later than sixty calendar days after the receipt of the
applicant’s written appeal to the planning commission.”
..
-1 8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION LVII: That Section 21.54.010(d) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21.54.010(d) Failure by the city to meet the deadlines specified in this sectior
shall cause the application to be deemed complete. The failure of the applicant to meet any 01
the time limits specified in this section shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal of the
application. Nothing in this section precludes an applicant and iR the city from mutually agreeins
to an extension of any time limit provided in this section.”
SECTION LVIII: That Section 21.54.010(e) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
repealed as follows:
SECTION LIX: That Section 21.54.100 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21 54.100 Hearing continuance with& public notice.
If, for any reason, testimony on any case set for public hearing cannot be
completed on the date set for such hearing, the person presiding at such public hearing may,
before adjournment or recess thereof, publicly announce the time and place to, and at which,
said hearing will be continued, and no further notice is required. However,
’ is continued by the
decision-making body to a time which is not 4
am#iw&& a time certain, the city shall provide notice of the further hearings for’action on the
proposed development) in the same manner and within the same time limits as established in
Sections 21 54.060 and 21 54.061 .”
..
if a decision on a matter set for public hearing
nr 31E;4-#jn n ri -1.” * “1 “ w-@j announced at the hearing to be
SECTION LX: That Section 21.54.130 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
”21 54.130 Restriction on reapplication after denial
No application for a zone change, general plan amendment, planned
development, variance, conditional use permit, site development plan, specific plan, master plan
or other permit, or any amendment to a previously issued permit or plan shall be accepted if a
substantially similar application has been finally denied within one year prior to the application
shall determine if the subsequeni date. The planning director
application is substantially similar to the previously denied application. 1 The effective date of the planning director’s decision
and method for appeal of such decision shall be governed by Section 21.54.140 of this
Code.”
That Section 21.54.140 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
..
SECTION LXI:
amended to read as follows:
-19-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“21 54.140 Effective date of order and aAppeal of planning director or housing
and redevelopment director decisions.
(a) This section shall apply to those decisions or determinations of the planninG
director or housing and redevelopment director made pursuant to this title or planning
director determinations pursuant to Title 19 w. Accordingly, in this section, “housing and redevelopmenl
director” shall be interchangeable with “planning director;” “housing and redevelopmenl
department” shall be interchangeable with “planning department;” “design review board’:
shall be interchangeable with “planning commission;” and “housing and redevelopmenl commission” shall be interchangeable with “city council.”
(b) Whenever the planning director is authorized, pursuant to this title or Title 19,
to make a decision or determination, such decision or determination is final and effective when
the planning director’s written determination is mailed or otherwise delivered to the
person(s) affected by the determination, whichever time is least restrictive. Within ten
calendar days of the date that a decision or determination becomes final, a written appeal
may be filed with the secretary of the planning commission
by an interested person . An individual member
of the city council can be an interested person for purposes of the appeal. Filing of such an
appeal within such time limits shall stay the effect of the decision or determination of the
planning director until such time as the planning commission has acted on the appeal.
The wi#e~ appeal shall specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal s. The burden of proof is on the appellant to
establish by substantial evidence that the grounds wasen&) for the requested action appeal
exist. Fees for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the
city council. 1 is dz new,
..
.. .. .. .
.. ..
..
(c) Upon the filing of an appeal, the secretary of the planning commission shall schedule the appeal for hearing before the planning commission as soon as
practicable. An appeal shall be heard and noticed in the same manner as was required of
the determination or decision being appealed. The hearing before the planning
commission is de novo, but the planning commission shall determine all matters not
specified in the appeal have been found by the planning director and are supported by
substantial evidence. The planning commission shall consider the recommendations of
the planning department, the decision of the planning director and all other relevant
documentary and oral evidence as presented at the hearing. The planning commission
may affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the planning director, and make such order
supported by substantial evidence as it deems appropriate, including remand to the
planning director with directions for further proceedings. The planning commission
action on an appeal shall be final unless appealed to the city council, pursuant to the
provisions of Section 21 S4.150.”
-20-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Section LXII: That Chapter 21.54 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended b)
the addition of Section 21 54.150 to read as follows:
“21.54.150 Effective date of order and appeal of planning commission 01
design review board decisions.
(a) This section shall apply to those decisions or determinations of ths
planning commission or design review board made pursuant to this title or Title 19,
Accordingly, in this section, “housing and redevelopment director” shall be
interchangeable with “planning director;” “housing and redevelopment department” shall
be interchangeable with “planning department;” “design review board” shall be
interchangeable with “planning commission;” and “housing and redevelopmenl
commission” shall be interchangeable with “city council.”
(b) Whenever the planning commission is authorized pursuant to this title 01
Title 19 to make a decision or determination, such decision or determination is final and
effective upon the adoption of the resolution or decision. Within ten calendar days of the
date that a decision or determination becomes final, a written appeal may be filed with the
city clerk. An individual member of the city council can be an interested person for
purposes of the appeal. Filing of such an appeal within such time limits shall stay the
effect of the decision or determination of the planning commission until such time as the
city council has acted on the appeal as set forth in this Title. The appeal shall specifically
state the reason or reasons for the appeal. The burden of proof is on the appellant ta
establish by substantial evidence that the grounds for the requested action exist. Fees
for filing an appeal under this section shall be established by resolution of the city
council.
