HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 90-08A; Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (8)t -
c 1
4 STATE OF CP LIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY - PETE WILSON, Gowmor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SAN DIEGO COAST AREA
3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 921081725
(619) 521-8036
September 28 REI'IJED
GCT 0 3 1995 - -xJ -* - h. TO: COMMISSIONERS ANTI INTERESTED PERSONS L .), . .-J .I -
. I . *L."
DEBORAH N. LEE, ASSISTANT DISTRICT DIRECTOR, SAN DIEGO AREA OFFICE BILL PONDER, COASTAL PLANNER, SAN DIEGO AREA OFFICE
FROM: CHARLES DAMM, SOUTH COAST DISTRICT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON MAJOR AMENDMENT 2-95 TO THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD'S LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (For Public Hearing and Possible Action at the Meeting of October 10-13, 1995)
SY NOPS I S
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT REOUEST
The subject amendment request amends the certified Carl sbad LCP Implementation Plan to incorporate a chapter on "Development Agreements" within the six segments and revises the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan, an implementation plan document regarding approximately 423 acres on the north side of Palomar Airport Road and east of Paseo Del Norte associated with the Mello I1 segment,
to realign the flower fields trail/pedestrian promenade and amend corresponding
standards and exhibits.
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending approval, as submitted, of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan amendment and denial of the implementation plan amendment relating to development agreements, as submitted, and then its subsequent approval if modified. The amendment has been classified as a major amendment because there are some technical clarifications which need to be made in the Development Agreements chapter. The suggested modifications require that
development agreements cannot be approved unless found consistent with the local coastal program. The suaaested modifications for the develome nt
aareements amendme nt are on Paae 6.
The aDproDriate resolutions and motions mav be found on Paaes 4-6.
for apr>roval of the implementation Dlan amendment to t he Carlsbad Ranch
Specific Plan beain on Paae 6 . Findinas fo r den la1 of the "DeveloDmen_t Aareements" imp1 ementation ~1 an amendment bea in on Paae 8 . jmroval of the develoment aareements a mendment. if modified. bea in on Paae 9.
Fi ndi nas
Findinas for
BACKGROUND
The Carlsbad Local Coastal Program consists of six geographic segments. Pursuant to Sections 30170(f) and 30171 of the Public Resources Code, the Coastal Commission prepared and approved two portions of the LCP, the Mello I
Carlsbad LCPA No. 2-95
Page 2
and I1 segments in 1980 and 1981, respectively. found several provisions of the Mello I and I1 segments unacceptable and declined to adopt the LCP implementing ordinances for the LCP. In October, 1985, the Commission approved major amendments related to steep slope
protection and agricultural preservation to the Mello I and I1 segments, which
resolved the major differences between the City and the Coastal Commission. The City then adopted the Mello I and I1 segments and began working toward
certification of all segments of its local coastal program. Since the 1985
action, the Commission has approved many major amendments to the City of
Carl sbad LCP.
However, the City of Carlsbad
The Commission certified the Land Use Plan portion of the Agua Hedionda segment in 1982. In addition, two new segments were annexed to the City, the West Batiqui tos Lagoon/Sammi s Properties segment and the East Batiqui tos
LagoonIHunt Properties segment. The West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties
LCP was certified in 1985. The East Batiquitos LagoonIHunt Properties LCP was certified in 1988. In 1987, a resubmitted Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area
LCP was effectively certified and the Redevelopment Agency began issuing
coastal development permits for that segment only in 1988.
ADDITIONAL IN FORMAT I ON
Further Information on the City of Carlsbad LCP amendment #2-95 may be obtained from Bill Ponder, Coastal Planner, at (619) 521-8036.
PART I. OVERVIEW
Carlsbad LCPA No. 2-95 Page 3
A. Local Coasta 1 Proaram Hi storv-All Seaments.
The City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP) consists of six geographic segments:
1,100 acres; the Carlsbad Mello I LCP segment with 2,000 acres; the Carlsbad Mello I1 LCP segment which includes approximately 5,300 acres; the West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties LCP segment with 200 acres; the East Batiquitos LagoonIHunt Properties LCP segment with 1,000 acres and the Village Area Redevelopment segment with approximately 100 acres.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 30170(f) and 30171, the'coastal Commission was required' to prepare and approve an LCP for identified portions
of the City.
to as the Mello I and Mello I1 segments. segments were approved by the Coastal Commission in September 1980 and June
1981, respectively.
the City and approved by the Coastal Commission on July 1, 1982.
the Agua Hedionda Lagoon LCP segment comprised of approximately
This resulted in the two Carlsbad LCP segments commonly referred
The Mello I and Mello I1 LCP
The Agua Hedionda segment Land Use Plan was prepared by
The Mello I, Mello I1 and Agua Hedionda segments of the Carlsbad LCP cover the majority of the City's coastal zone. which involve the greatest number of coastal resource issues and have been the subject of the most controversy over the past years. Among those issues
involved in the review of the land use plans of these segments were preservation of agricultural lands, protection of steep-sloping hi1 lsides and wet1 and habi tats and the provi sion of adequate vi si tor-servi ng faci 1 i ti es . Preservation of the scenic resources of the area was another issue raised in the review of these land use plans. As mentioned, the City had found the
policies of.the certified Mello I and I1 segments regarding preservation of
agriculture and steep-sloping hillsides to be unacceptable. therefore did not apply these provisions in the review of local projects.
They are also the segments of the LCP
The City
In the summer of 1985, the City submitted two amendment requests to the Commission and, in October of 1985, the Commission certified amendments 1-85 and 2-85 to the Mello I and Mello I1 segments, respectively. These (major) amendments to the LCP involved changes to the agricultural preservation, steep
slope protection and housing policies of the Mello I and I1 segments of the LCP. After certification of these amendments, the City adopted the Mello I
and I1 LCP segments.
The West Bati qui tos Lagoon/Sammi s Properties segment was certified in 1985 along with a coastal development permit for a project comprising the majority of the up1 ands wi thin that plan segment (Bat! qui tos Lagoon Educational Park-Sammi s 1 .
