Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-02-11; Planning Commission; ; ZC 227 - CITY OF CARLSBADJ,~ I' -.-. -?~-• ·.,,·-·· f STAFF REPORT DATE: February 11, 1981 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department r ( SUBJECT: ZC-227 -CITY OF CARLSBAD -Consideration of a Change of Zone of existing mobilehome parks in Carlsbad to the RMHP Zone (Mobilehome Park Zone}. This item is being brought back from your meeting of January 28, 1981. At that time, the Commission closed the public hearing, and-then continued the i tern to the meeting of March 25, 1981. The Planning Commission's intent was to allow concurrent processing of a Zone Code Amendment to the Mobilehome Park Zone. Since that time, the Attorney's Office has determined that the Commission's action does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and a memo- randum is attached detailing their concerns. In light of the findings of the Attorney's Office, the Commission must either approve or deny the project at tonights meeting. Based on the reasons presented in the City Attorney's memorandum, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Zone Change. ., ;RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Reso- lution No. 1755 APPROVING ZC-227, based on the findings contained therein. ATTACHMENTS 1. Memorandum from City Attorney, dated February 3, 1981 2.< Staff Report dated January 28, 1981 3.11 Resolution No. ·1755 BH: jt -\ , .... 1:••' ,,. . ' ' ..... (' ,. ( DATE: FROM: ( February 3, 1981 PLANNING COMMISSION City Attorney MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: REZONING OF SPECIFIC PROPERTIES TO RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME PARK ZONE On October 7, 1980, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad directed the staff to take all steps necessary to initiate a· change of zone for the four major mobile home parks within the City of Carlsbad. The or- dinance creating the zone (RMHP) was adopted on November 18, 1980 and was effective 30 days thereafter. The matter of rezoning the four mobile home park properties came before the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing on January 28, 1981. After receiving ex- tensive public testimony the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and began discussing the merits of the matter. After a motion to rezone the four major existing mobile home parks to RMHP died for the lack of a second, the Planning Commission decided to continue the matter for decision for 60 days pending the preparation by the Planning staff of certain amendments to the RMHP zone. The Commission suggested that the amendments add a sunset clause to make the provisions of Section 21.37.110 of the code inapplicable after a certain time period had passed. The intent of this memo is not to discuss the merits of the proposed changes, but simply to remind the Commi~sion of its legal obligations under the code.. ·• Section 21.52.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code places a time limit upon the Planning Commission's decision making process when consider- ing a zone change. That section provides: "The Planning Commission·shall announce its action by formal resolution not more than 15 days following the hearing and said resolution shall recite, among other things, the facts and reasons which, in the opinion of the Commission, make the approval or denial of an ap- plication for amendment necessary to carry out the gen- eral purpose of this title and shall recommend the adoption of the amendment·by the City Council or deny the application." · The Planning Commission has closed the public hearing and continued only the decision making aspect of its action on this application. Once closed, a public hearing may not be reopened and continued, except at the same meeting at which the public testimony was originally heard and then only if all persons who were present at the hearing are still pres- ent. Otherwise a hearing can be reopened _only upon appropriate ·notice. -1- .. . (~ ~ February 3, 1981 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 Section 21.54.100 of the municipal code discusses continuances of public hearings without further notice. It states: "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. No further notice is required." In this -situation, because the public hearing was closed and the - Planning Commission continued simply its decision, the continuance provisions of the municipal code and state law are inapplicable and the provisions of Section 21.52.050 apply. There does not appear to be any new evidence which would justify reopening the hearing. Of course, if the Planning Corru.nission determines that additional evi- dence is necessary to allow it to make its decision it may reopen a public hearing upon proper notice. If this was done, the City Council may determine that the Commission has failed to act within a reasonable time and may, by written_notice, require the Planning Commission to render a report within 40 days. If the Planning Commission fails to so report within that time period the application for the zone change is deemed app_roved. · The Commission's options at this point are: (1} to d,eny the applica- tion; (2) approve the application; or (3) approve or deny the applica- tion and recommend that the RMHP zone be amended or that the properties not be rezoned until the code is in fact amended. Of course, the Com- mission could decide to not do anything at all and have the Council make a written request to the Commission to perform its duties under the code. At the public hearing on January 28, 1981 certain comments were made about the permanency of the RMHP zone. This matter was discussed in great detail during the time that the zoning provisions for the RMHP zone were developed. ~his office made it very clear to both the Plan- ning C~mmission and the Council. that even without a sunset provision reasonable procedures to allow for a change of zone must be incorpor- ated into the provisions of the zone to insure its constitutionality. There is serious doubt as to whether permanently zoning any particular piece of property without any possibility of change is constitutional. For those reasons, the provisions of Section 21.37.110 are written in a manner which establishes a procedure to allow for a change of zone and certainly do-not make this zone permanent in any legal sense. I ... . .. f February 3, 1981 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 According to Section 21.37.110 a change of zone may not be