(c) Upon the filing of an appeal, the city clerk shall schedule the appeal for
hearing before the city council as soon as practicable. An appeal shall be heard and
noticed in the same manner as was required of the determination or decision being
appealed. The hearing before the city council is de novo, but the city council shall
determine all matters not specified in the appeal have been found by the planning
commission and are supported by substantial evidence. The city council shall consider
the recommendations of the planning department, the decision of the planning
commission and all other relevant documentary and oral evidence as presented at the
hearing. The city council may affirm, modify, or reverse the action of the planning
commission, and make such order supported by substantial evidence as it deems
appropriate, including remand to the planning commission with directions for further
proceedings. Any action by the city council shall be final and conclusive; provided,
however, that any action reversing the decision of the planning commission shall be by
the affirmative vote of at least three members of the city council.
(d) Upon receipt of a written appeal to the city council filed with the city clerk, the city clerk shall advise the planning director who shall transmit to said clerk the
planning commission’s complete record of the case.”
Section LXIII: That Section 21.80.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21.80.050 Duties of planning director -.
(a) After the application has been accepted as complete the planning director el
shall determine if the project is exempt from the requirements of this
chapter pursuant to Section 21.80.030. The director shall give notice of a determination of
exemption to all persons specified in Section 21.80.1 60. The cost of providing this notice shall be
..
-21-
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
.. .. included in the fee paid by the applicant.
.. (b) The planning director ’ shall approve, conditionall)
approve or deny permits for projects qualifying for administrative approval pursuant to Sectior
30624 of the state Public Resources Code; providing, ’however, that an administrative permii
shall not be issued for any development which must be reviewed by the coastal commissior
pursuant to Sections 30579(b) and 30601 of the Public Resources Code.
(c) The planning director * shall issue all emergenc)
permits.
(d) If the director determines that the matter does not qualify for an exemption 01 an administrative or emergency permit then the director shall set the matter for public hearing
before the planning commission. The coastal permit may be set for hearing at the same time as
any other permit for the project.
(e) The effective date of the planning director’s decision and the method for
appeal of such decision shall be governed by Section 21.54.140.”
..
SECTION MIV: That Section 21.80.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21.80.080 Effective date of order and aAppeal of planning commission
decision.
(a) The effective date of the decision of the planning commission and method
for appeal of such decision shall be governed by Section 21 S4.150 of this code isftwkd
.. .. .. .. ((
(b) @ If the development for which a coastal development permit also requires
other discretionary approvals for which the planning commission is not given final approval
authority then the planning commission action on the coastal development permit shall be
deemed a recommendation to the city council.
SECTION MV: That Section 21.80.160(d) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
-22-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“21.80.160(d) The effective date of aAny decision of the director pursuant to this
section and the method for appeal of such decision shall be governed by Section
.The 21.54.140 of this Code e
7. The appeal shall be considered by the planning commission in
accordance with the provisions of this chapter for any other application.”
..
SECTION MVI: That Section 21.81.055(e) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21.81.055(e) The effective date of the director’s decision and the method for
appeal of such decision shall be governed by Section 21.54.140 of this Code
i. The
director shall give notice of final local decision on the appeal in accordance with Section
21.81.120.”
.. ..
SECTION LXVII: That Section 21.81.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21.81.080 Effective date of order and aAppeal of Gafkbad design review
board decision.
(a) The effective date of the design review board’s decision and the method
for appeal of such decision shall be governed by Section 21.54.150 of this Code Thea&h
-23-
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) The decision of the housing and redevelopment commission shall bc
consistent with the provisions of this chapter and shall be supported by appropriate findings.
(c) If the development for which a coastal development permit also requires othe
discretionary permits or approvals for which the design review board is not given final approva
authority then the design review board action on the coastal development permit shall bc
deemed a recommendation to the housing and redevelopment commission.”
SECTION LXVIII: That Section 21.83.030A. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code i:
amended to read as follows:
“21.83.030A. Any child day care home providing care for the children of only onc
family in addition to the provider’s own- children.”
SECTION UIX: That Section 21.83.050K. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code i:
amended to read as follows:
“21.83.050K. Large family day care home providers shall make written applicatior
to the director and shall include all materials deemed necessary by the director to show that the
requirements of this section are met. The director shall grant the permit without a hearing if al
the requirements of this section are satisfied. The decision of the director shall be made withir
fifteen working days of the receipt of a complete application and provided to the applicant ir
writing. The effective date of the decision of the director and the method for appeal of suct
decision shall may be appeal& {
in accordance to the procedures set forth in Section 21.54.140 of this title.
.. ..
11
SECTION UX: That Section 21.83.070B. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21.83.070B. The director may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the
permit. The director may waive a public hearing on an administrative permit if notice has beer
provided in accordance with subsection (A)(I) of this section and a request for a public hearinc
has not been received by the city within fifteen working days from the date of sending the notice
If a request for a public hearing is received, a public hearing before the director shall be held ir
the same manner as a planning commission hearing. In either event, the director’s decision shal
be based upon the requirements of, and shall include, specific factual findings supporting
whether the project is or is not in conformity with the requirements of Section 21.83.080 of this
chapter.
The director’s decision shall be made in writing.k
If the matter includes a coastal developmeni
permit, unless the decision is appealed to the planning commission, the director shall provide a
notice of final action in accordance with Sections 21.201.160 and 21.201.170 of this code, ir
addition to the director’s written decision.”