The plan area of the Village Area Redevelopment segment was formerly part of the Mello I1 segment of the LCP. In August of 1984, the Commission approved the segmentation of this 100-acre area from the remainder of the Mello I1 LCP
segment and, at the same time, approved the submitted land use plan for the
area. In March of 1988, the Commission approved the Implementation Program
..
Carlsbad LCPA No. 2-95
Page 4
for the Village Area Redevelopment segment of the LCP. post-certification maps occurred in December and the City assumed permit
authority for this LCP segment on December 14, 1988. LagoonIHunt Properties LCP was certified in 1988.
A review of the
The East Batiquitos
In addition to the review process for the six LCP segments mentioned, the City
has also submitted at various times, packages of land use plan amendments to the certified LUP segments, including these segments, in an effort to resolve exi sti ng i nconsi stenci es between the City' s General P1 an, Zoning Maps and the Local Coastal Program. After a1 1 such inconsistencies are resolved, the City plans to submit, for the Commission's review, the various ordinances and
post-certification maps for implementation of the LCP. At that time, or
perhaps earl i er, the City may prepare and submit a sing1 e LCP document that
incorporates all of the.LCP segments as certified by the Commission and any
subsequent LCP amendments. After review and approval of these documents by
the Commission, the City would assume permit authority for all LCP segments.
6. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of review for implementation plans; or their amendments, is found
in Section 30513 of the Coastal Act. Pursuant to Section 30513 of the Coastal Act, the Commission may only reject zoning ordinances or other implementing actions, as well as their amendments, on the grounds that they do not conform with, or are inadequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified land use
plan.
Commissioners present.
The Commission shall take action by a majority vote of the
C. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City has held Planning Commission and City Council meetings with regard to
the components of the subject amendment request. All of those local hearings
were duly noticed to the public. distributed to all known interested parties.
Notice of the subject amendment has been
PART 11. LOC AL COAS TAL PROGRAM SUBMITTAL - RESOLUTIONS
Following a public hearing, staff recommends the Commission adopt the
following resolutions and findings.
resolution and a staff recommendation are provided just prior to each resolution.
The appropriate motion to introduce the
A. RESOLUTION I (Resolution to approve certification of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Pian Amendment, as submitted)
I move that the Commission reject the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment, as submitted.
Staff Reco mmendati on
Staff recommends a HQ vote and the adoption of the following resolution
Carlsbad LCPA No. 2-95 Page 5
and findings.
present is needed to pass the-motion. An affirmative vote by the majority of the Commissioners
Resolution €
The Commission hereby approves certification of the amendment to the
Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan on the grounds that the amendment conforms
with and is adequate to carry out the provisions of the certified land use
plan.
available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts
which the approval would have on the environment.
There are no feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures
B. RESOLUTION I1 (Resolution to deny certification of the Development Agreements chapter, as submitted)
MOTION I1
I move that the Commission reject the Development Agreements chapter, as
submitted.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends a YES vote and the adoption of the following resolution
and findings. present is needed to pass the motion. An affirmative vote by the majority of the Commissioners
Resolution IL
The Commission hereby denies certification of the amendment to the City of
Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program on the grounds that the amendment does
not conform with, and is inadequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified land use plan. There are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts which the approval would have on the envi ronment:
C. RESOLUTION I11 (Resolution to approve certification of the Development Agreements chapter, if modi fi ed)
MOTION I11
I move that the Commission approve the Development Agreements chapter, if modified.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends a yhs vote and the adoption of the following resolution and findings. present Is needed to pass the motion. An affirmative vote by the majority of the Commissioners
Carl sbad LCPA No. 2-95 Page 6
Resolution I11
The Commission hereby certifies the amendment to the City of Carlsbad's
Local Coastal Program on the grounds that the amendment, as modified, conforms with, and is adequate to carry out, the provisions of the
certified land use plan. mi tigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts which the approval would have on the envi ronment.
There are no feasible alternatives or feasible
PART 111. SUGG ESTED MODIFICATIONS (underlining indicates where added ordinance
language is recommended to be added to Chapter 21.70lDevelopment Agreements of
the City's Zoning Code and strike-out indicates ordinance language recommended
for deletion)
1. In Chapter 21.70 of the City's Zoning Code, Section 21.70.080(b)(l)
regarding the Decision by the City Council shall be revised to read:
(b) The city council shall not approve-the development agreement
unless it finds that the agreement:
(1) Is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan. the certified local coas ta 1 Droaram and any applicable specific plan [...I
2. In Chapter 21.70 of the City's Zoning Code, the second paragraph of
Section 21.70.090 regarding Approval of Development Agreements shall be revised to read:
For projects located within the coastal zone, tHd dnv aDD roved
devel opment agreement dH1111 ldBtllkt6dCICff Ct tiJClddf 11 16116t111
~6~~iddi~dl6tlitdlddttCid6~Iidli~fCt~tttf shall be reviewed bv t he
Cal i forni a Coasta 1 Commission for conformance with apolicable provi sions of t he loca 1 coastal D roaram. If the provisions of the develoDment aareement are not found to be c onsi stent with the certified local coasta 1 program. the develoment agreement shall be revised bv t he Citv to be co nsistent with the local coasta 1 proaram .. pr it must f irst be sub mitted to the Ca lifornia Uastal Commission for review and ar>D roval as a local coasta 1 proaram amendment.
t~ditdi i~~64idd\i~d\cdBmCdfis~it6~if11r i~c~crs~~tificrtm 4 im tuw i d 1 q~ I i t 118 I c I / Hid 1 ~bc cd 1 dtdrl t ~d 1 mji fH c mi i fdtd i die66 tt til
PART IV. fI NDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE CARLSBAD RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED
A. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION
The Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan (CRSP) serves as both the land use plan and implementing mechanism for the 423 acre Carltas property. The Specific Plan
.
