The Carlsbad Planning Commission on Jan. 15 heard a detailed staff presentation about the California Environmental Quality Act, and discussed proposed amendments to Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 19 that would shift responsibility for deciding whether projects qualify for CEQA exemptions from the city planner to decision-making bodies such as the planning commission or city council.

The presentation, delivered by Mike Strong, assistant director of community development, explained CEQA’s purpose, the statutory and categorical exemptions, and procedural steps including initial studies, negative declarations, mitigated negative declarations and environmental impact reports. Strong said the proposed code amendments would make environmental clearances part of the decision-making record presented to commissioners when projects fall under their purview. "Public agencies are required to comply with CEQA and the City of Carlsbad is no exception," Strong told the commission.

Why it matters: the change would require the planning commission or city council to consider environmental exemptions concurrently with project approvals rather than leaving exemption determinations solely to the city planner. Proponents in the meeting said the move would increase transparency and public participation; critics said it does not remove the potential for litigation but could change where appeals are filed.

Staff overview and council direction

City planner (Mr.) Lardy introduced the item and said the city council had directed staff in a minute motion to return with amendments to Chapter 19.04 so that "the decision-making body of a project would be concurrently considering the environmental review of that document." Strong walked commissioners through CEQA definitions and process points cited in state law and the CEQA Guidelines, including Public Resources Code section 21065, CEQA Guideline sections 15060, 15101, 15162, 15164, 15300.2 and others. He said statutory exemptions are absolute while categorical exemptions are subject to exceptions; staff would prepare the screening analysis and supporting evidence but the proposed change would vest final exemption decisions with the project’s decision-making body.

Commissioner questions and staff clarifications

Commissioners asked whether the change would apply to statutory, categorical and "common-sense" (general rule) exemptions; Strong confirmed it would. Several commissioners pressed staff on how thresholds of significance and screening criteria would be handled. Strong said the city already has adopted thresholds for some topics (for example vehicle miles traveled and historic resources) and that where thresholds are not adopted, staff and consultants would apply best practices and historically used screening methods. He also said the administrative record presented to the commission would include staff recommendations, environmental consultant studies when required, and written and oral public comments.

Public comment

Two members of the public spoke during the hearing. Chris Wright, representing Equitable Land Use Authority, told the commission he had raised concerns about the Carlsbad Village Plaza review and how public notices were handled during a 10-day CEQA review window. "The notification by the staff to the public would not go out until the following Thursday, thus, shorting the 10 day public comment, from 10 days to 3," Wright said, describing a case where an exemption determination he said was signed on a Friday but notices were not mailed until the following Thursday. Wright asked commissioners to support changes that increase public access for larger, multi-parcel projects.

Resident Steve Linke told the commission he had seen projects "piecemealed" in the past to avoid CEQA review and criticized the city’s vehicle miles traveled analysis on a past village project. "The 10 day window is ridiculously short," Linke said, adding that large CEQA files and late notices make meaningful review difficult for residents.

What staff and commission said about appeals and next steps

Staff noted that the municipal code currently allows a 10-day appeal window for city planner decisions (municipal code §2154 as cited in the presentation) and that the proposed change would not remove the appeal process; instead, appeals would be directed at decisions by the planning commission rather than by the city planner when the commission is the decision-maker. Strong also said that when staff files a notice of exemption with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and the county, that filing generally must occur within five days of project approval and that filing shortens the statute of limitations for legal challenges from 180 days to 35 days.

Commissioners emphasized training and preparation if the commission is assigned the decision-making role. Commissioner Joseph Stein and Commissioner Alicia Lafferty said the commission would need adequate time, staff materials and training to review environmental analyses and that the commission should have full access to the administrative record, consultant reports and responses-to-comments.

Votes at a glance

- Continuance of public hearing item 1 (Palomar and Aviar office project) to a date uncertain: motion made by Commissioner "Free Venture" (as recorded), seconded by Commissioner Mertz; unanimous vote of members present to continue the item at the applicant's request (motion approved).

- Approval of minutes, Dec. 4, 2024: motion by Commissioner Stein; second by Commissioner Mertz/Martz (as recorded); five members voted yes, one commissioner reported absent at that meeting (result recorded by staff).

- Approval of minutes, Dec. 18, 2024: motion and second recorded; vote 4 yes, 2 abstain (abstentions because commissioners were not present at that meeting; new Commissioner Nicholas Foster abstained as he was not a member that night).

- Adoption of the 2025 Planning Commission meeting calendar (resolution): moved by Commissioner Stein, seconded by Commissioner Mertz; unanimous approval.

- Item to appoint chair and vice chair (calendar year 2025): the commission voted unanimously to continue action to the Feb. 5 meeting so all seven commissioners can participate; Vice Chair Means will serve in the chair role until that meeting.

Commission actions and administrative directions

No ordinance or code change was adopted at the Jan. 15 meeting. The item discussed was informational; staff will transmit formal ordinance language and recommended amendments to Chapter 19.04 to the city council for consideration. City staff told the commission that the council will consider the Title 19 changes at a council meeting later in the month (staff referenced the council meeting date at the end of the month during the meeting). Staff also noted other items to appear on the council agenda at month-end, including the Tyler Street Homes project.

Ending

Commissioners thanked staff for the overview and asked the city to provide training and sufficient documentation if the commission is to assume exemption decisions. Staff said they will prepare proposed code amendments, supporting environmental screening criteria and a full administrative record for future hearings and council consideration. The commission closed the discussion and moved to the next agenda items.