..
A nr ..
SECTION LXXI: That Section 21.83.070C. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
-24-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“21.83.070C. The effective date of the director’s decision and the method fo
appeal of such decision shall be in accordance with the procedures set forth in Sectior
21.54.140 of this title tc t4 .. .
-If the matter includes a coastal development permit the director shall give
notice of final action on the appeal in accordance with Sections 21.201.160 and 21.201.170 o
this title.”
..
SECTION Wll: That Section 21.110.240(b) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code i!
amended to read as follows:
“21 .I 10.240(b) The effective date of order of the floodplain administrato
granting or denying a special use permit, variance or other entitlement and the method fo
appeal of such order shall be hnrrnmn governed by Section 21.54.150 of this Code. fiRa
variances from the requirements of this chapter, the city council shall consider all technica
evaluations, all relevant factors, standards specified in other sections of this chapter, and:”
SECTION LXXIII: That Section 21.201.080C. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code i:
amended to read as follows:
“21.201.080C. The director may approve, approve with conditions or deny thc
permit. The director may waive a public hearing on a minor coastal development permit if noticc
has been provided in accordance with subsection (B)(I) of this section and a request for a public
hearing has not been received by the city within fifteen working days from the date of sending thc
notice. If a request for a public hearing is received, a public hearing before the director shall bc
held in the same manner as a planning commission hearing. In either event the director’:
decision shall be based upon the requirements of, and shall include specific factual finding!
supporting whether the project is or is not in conformity with, the certified local coastal progran
(and, if applicable, with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coasta
Act). This director’s decision shall be made in writing. The effective date of thc
decision and the method for appeal of such decision shall be governed by Sectior
21 S4.140 of this Code. a 3 Unles!
the decision is appealed to the planning commission, the director shall provide a notice of fina
local action in accordance with Sections 21.201.160 and 21.201.170 of this code, in addition tc
the director’s written decision.”
.. .. .. ...
.. ..
-25-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION LXXIV: That Section 21.201.080D. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
repealed as follows and all following subsections shall be sequentially re-lettered:
SECTION WV: That Section 21.201.120. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“21.201 .I20 Effective date of order and aAppeal of planning commission
decision.
A. The effective date of the planning commission decision and the method
for appeal of such decision shall be governed by Section 21.54.150 of this Code. We
B. If the development for which a coastal development permit also requires other
discretionary permits or approvals for which the planning commission is not given final approval
authority then the planning commission action on the coastal development permit shall be
deemed a recommendation to the city council.
C. The city council may establish and levy a fee for appeals of coastal permit
decisions.’’
SECTION WVI: That Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by
replacing “land use planning manager” with “planning director” wherever it occurs in the following
sections: 21.06.050, 21.06.070, 21.07.120, 21.08.040, 21.08.100, 21.09.190, 21.10.040,
21 .I 0.1 00, 21.12.040, 21.21.110, 21.21.130, 21.21.170, 21.24.040, 21.27.020, 21.27.050,
21.34.020, 21.34.050, 21.34.060, 21.34.070, 21.34.090, 21.34.110, 21.34.130, 21.34.140,
21.37.040, 21.37.050, 21.37.080, 21.37.100,
-26-
21.38.050, 21.38.080, 21.38.090, 21.38.120,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21.38.130, 21.40.060, 21.40.080, 21.40.090, 21.42.010, 21.46.120, 21.47.020, 21.47.040
21.47.050, 21.47.072, 21.47.110, 21.47.120, 21.47.150, 21.48.080, 21.50.110, 21.51.010
21.51.020, 21.51.030, 21.51.040, 21.51.050, 21.51.060, 21.52.030, 21.54.010, 21.54.130,
21.55.070, 21.55.170, 21.55.180, 21.55.190, 21.80.120, and 21.82.060.
SECTION LXXVII: That Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by
replacing “manager“ with “planning director“ wherever it occurs in sections 21.37.080, 21.38.080,
and 21.51.050.
SECTION LXXVIII: That Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by
replacing “director of building and planning” with “planning director” wherever it occurs in
sections 21.80.030, 21.80.040, 21.80.050, 21.80.160, and 21.80.170.
SECTION MIX: That Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by
the replacing “building official,” “building and planning director,” “director of building and
planning,” and “principal building inspector” with “community development director“ wherever
they occur in the following sections: 21.34.130, 21.34.140, 21.42.010, 21.47.120, 21.47.130,
21.47.150, 21.48.080, 21.55.070, 21.60.010, 21.60.030, 21.80.010, 21.83.080, and 21.81.010.
SECTION LXXX: That Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by
replacing “land use planning office” with “planning director” wherever it occurs in Section
21.42.010.
SECTION LXXXI: That Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by
replacing “land use planning ofice” with “planning department” wherever it occurs in the following
sections: 21.06.060, 21.37.040, 21.38.050, 21.42.010, and 21.43.080.
...
...
...
...
...
-27- 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
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 fifteer
days after its adoption. (Not withstanding the preceding, this ordinance shall not be effective
within the City’s Coastal Zone until approved by the California Coastal Commission.)