Carlsbad LCPA No. 2-95
Page 7
consists of both a text and diagrams which specify the following in detail: (1) distribution and location of land uses; (2) infrastructure; (3) development
standards; (4) implementation measures and (5) a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the General Plan. The Carlsbad Ranch is located on the north side of Palomar Airport Road, east of Paseo Del Norte, south of future Cannon Road, and west of future Kelly Road in south Carlsbad.
8. FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION
a) Purpose a nd Intent of the Ordinance . The purpose and intent of the
Specific Plan is to define the distribution and location of land use,
infrastructure, development standards , and implementation measures for 113 acres of Carlsbad Ranch, with the remaining acreage to remain in agriculture and open space.
b) Maior Provisions of the Ordinance. The Specific Plan provides development and design standards with respect to the development of the site. The Specific Plan is divided into 17 lots with development standards and
design guidelines separated into the following areas: (1) Office, Corporate
Headquarters and Research and Development Parcels, (2) Village Center, (3) Paseo Center, (4) Open Space Areas and (5) Non-Residential Reserve. The focal
point of the development is a pedestrian-oriented village center linked to the
other development sites along a main ridge road. The village center is
proposed to serve a mix of community and business uses and mixed use buildings are encouraged. at the southern end of the site and is proposed as a major landmark for Carlsbad. Office buildings are planned around the periphery of the village center. Regarding open space areas, a public putting course and driving range is proposed on Parcel 11 (24.5 acres); approximately 39 acres of land near the southwestern corner of the site is presently designated as open space and
would remain in floriculture as long as feasible.
The remainder of the property is currently designated Non-Residential Reserve
and is proposed.to be held in agricultural use through the buildout of the Specific Plan. The standards address development of the lots as well as compati bi 1 i ty with the adjacent agricultural and/or recreational uses. The
Specific Plan also contains goals, objectives, and policies that will assist in guiding and directing development within the Carlsbad Ranch.
The standard of
review for LCP imp1 ementation submittals or amendments is their consistency with and ability to carry out the provisions of the certified LUP. In the case of the subject LCP amendment, the concept underlying the Specific Plan is to concentrate urban uses within a limited area so that the majority of the site can continue to be used for agricultural use, which is the theme endorsed by the certified Mello I1 LCP.
The proposed amendment is to revise the pedestrian trail through the flower fields required in the approved Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. includes modifying the alignment and width of the pedestrian trail to
correspond to an existing agricultural road located north of the approved
A 280-room hotel is proposed at the most prominent location
c) Adeauiuv o f Ordinance to Implement the Ce rtified LU P.
The amendment
Carlsbad LCPA No. 2-95
Page 8
pedestrian trail, eliminating th .. -agricultural landscaping, reducing the viewpoint at what was previously the eastern terminus for the trail to be consistent in size with the other viewpoints along Armada Drive, and adding an alternative access point north of the new alignment.
The proposed amendment primarily serves to realign the pedestrian trail through the flower fields to follow along an existing agricultural road which
has been historically used by the public to walk through the fields. The revised trail will serve the same functions as the originally approved trail which were to provide a pedestrian link between the Village Center and the Paseo Center, and will afford visitors a close-up opportunity to enjoy the flower fields. Other than corrections to text and exhibits which specifically reference the previous design of the pedestrian trail, no other sections of the previously certified LCP are affected.
The proposed amendment is more environmentally sensitive than the original ly approved design for the following reasons: agricultural operations by el imi nati ng non-agri cul tural landscaping and barriers to farm equipment: it eliminates the conversion of agricultural acreage to non-agri cul tural uses; it maintains maximum fl exi bi 1 i ty for future agricultural operations; it reduces potential dust generation by minimizing the amount of bare dirt; it reduces water usage and it maintains the character and visual amenity of the flower fields. Based on the above, the Commission finds that the amendment can be found consistent with the agricultural preservation and pub1 i c access provi sions of both the Carl sbad Ranch Speci fi c Plan and the Mello I1 LCP.
it facilitates the ongoing
PART V. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS CHAPTER. AS
SUBMITTED
A. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION
The City of Carlsbad Implementation Program (IP) takes the form of the City's Zoning Code. The proposed IP amendment to all six segments of the City's LCP is to add Chapter 21.70, Development Agreements, of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to the implementation plan for the City's LCP. The amendment would also change all references in the existing ordinance from "Land Use Planning Manager" to "Planning Director" and add additional requirements for development agreements.
B. FINDINGS FOR CERTI F I CAT I ON
a> PurDose a nd Intent of the Ordinance. The purpose and intent of the
zoning amendment is for the City to have procedures and requirements in place for the consideration of a development agreement. A development agreement is
a contract between a developer and the City under which the City agrees that a project can proceed under the policies, rules, and regulations in effect at
the time the development agreement was entered into. In this way, a developer is able to obtain protection against a subsequently enacted amendment to the general plan, zoning ordinance or other land-use regulation, whether enacted
c
Carl sbad LCPA No. 2-95
Page 9
by the legislative body or by the voters through an initiative. Government Code Section 65865 allows local governments to enter into an agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real
property for the development of the property. governments upon the request of an applicant to establish procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements upon the fil of an application.
Californ
It also requires local
b) !+la- ior Provisions of the Ordinance. Chapter 21.70 of the zoning code contains provisions for development agreements. The chapter can presently only be used by projects providing housing for persons of low and moderate
income. The most significant change proposed as part of this amendment is to
delete existing ordinance references to projects providing affordable housing
and replace them with text making the development agreements chapter
applicable to any project requesting such an agreement. revi sions to the development agreements chapter enable the City to comply with the California Government Code as it allows for the consideration of development agreements upon the request of a project applicant.
The proposed
c) Adeauacv o f Ordinance to ImDlement the Certified LUP. The standard of review for LCP imp1 ementati on submittals or amendments i s their consi stency with and ability to carry out the provisions of the certified LUP. In the case of the subject LCP amendment, the City's zoning code along with applicable specific plans in the Mello 11, East Batiquitos Lagoon and West Batiquitos Lagoon LCP segments serve as the Implementation Program for the six LCP segments. the City's administration of its land use regulations rather than directly
proposing a specific zoning code revision.