approved unless the City Council, after recommendation of the Planning Com- mission, finds: "(1) That the change of zone is consistent with the housing element. "(2) That for the property used for a mobile home park, the applicant has provided notice of termination of tenancy required by the California Civil Code Sec- tion 798.56(f) and that all the requirements of the _civil code requiring termination of tenancy will be met. "(3) That for property use of a mobile home park a plan satisfactory to the City Council to mitigate the impact on the residents of the park has been prepared. Such plan shall include a phase out schedule which establishes a time table for the change of use and shall include an assistance plan, including programs to aid residents who will be displaced by the change of use in locating and securing new residences. Such plan may include financial assistance. The following factors shall guide the Council in approving or dis- approving the plan: (A) The age of the mobile home park; (B) The number of low income individuals or households needing assistance for relocation; (C) The availability of relocation housing sites for mobile home relocation, or both, having reasonably equivalent amenities within the North County area within 15 miles of the Pacific Ocean." These provisions do not require that any of the assistance in fact be granted, merely that a plan be prepared. The City Council and the Commission are free to determine that for a particular park relocation assistance is not necessary. This provision is now requi.red by_Section 65863._~ of the Government code. The provisions of the zone are written in a manner which allow the City Council and the Planning Commission to make reasonable judgments based on the evidence presented to them at the time of each individual change of zone from the RMHP zone. Such provisions are necessary to allow the Commission and the Council the opportunity to meet the needs of the res- idents and the owners, based on the circumstances that exist at the time. If the Commission determines. that it is advisable to amend these provis- ions now, it is certainly within their discretion to do so; however,. the . ~ . . ~ (( .( ( •· • February 3, 19 81 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 Commission should remember that this ordinance has already been the product of extensive public input over a period of several months during 1980. It can be expected that the same types of delays in input would be present if this section were to change. In addition, our office must determine if the proposed amendments will violate recent amendments to the Government code. We have not yet under- taken that analysis. It is our advice that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council on this matter at their meeting of February 11, 1981. The Commission's decision _should be based upon the merits of the case, i.e. whether the proposed zone is appropriate for the subject property. Considerations other than the merits are not relevant to the rezoning of the property. VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR., City Attorney I ,. . \,-ANifL~HKE, Assistant City Att VFB/DSH/lb .. i J. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 I 20 21 22 23 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1755 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A ZONE CHANGE FOR THE EXISTING MOBILE HOME PARKS IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD FROM: 1. RD-M TO RMHP FOR SOLAMAR MOBILE HOME PARK LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BETWEEN PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND POINSETTIA LANE. 2. R-1-10,000 TO RMHP FOR LANAKAI LANE MOBILE HOME PARK LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BETWEEN PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND POINSETTIA LANE. 3. R-1-10,000 TO RMHP FOR LAKESHORE GARDENS MOBILE HOME PARK LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF POINSETTIA LANE AND INTERSTATE 5. 4. R-A-10,000 TO IDliIP FOR RANCHO CARLSBAD MOBILE HOME PARK LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD CASE NO: , ZC-227 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to wit: t Solamar -A portion of Lot "-:I" of Rancho Agua Hedionda according to Map No. 823 filed November 16, 1896; Lanakai Lane -A portion of Section 29 Township 12 South, Range 4 west, San Bernardino Meridian, Carlsbad, CA. Lakeshore Gardens -A portion of Sections 28 and 29, Township 12 South, Range 4 west, San Bernardino Meridian, Carlsbad, CA. ) Rancho Carlsbad -Portion of Lot nE" of Rancho Agua Hedionda, according to Map No. 823 filed November 16, 1896. has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the Planning Commission; and 24 25 WHEREAS, said application constitutes a reque9t as provided 26 by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and 27 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 28th day of 28 January, 1981, and on the 11th day of February, 1981, and on the ------~•-...-, • ..._,,..,_______ ,.,-.>Ar••• ......... ,,,,._..,,_..,. ~"'lr~,t.,......:,r_, ,,..,.._>C"1'<-:W...,..., ~ "'"· -0:''-'"1 ~ .. ,--.,-. ''r 'I' c~-.-,.,,, '··, •• • ••• '• 1 25th day of February, 1981, hold a duly noticed public hearing as 2 prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering 4 all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be 5 heard, said Commission considered all facto"rs relating to the . 6 Zone Change; and 7 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 8 Commission as follows: 9 A) 10 B) 11 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission recommends DENIAL of ZC-227, based on the following findings: 12 Findings 13 1) 14 The zone change is inappropriate at this time in that the RMHP zone does not include a section exempting existing mobile home parks which are 25 years or older from the provision requiring that the owner submit a plan indicating mitigating measures to tenants who would have to relocate in the event the RMHP zone is removed froP1 an existing park in the future. 15 16 ·, 17 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the ,Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on 18' the 25th day of February, 1981, by the following vote, to wit: 19 AYES: 20 NOES: 21 s ABSENT: 22 ABSTAIN: 23 24 ATTEST: 25 26 27 28 JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Secretary CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMiSSION PC RESO #1755 MARY MARCUS, Chairman CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION -2- ...