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad Cit)
Council on the day of 2003, and thereafter.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City 01
Carlsbad on the day of 2003, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAI N:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-28-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
. 24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL CODE TO (1) REPLACE IN VARIOUS MUNICIPAL
CODE SECTIONS “BUILDING AND PLANNING DIRECTOR,”
“DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND PLANNING,” “LAND USE
PLANNING MANAGER,’’ “LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE,” AND
“PRINCIPAL BUILDING INSPECTOR WITH CURRENT TITLES;
AND (2) AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 19.04.080B.,
19.04.1 IOA., AND 19.04.170 REGARDING APPEAL
PROCEDURES.
CASE NAME: VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
CASE NO.: MCA 03-01
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That Title 2 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by
replacing “building and planning director“ with “community development director” wherever it
occurs in sections 2.08.050, 2.24.020, and 2.48.030.
SECTION II: That Title 2 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by
replacing “land use planning manager” with “planning director” wherever it occurs in sections
2.24.020, 2.24.030, and 2.48.030.
SECTION Ill: That Title 5 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by
replacing ”building and planning director and “director of building and planning” with
“community development director” wherever they occur in sections 5.04.1 20, 5.09.050,
5.09.1 10, 5.24.005, 5.24.01 5, 5.24.020, 5.24.025, 5.24.030, 5.24.040, 5.24.045, 5.24.065,
5.24.075, 5.24.080, 5.24.085, 5.24.095, 5.24.100, 5.24.105, 5.24.115, 5.24.120, 5.24.125,
5.24.210, 5.24.315, and 5.24.335.
SECTION IV: That Section 5.50.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended
by replacing “land use planning manager” with “planning director.”
SECTION V: That Title 6 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by
replacing “building and planning director” with “community development director” wherever it
occurs in sections 6.16.030 and 6.16.050.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION VI: That Title 13 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by
replacing “building and planning director” with “community development director” in sections
13.20.020 and 13.20.040.
SECTION VII: That Title 18 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by
replacing “building and planning director“ ”and “director of building and planning” with
“community development director“ wherever they occur in sections 18.05.020, 18.1 2.030,
18.12.040, 18.12.050, 18.12.080, 18.12.100, 18.12.110, 18.12.120, 18.12.130, 18.12.140,
18.12.150, 18.’12.160, 18.12.180, 18.12.200, 18.30.020, 18.32.010, and 18.40.110.
SECTION VIII: That Section 18.28.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended by replacing “principal building inspector” with “community development director.”
SECTION IX: That Section 19.04.080B. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“1 9.04.0808. Notice of hearing on appeal before eitktef the planning commission
shall be sent by first class mail to the applicant and to the appellant.”
SECTION X: That Section 19.04.110A. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“19.04.1 10A. If the planning director or the planning commission has the
authority under this code to approve or deny a project, the decision to adopt, conditionally adopt
or disapprove adoption of a negative declaration or a mitigated negative declaration is final
unless any interested party files an appeal of the negative declaration, as provided by this code
in Title 21, Chapter 21 54, Sections 21 54.140 and 21 S4.150.”
SECTION XI: That Section 19.04.170 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
“1 9.04.170 Appeal of environmental impact report.
A. Any challenge to the adequacy of an EIR certified by the planning
commission may be appealed to the city council in accordance with the procedures set forth in
Title 21, Chapter 21 34, Section 21 54.150.
the B. Notice of the hearing on appeal before 3 ..
city council shall be sent by first class mail to the applicant and to the appellant.”
...
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION XII: That Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by
replacing “land use planning office” with “planning department” wherever it occurs in sections
20.08.010, 20.08.020, and 20.12.120.
SECTION Xlll: That Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by
replacing “building and planning director” “and “director of building and planning” with
“community development director” wherever they occur in sections 20.08.140, 20.48.01 0, and
20.48.030.
SECTION XIV: That Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by
replacing “land use planning manager“ with I‘ planning director” wherever it occurs in sections
20.12.010, 20.12.015, 20.12.070, 20.17.020, 20.20.110, 20.24.090, 20.36.070, and 20.48.010.
SECTION XV: That Section 22.08.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended by replacing “land use planning manager“ with “planning director.”
SECTION XVI: That Section 22.10.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended by replacing “director of building and planning” with “community development director”
wherever it occurs.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its
adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be
published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within
fifteen days after its adoption. (Not withstanding the preceding, this ordinance shall not be
effective within the City’s Coastal Zone until approved by the California Coastal Commission.)
...
...
...
...
-3- I1 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council on the day of 2003, and thereafter.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the day of 2003, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-4-
Planning Commission Minutes August 20,2003 EXHIBIT 7 Page 8
4. ZCA 00-02/LCPA 00-09 - VARIOUS CODE CHANGES - Request for a recommendation of adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval of a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal
Program Amendment for a variety of changes to the text of the Zoning Ordinance. Also presented as a receive and file item only are related, minor changes to other titles of the
Municipal Code besides the Zoning Ordinance that the City Council will review and consider for approval.
Mr. Neu introduced Item 4 and stated that Associate Planner, Scott Donnell, would make the presentation and that this item would automatically go to City Council for approval.
Chairperson Baker opened the public hearing on Item 4 and acknowledged the Errata Sheet received on this Item.