The amendment has been classified as a major amendment because there are some technical clarifications which need to be made in the development agreements chapter. For instance, a standard of review for approving and/or denying any
development agreement should be its consistency with the City's certified
local coastal program. As presently written, Section 21.70.080(b)(l) fails to
recognize that a development agreement has to be found consistent with the
applicable local coastal program. The present ordinance, as currently
written, only requires that the City shall not approve a development agreement unless it finds that the agreement is consistent with general plan and applicable specific plan provisions. Additionally, the ordinance as currently
written fails to Include provisions for the California Coastal Commission to review development agreements within the coastal zone. Without the assurance
to review such agreements for consistency with land use plan provisions, the
Commission can not find the amendment consistent with the certified land use
plan.
This amendment is somewhat different in that it addresses more
The Commission needs to be a party in reviewing any development agreements to ensure that such agreements will not result in adverse impacts to public
access or coastal resources within the coastal zone. While the changes are
administrative in nature, given that conformance with the certified LCP is not
a specified standard of review and there is no codified process for Coastal
Commission review of any approved development agreements within the coastal
Carlsbad LCPA No. 2-95
Page 10
zone, the Commission finds the implementation amendment cannot be found
consi stent because it could a1 low. development proposals to be permitted which
were inconsistent with the certified land use plan or LCP.
PART VI. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS CHAPTER
IF MODIFIED
The Commission finds that Amendment 2-95 to the Implementation Program of the Mello I1 segment of the Carlsbad LCP may be found adequate to carry out the provisions of the certified land use plan, if modified in accordance with the following suggested modifications. As stated previously in the findings for
denial of the Development Agreements chapter, the Commission is concerned that the chapter as presentTy written does not specify that a standard of review
for approving and/or denying any development agreement should be its
consistency with the City's certified local coastal program. As presently written, Section 21.70.080(b)(l) fails to recognize that a development agreement has to be found consistent with the applicable local coastal program. agreement unless it finds that the agreement is consistent with general plan and applicable specific plan provisions. Suggested Modification #1 adds this
acknowledgement to the ordinance.
It only requires that the City shall not approve a development
Additionally, the ordinance as currently written fails to include provisions
for the California Coastal Commission to review development agreements within
the coastal zone. Without the assurance to review such agreements for
consistency with land use plan provisions, the Commission can not find the
amendment consistent with the certified land use plan. Suggested Modification
#2 requires that, for projects requiring development agreements located within the coastal zone, the development agreement shall be reviewed by the California Coastal Commission for conformance with applicable provisions of the local coastal program. If the provisions of the development agreement are not found consistent with the local coastal program, the development agreement
shall be revised by the City to be consistent with the local coastal program
or it must first be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for review
and approval as a local coastal program amendment. In this way, the Commission will be able to review the development agreement for conformity
with the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program. With the suggested modifications, the Commission finds that the amendment may be
certified.
PART VII. CONSISTFNCY WITH THE CALI FORNIA EN VI RONMF NTAL OUALITY AC T (CEOA)
Section 21080.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exempts local government from the requirement of preparing an environmental impact report (EIR) in connection with its local coastal program. Instead, the CEQA responsi bi 1 i ti es are assigned to the Coastal Commission and the Commission's LCP review and approval program has been found by the Resources Agency to be functionally equivalent to the EIR process. Thus, under CEQA Section 21080.5, the Commission is relieved of the responsibility to prepare an EIR for each LCP .
Carlsbad LCPA No. 2-95
Page 11
Nevertheless, the Commission is required in an LCP submittal or, as in this case, an LCP amendment submittal, to find that the LCP, or LCP, as amended,
does conform with CEQA provisions'. The zoning amendment to all six segments
of the City's LCP proposes changes to the City's zoning code to incorporate
provisions for development.agreements. The attached suggested modifications ensure that the review of such agreements will ensure conformity with the certified LCP, resul ti ng in development proceeding in an appropriate and environmentally sound manner. As such, the amendment is not expected to result in any significant adverse impacts on the environment and future projects associated with any development agreements would be subject to
separate CEQA review.
The Mello I1 zoning amendment proposes the realignment of an approved
pedestrian trail in the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. has been found to be more protective of agricultural lands than the previous
alignment and will not result in a decrease of public access within the Carlsbad Ranch site. Mello I1 LCP amendment will not result in any significant adverse impacts to
coastal resources.
The proposed alignment
Thus, the Commission finds that the approval of the
(0578A)
EXH I E 1 T ”X”
JULY 19, 1995
21.70.005
-
Sections:
21.70.005
21.70.0 10
21.70.020
21.70.030
21.70.040
21.70.050
21.70.060
21.70.070
21.70.080
21.70.090
. 21.70.100
21.70.110
21.70.UO
2 1.70.130
21.70.140
21.70.150
21.70.160
21.70.170
21.70.180
2 1.70.190
21.70.005
Chapter 21.70
DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENTS
Authority for adoptlor+
Applicability.
Forms and information.
Fersadreimbumements. .
Qdcadon as an appliamt
Propod tom ot agreement.
Review of application.
Transmittnl to plaaning
co~oao
Plllnning COlllmisiO[l report.
Decision by city cod
Approval of development
Required notice.
Amendment sad cancellation of
agreement by mutual consent
Recordation.
Periodic review.
Procedure for periodic review.
ModMcatioa or tCdMtiOrL
No cbmagu on terminadon.
No vesting of rights
Rescnatioa of rights
’ agreement&
WV in Pr-P
Authority for adopdoa-
A ppUcabUty.
This chapter is adopted under the authority of Gov-
ernment Code Sections 65864 - 65869.5. This
chapter shall be applicable to any project for which
an applicant requt~u considcraeioa of a development
agreement. Cord. NS-302 9 1,1995: Ord. 9643 9 1
(part), 1982)
21.70.010 Forms and inlormation.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
the planning director shall prescribe the form for
each application, notice and document provided or
required under this chapter for the prepamion ad
implementation of development agreements.
(b) The planning director may quim an appli-
cant to submit such infodon and supporting data
as the planniag director coluiden necessary to pm
cess the application. (Ord. NS-302 0 2, 1995: Od.
1261 4 54 (pm), 1983; otd 9643 3 1 (parr), 1982)
21.70.020 Fees and reimbursements.
(a) A fee established by city council rtsoIution
shall be paid by the applicant at the time of filing
the applicatioa.
(b) Nothing in this chapter shall relieve the appti-
cant from the obligatioa to pay any other fee for a
city approval, permit or entitlement quid by this
C&.
(c) city my quire the applicant to ag~
to pay the city’s costs in negotiating, preparing and
processing the developmcnt agreemen4 including the
fees and expenscs of special counsel and any other
consultants engaged by the city in connection with
the development agreement (Ord. NS-302 6 3,
1995: M. 9643 5 1 (part), 1982)
21.70.030 QudMcmtion as an appucrrnt
Only a qualified applicant may file an application
to enter into a development agreement. A qualified
applicant is a penon who has legal or equitable
interest in the real properry which is the subject of
the developmcnt agreement. Applicant includes
authoriaxt agent The planning dhor shall quire
an applicant to submit proof of his interest in the
real property and of the authority of the agent to act
for the applicant Before proccssing the application
the planning director shall obtain the opinion of the
city attorney as to the sufficiency of the appiicant’s
interest in the real pmpcrty to enter into the agree-
ment. (Ord. NS-302 9 4, 1995: Ord. 1261 6 54
(pan), 1983; Ord. 9643 Q 1 (part), 1982) .
21.70.040 Praposcd form of agreement
Each application shall be accompanied by the
form of developmcnt agreement proposed by the
applicant unless the city manager, in consultation
2 1.70.W
mines to provide the applicant with the form of a
development agreemeat Tbe city council may adopt
by resolution a standard form of development agree-
ment. The applicant my choose to use the standard
form and include specific proposals for changes in
or additions to the language of the standad form.
The proposed agreement shall contain all the ele-
ments required by Government Code Section
65865.2 and may include any other provisions per-
mitted by law, including nqukmcnu that the appli-
cant provide sufficient security approved by the city
attorney to ensure provision of public facilities.
(ord. NS-302 5 5, 1995: ord. 9643 5 1 (part), 1982)
21.70.050 Review of oppUcation.
(a) The planning dircctor shall review the appli-
cation and may reject it if it is incomplete or inaccu-
rate for processing. If he fmds that the application
is complete. he shall accept it for filing.
(b) The planning director shall review the appli-
cation and proposed agrumcnt and shall preparc a
repon and recommendation to the planning commis-
sion on the agreement
(c) The planning director shall forward a copy of
the application and proposed agrecmcnt to the city
attorney for review. The city attOnICy shall prepare
a report and recommendation to tbe planning corn
mission on the agreement.
(d) The planning director shall forward a copy of
the application, proposed agrecmenk and a fiscal
impact analysis, for projects purporting to provide
economic benefits to the city, to the finance director
for review. The finance director shall prepare a
repon and recommendation to the planaing commis-
sion on the agreement and fiscal impact analysis.
1983; Ord. 9643 5 1 (part). 1982) ,
(Ord. NS-302 0 6, 199S: ord. 1261 9 54 (part),
21.70.060 Transmittal to planning
commission.
The planning director shall transmit the applica-
tion to the planning commission for a pubtic hearing
when all the necessary reports and recommendations
arc completed. Notice of the public hearing shall be
for a development agreement may be consided
concurrently with other discretionary permits for the
project. (Ord. NS-302 4 7, 1995: ord. 1261 6 54
(part), 1983; Ord. 9643 5 1 (part), 1982)
21.70.070 Planning commission report.
Aftcr a public hearing, the planning commission
shall consider the application and prepare a repon
and recommendation for the city council. The report
and rtcommcndation shall include findings on the
matten stated in Section 21.70.08qb). This report
and recommendation shall be forwarded to the city
clerk who shall set the mancr for public hearing
before the city council. (M. 9643 5 1 (part), 1982)
21.70.080 Dtdsion by city couadL
(a) After the city cod completes the public
hearing, it may approve, modify or disapprove the
development agreement It may refer mattcn not
previously considered by the planning commission
during its hearing back to the planning commission
for report and recommendation. ne planning corn-
mission need not hold a public hearing on mattt~
referred back to it by the city council.
(b) The city council shall not approve the devel-
opment agreement unless it finds that the agreement:
(1) Is consistent with the objectives, policies,
general land uses and programs specified in the
general plan and any applicable specifk plan;
(2) Is compatible with the uses authorized in and
the regulations pnscribed for the land use district in
which the real property is located and all other
provisions of Title 21 of this code:
(3) Is in conformity with public convenience.
general welfare and good land-use practices:
(4) Will not be detrimental to the health, safety
and general welfare;
(5) Will not advenely affect the orderly develop-
ment of property or the preservation of properry
values;
(6) Is consistent with the provisions of Govern-
ment Code Sections 65864 - 65869.5;
(7) Where applicable, ensures provision of public
facilities in a manner consistent with the general
.
given as provided in this chapter. The application
(Clllad 5-93 772
plan:
2 1.70.080
(8) When applicable, is consistent with the provi-
sions of Title u) of this code.
(9) Will result in the provision of economic,
environmental, mmuional, culnvpl or social bene-
fits to the city which would not be attainable with-
out approval of the agreement. (Ord. NS-302 35 8.
9, 1995; Ord. 9643 4 1 (parr), 1982)
21.70.090 Approval of development
agreements.
If the city coltncil approves the development
apmcnc it shall adopt an ordinance approving the
agreement and dhting the mayor to execute the
agrcemcnt after the effective date of the ordinance
on behalf of the city. Before execution, cxh agru-
rnent shall be approved as to form by the city attor-
ney.