Associate Planner, Scott Donnell, presented the Staff Report stating that this project had been labeled various code changes and involved three Separate applications. The Municipal Code Amendment affects titles outside the Zoning Ordinance. This project is a Staff-initiated project. The changes were developed in consultation with the City Attorney. The changes are four-fold. The first is to improve the consistency of the Zoning Ordinance, both internally and with other titles of the Municipal Code. In addition, the purpose of this project is to make the Zoning Ordinance easier overall to use through the standardization
of some procedures in the Zoning Ordinance, as well as updating the Zoning Ordinance with procedures that are in effect currently. Moreover, the goal is to make the Zoning Ordinance more relevant by using updated terms and procedures and to make the other titles of the Municipal Code improved through various changes to the titles of land use officials involved in land use review. There are 11 recommended
changes as follows.
1) Revise standards for the noticing of continued public hearings;
2) Revise the review requirements for subdivisions with panhandle lots; 3) Amend procedures for incomplete application;
4) Revise and standardize the appeal process for most types of land use decisions;
5) Revise variance findings to be consistent with the California Government Code;
6) Change provisions affecting the review of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments;
7) Repeal density provisions that are inconsistent with the General Plan;
8) Update Chapter 21.05 to reflect currently adopted zones;
9) Replace outdated titles, such as “land use planning manager,” with current titles such as “planning director”;
10) Add a definition for “wireless communication facilities” and incorporate by reference a City Council policy on the same; and
11) Miscellaneous, minor changes.
Commissioner Dominguez asked for more information on the proposed changes for panhandle lots and appeals notification. He stated that there are certain Items that come before the Planning Commission, particularly regarding coastal decisions, that can be appealed, but they are never notified.
Mr. Neu shared a public hearing notice for a Coastal Development Permit that indicated at the end that
the permit was in the Coastal Zone appealable area. So that information is on the notice that is mailed. Following that there is information regarding the appeal process. This information is required by the coastal permit procedures.
Commissioner Dominguez asked who would be notified. Mr. Neu stated that the people within a certain radius of the project would receive the notice. He stated that the notice describes the project and has a location map. Commissioner Dominguez stated that it had been confusing as to what was appealable and what was not.
Commissioner Dominguez asked for more information on the changes regarding the panhandle lots. Mr.
Donnell stated that there are three zones in the City that allow panhandle lots. In two of the zones, if you have a subdivision that’s considered a minor subdivision with fewer than four lots, the code states that the Planning Commission shall review those subdivisions. If the subdivision has five or more lots, then the City Council shall review the subdivision. There is another zone, however, that for minor subdivisions with panhandle lots, the Planning Director makes the decision. For major subdivisions with five or more
Planning Commission Minutes August 20,2003 Page 9
lots, the City Council makes the decision. It is proposed to make the review of panhandle subdivision lots
the same as all other subdivisions, that a minor subdivision with a panhandle lot would be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. A major subdivision with a panhandle lot that is between five and fifty lots
would be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Any major subdivision, whether it had a panhandle lot or not, would go to the City Council for approval.
Commissioner Dominguez stated that he had deep concerns about that, primarily because most of the City’s business would be infill in the coming years and the reduction of giving people a forum to air their
concerns about panhandle lots would cause grief in the future.
Chairperson Baker stated that reviewing minor subdivisions with panhandles was not something the Planning Commission could change. Mr. Wojcik clarified the process that the Engineering Department used for the Tentative Parcel Maps. When they receive an application, with or without a panhandle, they
mail out to a 3004 radius all of the property owners notifying them that a Tentative Map has been applied for and where they can obtain further information. When the City Engineer renders a decision on the Tentative Parcel Map, another notice is mailed about that decision, explaining the appeal process.
Commissioner Montgomery elaborated on Commissioner Dominguez’s concerns about areas developed that are split into two where there is a flag lot behind it. If these are paired in series in an area with minimal engineering input, which happened into the mid-1980s when they didn’t have the proper review for drainage, utilities, access, and such, it will create certain neighborhoods in Carlsbad with a collective amount of multiple two-lot subdivisions. The areas adjacent to these have many problems. Commissioner Montgomery asked what will the Planning and Engineering Departments do to prevent
these problems. Mr. Wojcik replied that over the years they’ve learned from past mistakes and they have
a much better trained Staff in terms of what they look for as far as drainage, pollution control, and so forth. In the past, a sloping panhandle lot may have been approved when the lot was too low to make it
to a sewer line, even by gravity, so pumps would have been necessary. He stated that their level of analysis and review has greatly improved because of some catastrophes. Commissioner Montgomery stated that it wasn’t a single lot split that caused the problems, but the collective splitting of adjacent lots. These are issues of infill development.
Mr. Wojcik offered one example of the changes that have been made, stating that the Lynn Subdivision
on Black Rail Road is set back from Black Rail Road and the original request was to have panhandles back to it. In looking at the area, it was obvious that there were multiple small pieces of properties that wouldn’t go into major subdivisions that would all need some form of access. They weren’t going to provide access off Poinsettia, so the request for panhandles was denied. Instead, it was required that
they dedicate the public street to gain access back to the property. That forced the Lynn Subdivision to deal with the property in front of them and negotiate for some right-of-way.
Commissioner Dominguez asked how much it cost to appeal a Tentative Map filing. Chairperson Baker stated that it was $440 if they were appealing to the Planning Commission. Mr. Wojcik stated that it was
the City Engineer’s decision whether they were going to approve it and the current ordinance states that the City Engineer’s decision can be appealed directly to the City Council. The procedure used since the
delegation of signing the approvals for Tentative Maps has been given to him and if someone wanted to appeal a decision he had signed, the City Engineer would meet with them to try to avoid going on to City Council. There is this informal appeal procedure in between the decision and the City Council.