For projects Iucatcd within the coastal zone, the
development agreement shall not become effective
until a local coastal program amendment or coastal
development permit. whichever is .applicable, has
been granted by the California Coastal Commission
or its successor in intcrcst. (Chd. NS-302 9 10,
1995: Ord. 9643 9 1 (part), 1982)
21.70.100 Required notice.
(a) Notice of public hearing requirtd by this
chapter shall be given by both methods provided in
Section 21.54.060 of this code.
(b) The notice requirement refed to in subs-
tion (a) is declaratory of existing law (Government
Code Sections 65867, 65090 and 65091). If state
law prescribes a different notice requirrmens notice
shall be given in that manner.
(c) The failun of any person to xeccive notice
rquircd by law or tbese regulations does not affect
the authority of the city to enter into a development
agreement. (Ord. NS-302 9 11, 1995: Ord. 9643 6
I (part), 1982)
21.70.110 Ln+guLnrity in proceedings.
No action. inaction or recommendation rcgarding
the proposed development agreement shall be held
void or invalid or be set aside by a cow by reason
of any error, kgularity, informality, neglect or
773
omissioa to any maOcr perraining to petition.
application. notice, finding, record, hearing, ~poa
recommendation or any mamn of procedure what-
ever, unless after an examination of the eatin casc,
including the evidence. the court is of the opinion
that the em complained of WLU prejudicial and that
by reason of the enor the complaining parzy sus-
tained and suffered substantial injury, and that a
different result would have been probable if the
error had not occumd or existed. The= is no pm-
sumption that erne is prejudicial or that injury was
done if error is shown. (Ord. 9643 9 1 (part), 1982)
21.70.120 Amendment and cancellation of
agreement by mutual consent.
(a) Either party may propose an amendment to
or cancellation in whole or in part of the develop
mcnt agrecmnt previously entered into. The amend-
ment or cancellation permined by this section must
be by mutual consent of the pames.
(b) The procedure for proposing and adoption of
an amtndmcat to or cancellation in whole or in part
of tbc dcveIopmcnt agreement is the same as the
pmccdun for entering into an agreement in the first
instance. However, when the city initiates the pro.
posed amendment to or cancellation in whole or in
paxt of the development agreemcnc it shall first give
notice to the property owner of its intention to initi-
ate such procetdings at Iwt thirty days in advance
of the giving of public notice of the hearing to
consider the amendment or cancellation. (Ord. 9643
6 1 (pm. 1982)
21.70.130 Recordation.
(a) Within ten days after the city enters into the
development agrtemcnt the city clerk shall have the
agreement recorded with the county recorder.
(b) if the parties to the agreement or their SUCCCS-
SOIS in intercst amend or cancel the agreement as
provided in Government Code Section 65868, or if
the city tcmiriates or dies the apernent as
provided in Govcnunent Code Stction 65865.1 for
failure of the applicant to comply in gwd faith with
the ttm or conditions of the agreement. the city
. -
21 .?O. 130
clerk shall have notice of such action recorded with
the county recorder. (ord 9643 Q 1 (part), 1982)
21.70.140 Periodic review.
(a) The city council shall rcview the development
agreement every twelve months from the Qte the
agreement is entered into.
(b) The time for review may be shortened either
by agreement between the parties or by initiation in
one or more of the following ways:
(1) Recommendation of the planning director;
(2) Resolution of intention by the planning com-
(3) Resolution of intention of the city council.
(c) The planning director shall begin the review
proceeding by giving written notice that the city
council intends to undertake a periodic review of the
development agreement to the property owner. He
shall give the notice at least ten day8 in advance of
the time at which the mami will be considered by
the council.
(d) The city council may refer the maner to tbe
planning commission for review and mommenda-
tion. (Ord. NS-302 $9 12, 13.1995; Ord. 1261 3 54
(pan), 1983; Ord. 9643 Q 1 (pan), 1982)
21.70.150 Procedure for peridc review.
(a) The city council or the planning commission,
if the mer has been referred. shall conduct a pub-
lic review hearing which the property owner must
demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms
of the agreement. The burden of proof on this issue
is upon the property owner.
(b) The city council sball determine upon the
basis of substantial evidtnce whether or not the
property owner has, for the period under review,
complied in good faith with the term and condi-
tions of the agreement
(c) If the city council finds and determines on
the basis of substantial evidence that the property
owner has complied in good faith with the terms
and conditions of the agreement during the pericd
under review, no other action is necessary.
(d) If the city council fmds and determines on
the basis of substantial evidence that the applicant
mission:
has not cornplied in good faith with the terms and
conditions of the agreement during the period under
review, the council may initiate proceedings to
mode or terminate the agreement. (Ord. 9643 8 1
(part), 1982)
21.70.160 Mdcadoa or termination.
(a) Lfupon a hdbg under Section 21.70.15qd)
the council determines to modLfy or terminate the
apment, the council shall give notice to’the prop-
erty owner of its intention 50 to do. The notice shall
state:
(1) The timc and place of the hearing;
(2) A stattment as to whether or not the council
proposes to terminare or to modify tbe development
agreeracnt;
(3) Other information which the council consid-
en necessary to inform the property owner of the
nature of the pmc&gs.
Such notice my be given at the conclusion of the
hearing held according to Section 21.70.150.
(b) At the time and place set for the hearing on
modification or terminatioa, the property .owner
shall be given an oppormnity to be heard The coun-
cil may refer the matttr back to the planning com-
mission for further pmcdings or for report and
recommendation. The council may impose those
conditions to the action it tak& as it considers nec-
essary to protea the interests of the city. The deci-
sion of the city council is final. (Ord. 9643 Q 1
(part). 1982)
21.70.170 No damages on termination.
Ln no event shall the applicant or his SUCCCSSOK
in interest be entitled to any damages against the
city upon terminarion of the agrttmcnt. (Od. 9643
6 1 (parr), 1982)
21.70.180 No vesting of rights.
Approval and consmction of a portion or phase
OC a development pursuant to the agreement shall
not vest any rights to construct the remainder or any
other portion of the development nor cnate any
vested rights to the approval thereof if the agree-
.
!
merit is terminated w provided in thh chapter. (Ord.
9643 f 1 (part), 1982)
..
..
..
..
..
774-1
2 1.70.180
(cdsbd 3-99 3
21.70.190 Rcsvricioa of rights..,
The city council meres the right to terminate
or modify any development agktmcnt after a
public hearing if such termination or modifica-
tion is reasonable and qectuary to protect the
public health. Jafety or wtlfm. (Ord. 9643 5 1
(part). 1982)
77 s
2 1.70. I90
I
CARLSBAD
. '.
. .. . '. . .. ..
RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
SP 207
Original Approvals:
Planning Commission Resolution #3480, January 6, 1993
City Council Ordinance # NS 227, March 16, 1993
LCPA 90-08
PARCEL 1 AND 2 (CIA) RECONFIGURATION
Revise parcel configuration to allow a vocational school campus permitted by the approved
realigning the northern end of Road "A" allowing Parcels 1 and 2 to be on the west side of
the road, reducing the length and increasing the width of the three parcels in the central
portion of the development area, reducing the acreage of the development parcel closest to
Palomar Airport Road, and adjusting several agricultural parcels to accommodate the above
changes while not reducing the total acreage reserved for agricultural uses.
Specific Plan to be located entirely on one side of Road "A." Amendment included:
Approved by:
Planning Director, August 1993
(Administratively approved minor amendment)
SP 207(A)
LEGOLAND AMENDMENT
Approved by:
(Pending)
.. . ..
.. .. .. .
SP 207(B)ILCPA W-OS(A)
PEDESTRIAN TRAIL REALIGNMENT
Revise pedestrian trail through the flower fields. Amendment included: modifying the
alignment and width of the trail to more closely approximate the existing agricultural road,
eliminating proposed non-agricultural landscaping, reducing the viewpoint at what was
previously the eastern terminus of the trail, and adding an alternative access point north of the new alignment.
Approved by:
(Administratively approved minor amendment)
Planning Director,
CARLSBAD RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
SP 207(B)
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PLAN TEXT AND EXHIBIT CHANGES *
PAGE CHANGE
25
27
39
40
45
52
61
62
112
128
Delete reference to "formal elements." "Formal elements" refers to the double row of trees included in the originally approved landscaping of the trail. Extensive landscaping
was initially proposed to keep visitors on the trail and out of the crops. However, in
1995. CB Ranch Enterprises managed the flower field visitor operations, hosting over
200,000 people, and determined that extensive barriers were not necessary.
Elimination of the non-agricultural landscaping is more agricultural-friendly and will
preserve the natural characteristic of !he flower fields - a dramatic visual display when
the flower fields are in bloom.
Figure 10 - Illustrative Plan. Need to show new alignment. (Note: The new Specific
Plan which incorporates Legoland does not include an illustrative plan, so this revised exhibit will'not be permanent.)
Revise Policy 4-B. Revised to clarify that the trail will serve a dual function as an
agricultural road and will allow for farm equipment to utilize it.
Delete reference to "double row of trees" along the pedestrian trail. See' page 25
discussion above.
Figure 15 - Storm Water Management Concept. Delete reference to trail. Existing
agricultural roads do not effect drainage of fields.
Figure 16 - .Circulation Plan. Revise pedestrian path through the flower fields to reflect
the proposed realignment.
Delete reference to farm vehicle access, landscaping and swales.
Figure 21 - Pedestrian Walk Illustrative Plan. Replace with revised cross section.
Figure 47 - Paseo Center Design Guidelines. Delete reference to landscaping in the
flower fields.
Figure 51 - Landscape Concept. Delete reference to formal landscaping in the flower
fields.
I
!.'
I. ..
. .. . ..
Much of the most visible west-facing slopes will maintain agricultural use of the .. site as flower fields. j
YrY
"b b b. A transitional wall will create an
edge to the flower fields that will become a promenade with belvederes giving scenic
vistas to the fields, the city and the ocean.
Development will be concentrated within a limited area. The focal point of the
development will be a pedestrian oriented village center linked to the other
development sites along a main ridge road. The village center is intended to serve a
mix of community and business uses and mixed use buildings will be encouraged.
The hotel will occupy the most prominent location at.the southern end of the site.
The hotel will serve a role in Carlsbad much like the La Valencia Hotel in La Jolla and
the Hotel Del Coronado in Coronado as a major landmark and social gathering place
for the community. In the village center, a common architectural style will be
required, not to imitate the appearance of the corporate buildings, but rather to invoke
a place that is friendly to people. The use of courtyards, terraces, landscaping,
sloping and tiled roofs, distinctive massing and many of the qualities characteristic of
Mediterranean buildings are envisioned.
In the event that the proposed expanded research and development/office uses
locate on parcel 6 and 7, the architectural features will be similar to those required for
the O/PI uses on parcels 1-5 and 9, starting on page 82. To retain the pedestrian
character of the village center between parcel 6 and 7, increased building setbacks
and increased pedestrian oriented landscape features will be incorporated into the
proposed office/research and development uses. With the incorporation of the
expanded research and development/office uses, the village center uses serving the
community may be reduced from the base development program as well as shifted to
parcel 8 of the village center.
Figures 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 found on pages 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30
respectively, identify the proposed location of land uses and the development program
to be achieved on the developable portion of the Carlsbad Ranch, which.is expected
to build out over a 10 to 15 year time period. The Parcelization Diagrams (Figures 12
and 13) depict in more specific terms the proposed distribution of development and
open space on the site. Figure 12 illustrates the proposed office and retail program
while Figure 13 incorporates a vocational campus use option and research and
development land uses on parcels 6, 7 and 7A. The parcelization diagram for the
vocational campus illustrates minor reconfiguration of parcels 2, 3, 4 and 5 to
._.