Chairperson Baker stated that a decision made by the Planning Director would be appealed to the Planning Commission. Mr. Wojcik confirmed that.
Commissioner Dominguez observed that it had been his experience that the whole process was rather intimidating, time-consuming, and highly discouraging. Chairperson Baker asked if he was, therefore,
recommending that the change pertaining to this not be made. He stated that he would like panhandle
lots limited to two for the City Engineer’s administrative approval. Anything larger than two, he felt would have potential problems that required closer examination. He added that the future problems won’t be in the subdivisions, but in the old established neighborhoods where people have become accustomed to certain amenities that they’re going to lose.
Planning Commission Minutes August 20,2003 Page 10
Commissioner Montgomery questioned the wording about wireless communications on page 16 where it states in the proposal that the WCFs can be a conditionally permitted use in all zones. He asked if they might want to exclude those in residential areas. He stated that he didn’t believe that any of those sites had to be in residential zones.
Mr. Donnell responded that it was drafted to say “all zones” because if they were to prohibit those facilities from locating in certain zones, they might run afoul of the Federal Telecommunications Act. They cannot prohibit a company from expanding their network. If it was determined that the only location
for a facility was in a residential zone, he thought that federal law would require the City to approve it. The City would not be prevented from trying to find alternatives, however, and that‘s where policy applies
to discourage providers from locating in certain areas. Commissioner Montgomery stated that his point of contention was with multiple locations away from residential locations. He asked Ms. Mobaldi if the City
limited these by stating no residential zones. Ms. Mobaldi stated that there may be situations where they needed to locate in residential zones. Ms. Mobaldi said she could look into the Federal Law before this
goes to the City Council.
Commissioner Montgomery asked about the wording under ”Miscellaneous, minor changes” regarding allowed protrusions above building height limits. He noted that there are no actual height limits of any
kind and that it was up to the planners and the Planning Director to modify protrusions. He said that he felt that there should be a height limit.
Commissioner Dominguez agreed with Commissioner Montgomery that the protrusion issue was unclear. Ultimate height limit, for example, is the center roofline not the highest portion of a structure. Parapets and steeples can be used as a retaliatory measure against a neighbor.
Commissioner White stated that if a height or percentage limit were put into this language that it could encourage an applicant who was thinking of having any kind of protrusion to go all the way to the top of that limit. She stated that she felt planners looked very carefully at protrusions to see if they were balanced with the rest of the structure and if it would be an annoyance to the neighbors. The planners screen these and the Planning Commission could condition any of these structures.
Commissioner Montgomery explained that his contention was that someone might argue that there was no regulation height limit. Mr. Neu said that there was quite a degree of subjectivity to it, but the only two limiting factors in that definition were that it couldn’t be for the purpose of providing additional floor space or be taller than the minimum height requirement to accommodate or enclose the intended use. There’s
a lot of negotiating and judgment that goes into that. The difficulty in trying to come up with a number is trying to account for all the different possible scenarios.
Commissioner Whitton stated that he was satisfied with the way it was defined as it gives the developers the use of their judgment.
Commissioner Heineman stated that since their action was receive and file, he asked where that left the numerous proposals for changes. Mr. Donnell answered that there were two actions. One was to
recommend approval of the changes to the zoning ordinance and then the receive and file had to do with those changes proposed to other parts of the Municipal Code other than Title 21.
Commissioner Dominguez asked about the condition on the reduction of density from 30 to 23. He asked if that was an ultimate limit or could they apply density bonuses in special cases. Mr. Donnell confirmed
that they could, that it didn’t interfere with that.
Ms. Mobaldi addressed Commissioner Montgomery’s question about the legality of stating that the Planning Commission was allowed to address esthetics in a lot of their determinations, which, of course, is subjective and broad.
DISCUSSION
Chairperson Baker opened discussion on Commissioner Dominguez’s suggestion that the Planning
Commission limit City Engineer approval to lots with panhandles with two lots or less.
Planning Commission Minutes August 20,2003 Page 11
Commissioner Dominguez proposed that they retain anything larger than two panhandle lots to be heard
before the Planning Commission in order to have it examined lest it become a problem in the community. He said that most of the damage previously alluded to by Commissioner Montgomery had been cumulative because administrative decisions just don’t get an airing. Although everything may be proper within the limits of the proposal to an engineer’s eye, the impacts to the immediate neighborhoods are
really not taken into consideration. He stated that with the future massive amounts of infill that the Planning Commission would be dealing with, that they ought to retain that perspective.
Commissioner Heineman stated that the suggestion was good and asked how they would go about doing
that. Chairperson Baker stated that they would change where it said “four or fewer” to “two or fewer.”
Mr. Wojcik asked for clarification as he thought Commissioner Dominguez said “no more than two panhandle lots.” Commissioner Dominguez confirmed that. Chairperson Baker remarked that there could be four lots with only one panhandle. She asked Commissioner Dominguez if he meant four lots with one panhandle. Commissioner Dominguez answered that he meant anything with two or more panhandles.
Mr. Neu offered some background information explaining that when the City Engineer acted on minor subdivisions, he routed the proposal to various departments including the Planning Department to make a
recommendation. So in the case of panhandle lots, that is addressed in the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Department makes a recommendation whether the findings to approve a panhandle lot could be
made and whether it meets the standards for lot width and depth and size of the panhandle. It‘s not done independently by the City Engineer.
Commissioner White stated that the Planning Commission was not casting any doubt on the ability of the City Engineer or the Planning Department to make a rational decision. It’s the Commissioners wish to
make a hearing available to people who live in the neighborhood and to make it as easy as possible for them to voice their opinions.
Commissioner Dominguez concurred that opening up the process was his primary intent with this
proposed change.
Commissioner Whitton agreed with that statement.
Chairperson Baker stated that infill in the north part of town was going to become a problem and it‘s wise to give an open hearing in situations such as this wherever possible. She recapped that it’s fewer than four, but has to have two panhandles before it comes to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Dominguez added that otherwise the engineer has full authority to process it administratively. A minor subdivision would trigger a hearing if it had two panhandles out of the four.
Chairperson Baker asked Mr. Donnell what the language should be. He stated that it could say that the City Engineer shall approve minor subdivisions with no more than one panhandle lot. Subdivisions with
two or more panhandle lots shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission if they contain no more than 50 total lots. All other subdivisions shall require City Council approval.
Chairperson Baker asked Ms. Mobaldi if that was acceptable. She asked Mr. Donnell if he was at 21 .IO.
080(B). Chairperson Baker called for an informal recess at 7:30 p.m. to refine the language. The meeting was called back to order at 7:35 p.m.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that she was looking at Section 21.10.080(B), but other Sections would also need to be amended. The official or decision-making body with the authority to otherwise approve the subdivision
may approve panhandle or flag-shaped lots. Widths and yards shall be measured in accord with this section if the following circumstances are found to exist, except for an application for two or more
panhandle lots in a minor subdivision in which case the authority for approval shall be with the Planning Commission.
Chairperson Baker asked for a motion.
Planning Commission Minutes August 20,2003 Page 12
MOTION
ACTION : Motion by Commissioner White, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5449, 5450 and 5451 recommending adoption of the Negative Declaration and recommending approval of ZCA 00-02 and LCPA 00-09, amended in regard to the review of minor subdivisions that contain two or more panhandle lots, based upon the
findings contained therein and receive and file the proposed ordinance amending titles of the Municipal Code other than the Zoning Ordinance, including errata.
Chairperson Baker called for a vote.
VOTE: 6-0
AYES: NOES: None ABSTAIN: None
Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, White and Whitton
Chairperson Baker closed the public hearing on Item 4.
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:OO
p.m. on Tuesday, October 7, 2003, to consider a request for adoption of a Negative Declaration
and approval of a Zone Code Amendment, Municipal Code Amendment and Local Coastal
Program Amendment for a variety of changes to the text of the Zoning Ordinance and minor
changes to other titles of the Municipal Code besides the Zoning Ordinance.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after October 3, 2003. If you have
any questions, please call Scott Donne11 in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4618.
If you challenge the Negative Declaration, Zone Code Amendment, Municipal Code
Amendment and/or 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, Attn: City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad
Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: ZCA 00-02/MCA 03-01/LCPA 00-09
CASE NAME: VARIOUS CODE CHANGES
PUBLISH: September 26,2003
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST
6225 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DlST
701 ENCINITAS BLVD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF ENClNlTAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE
SANDIEGO CA 92123
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY
SERVICES
@AWRY@ Address Labeb
SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DlST
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
LEUCADIA CNTY WATER DlST
1960 LA COSTA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
VALLECITOS WATER DlST
201 VALLECITOS DE OR0
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STE 100
9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SANDIEGO CA 92123
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC W ORKS/EN G I N EERl NG
DEPT
Use template for 516(ic
ENClNlTAS SCHOOL DlST
101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
OLIVENHAIN WATER DlST
1966 OLIVENHAIN RD
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054 .g -L-
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 Dl&O CA 92101
ATTN TED ANASIS SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT
AUTHORITY
PO BOX 82776
SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER D I STRl CT
Laser 5160@
WENDY WESTBERG
STE 370
26440 LA ALAMEDA
MISSION VIEJO CA 92691
ANTHONY & DICKY BONS
25709 HILLCREST AV
ESCONDIDO CA 92026-8650
REG WATER QUALITY CONTROL BD
STE 100
9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMIN WESTERN REG
PO BOX 92007
LOSANGELES CA 90009
BARRY BRAYER, AWP-8
CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
JAN SOBEL
5934 PRIESTLY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CALTRANS DISTRICT 11
. BILL FIGGE
MAIL ST 50
P 0 BOX 85406
SAN DIEGO CA 921 86-5406
U S FISH &WILDLIFE SERVICE
JOHN MARTIN
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD
CARLSBAD CA 92009-
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
RONALD M JAEGER
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION & HSG AGENCY
PATRICIA W NEAL DEPUTY SEC HOUSING SUPERINTENDENT
STE 2450 1901 SPINNAKER DR
980 NINTH ST SAN BUENA VENTURA CA 93001 SACRAMENTO CA 95814
CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
STE 1100
1330 BROADWAY
OAKLAND CA 94612
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
CLIFFORD EMMERLING, DIR
STE 350
901 MARKETST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CHAIRMAN
722 JACKSON PL NW