1'
I
3E
Revised: May,. 1935 f 242
Figure 10
. I I 0
.I -- .I- : -!L .I
t.. ..
.. . ._ .. . .. ,..'. . . .',: .- - .- . I .. . .... ,.. ..
ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN -wA
In order to ensure that farm vehicles can move between agricultural areas on
the west and east sides of the property, a grade separated crossing is planned at
Road 'A', north of Parcel 1.
POLICY 4-C:, Establish a 50 foot building setback from adjoining sgricultural areas.
Structures must be set back 50 feet from adjacent agricultural areas in order
to ameliorate the impacts of agricultural dust, pesticides and noise on the commercial
uses. .,
POLICY 4-8: Utilize existinq aaricultural road to serve as a Dedestrian connection
between the Paseo Center and the Carlsbad Ranch villaae center.
in height and
Typical berm
POLICY 4-E:
supplemented with'3 feet of plant material, to achieve a 6 foot barrier,
treatment is illustrated in Figure 50 on page 121.
Regrade the road cut adjacent to Palomar Airport Road in the area
designated as "Open Space" to allow agricultural use of the land. Soils in the regraded area should be amended to be equivalent to the existing Class Ill Marina
soils.
The grading concept prepared for the Specific Plan regrades road cuts at the
north and south edge of the property to a slope of 6:l in order to allow agricultural use of the land. The grading concept is illustrated by Figure 14 on page 42.
POLICY 44: Require the disposal of irrigation and storm water runoff from the
buildings, streets, parking'lots and landscaped areas through a system of detention
basins and storm drains so as to segregate urban and agricultural runoff and mitigate
the potential water degradation associated with each land use.
The storm water management concept for the Carlsbad Ranch development
collects urban water runoff and disposes of it through an integrated system' of
features which are designed to improve the quality of the storm water before it is
discharged off site. Drainage facilities are planned to segregate urban runoff from
agricultural areas. The storm water management concept is discussed more fully in
the following section, beginning on page 43.
POLICY 4-G: Project landscaping shall incorporate windbreaks to aid in reducing the
effects of farm spraying and dust generation.
The landscape concept for the Carlsbad Ranch includes generous landscaping
which provides amenity and shelter from the sun, wind and rain.
-informal groupings of trees and shrubs are planted on berms and in
setback areas to provide shelter from the wind.
POLICY 4-H: Landscape plant ma3erial shall be selected for resistance to pests, particularly aphids, thrips, whitefly and spider mites. The use of herbaceous plant
material should be minimized. Landscaping should be inspected routinely for the
presence of pests and treated to control them. All pests shall be eliminated by means
that do not adversely impact agricultural crops.
40
Revised: May, 1995
I
Figure 15
..i_ ..
..
Figure 16
CIRCULATION PLAN
SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT AREAS
EXISTING CIACUUTION 8
I
PUNNED CtACULATlON IMPROVEMENTS
U
PROJECT PROPOSED CIACUTION L -1
PROJECT PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN WAYS -
GRADE SEPARATION FOR I ] ( I FARMVEHICLEYPEDESTRAINS U
Revised: May, 1995
Pedestrian Circulation
OBJECTIVE 10: Develop a strong pedestrian circulation network within
the Carlsbad Ranch that connects with planned citywide trail systems.
POLICY 10-A: Establish a pedestrian promenade along the western perimeter of the
planning area, which will serve as an active public gathering place for the
development, and the City of Carlsbad.
In planning the Carlsbad Ranch, emphasis has been placed on developing a
friendly environment for the pedestrian. The promenade along the main road (Road
'A') will be the backbone of the Carlsbad.Ranch pedestrian network that will link.
together the various destinations within the Ranch. Located along the western edge
of the development area with sweeping views of the Pacific Ocean and flower fields
coupled with the mild climate of the Carlsbad area, the promenade will provide an
attractive setting for pedestrian use. An illustrative section and plan of the pedestrian
promenade can be found on top in Figure 49 on page 120.
POLICY 10-6: Provide a pedestrian walkway along Road 'B' linking the Carlsbad
Ranch to the planned city-wide trail system.
A pedestrian walk is planned along Road 'B' in order to allow connection
between the Carlsbad Ranch and the comprehensive recreation trail and open space
system in planning phases by the City of Carlsbad.
POLICY 10-C: Establish a pedestrian trail connection between the Paseo Center and
the village center. Design the trail to allow movement of farm vehicles across the trail
' to adjoining agricultural uses.
A pedestrian path is planned to connect the Paseo Center retail development on Paseo del Norte with the Carlsbad Ranch hotel and the village center area. The
pedestrian connection would serve to channel foot traffic which presently traverses
-The path will-a+se-be gated at both ends so that pedestrian access can
A cross-section of be cut off completely, if warranted by the farming operations.
the pedestrian path is shown on Figure 21.
Gl
Figure 21
ILLUSTRATIVE SECTION
PEDESTRIAN WALK IN FLOWER FIELD
Arrange buildings along the perimeter of the site in a continuous fashion to create a well defined 'autozourt'. rr
Create a focus at the juncture of the pedestrian walkway and Paseo Center with gardens or a plaza with benches for foot traMc.
Vary roof heights and vertical planes to create visual interest. As a guideline, break roof planes every 50 to 75 feet.
Utilize architectural features (e.g. arcades, loggias, balconies) that reflect a meditemnean vocabulary. Building materials (stucco, natural stone, dearatbe block) and roofing materials (clay tiles, copper, aluminum and steel panels) . should reflect a meditemnean character.
Mark cornea of retail buildings with higher architectural elements.
Architectural Character
Figure 47
PASEO CENTER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Revised: Tyrn May, 1 95
Figure 51
LANDSCAPE CONCEPT
I
.....
AGRICULTURAL .,STREETS & PEDESTRIAN PATHS
* FORMAL PUNT"
GOLF DRlV1N.Q RANGE
PARKING AREAS
INFORMAL PUNTlNG
I