WASHINGTON DC 20006
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
LOS ANGELES DlST ENGINEER
PO BOX 271 1
LOSANGELES CA 90053
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
STE 400
611 RYAN PLAZA DR
ARLINGTON TX 7601 1-4005
DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME
ENVl RON MENTAL S E RVI C ES D IV
P 0 BOX 944246
SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD & AGRICULTURE
STEVE SHAFFER, AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
RM 100
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
DOUG WICKIZER, ENVIR COORD
P 0 BOX 944246
1220 N ST SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVE
DUNCAN LENT HOWARD, REG ADMIN DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL 450 GOLDEN GATE AV
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 11 0 WEST A ST
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
RM 700
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RM 5504
1120 N ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
MARINE RESOURCES REGION, DR & G
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, SPR
350 GOLDEN SHORE
LONGBEACH CA 90802
NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC
ADMIN OCRM,55MC4
N/ORM - 3
1305 EAST-WEST HWY
SILVER SPRING MD 20910
ENERGY RESOURCES, CONSERVATION &
DEVELOPMENT COMM
CHUCK NAJARIAN
1516 NINTH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
OFFICE OF PLANNING & RESEARCH
OFFICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
PO BOX 3044
SACRAMENTO CA 93044
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION &
DEVMT COMMISSION
BILL TRAVIS
STE 2600
50 CALIFORNIA ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 941 11-4704
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
DWIGHT SANDERS
STE 1005
100 HOW E AV
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
U S BUREAU OF LAND MGMT
STE RM W1834
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
U S BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
MI D-PAC1 FI C REG ION
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
TABATA FARMS
PO BOX 1338
CARLSBAD CA 92018-1 338
U S FISH &WILDLIFE SERVICE
2800 COTTAGE WAY
STE W-2605
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-1 888
USDA - RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPT 41 69
430 "G" ST
DAVIS CA 95616
CITY OF ENClNlTAS
COMDEV DEPT
505 S VULCAN AV
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
SANDAG-EXEC DIRECTOR
GARY GALLEGOS
STE 800
1ST INT'L PLAZA 401 "B" ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
Laser 5163@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
CY RI UMARY GIBSON
12142 ARGYLE DR
LOSALAMITOS CA 90702
LANlKAl LANE PARK
SHARP SPACE3
6550 PONTO DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
MARY GRIGGS
STE 100 S
100 HOWE AV
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202
LESLIE ESPOSITO
1893 AMELFI DR
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
LAKESHORE GARDENS
TOM BENSON
7201 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN LAMB
1446 DEVLIN DR
LOSANGELES CA 90069
Use terptate for 51~:
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC
KIM BLESSANT
101 ASH STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101-
COUNTY OF SD SUPERVISOR BILL HORN
ART DANELL
RM 335
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
Laser 5 163@
Smooth Feed SheetsTp4
PERRY A LAMB
890 MERE POINT RD
BRUNSWICK ME 04011
CRA PRESIDENT
LEE ANDERSON
5200 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FLOYD ASHBY
416 LA COSTAAV
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
GEORGE BOLTON
6583 BLACKRAIL RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SANDAG-LAND USE COMMISS
NAN VALERIO
STE 800
401 “B STREET
SANDIEGO CA 92101
Shippiilg Labels
S D CO PLANNING & LAND USE DEPT
JAON VOKAC
5201 RUFFIN ROAD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
STE 8-5
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
RICHARD RETECKI
STE 1100
1330 BROADWAY
OAKLAND CA 94612
DALE/DO N N A SC H RE I I3 E R
7163 ARGONAUTA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCIES
STE 1311
1416 9TH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
Laser 5163@ .
PROOF OF PUBLIC TION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the
printer of
North County Times
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by
the Superior Court of the County of San Diego,
State of California, for the City of Oceanside and
the City of Escondido, Court Decree number
171349, for the County of San Diego, that the
notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set
in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been
published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on
the following dates, to-wit:
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at SAN MARCOS, California
This 33 Day of September, 2003
This space if r the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
q-2+03
Proof of Publication of
Signature
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
Various Code ChangesZCA 00-02LCPA 00-09MCA 03-01A staff-initiated project
Project Purpose• Improve Zoning Ordinance:– Consistency–Use– Relevancy• Improve other Municipal Code titles
Recommended Changes• Establish renotice of continued hearings• Change incomplete application process•Standardize appeal process• Revise variance findings• Revise amendment process
Recommended Changes (Cont’d)• Repeal outdated density provisions• Update zone names•Replace outdated titles• Add wireless communication facilities• Make various, minor changes• Amend review process for panhandle lots
Panhandle Lots • Current review process unique• Staff proposal: Standardize• Commission recommendation• ZCA reflects Commission proposed process• Proposed changes affect onlysubdivisions with panhandle lots
Panhandle Lot SubdivisionsCurrent and Proposed Review ProcessAll major subs (5 or more lots)Minor subs in R-A and R-E zonesMinor subs (<5 lots) in R-1 zoneExistingAll subs with > 50 total lotsCCAll subs with > 1 panhandle lot, up to 50 total lotsPCMinor subs with 1 panhandle lotStaffPC ProposedWho Approves
Planning Commission Motion• Recommended – Adoption of Negative Declaration– Approval of ZCA 00-02 and LCPA 00-09• Received and filed MCA 03-01
Recommended Council Action• Adopt resolution– Negative Declaration– LCPA 00-09• Introduce ordinances – ZCA 00-02 – MCA 03-01