HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-05-18; City Council; 3656; Revising Provisions of Planned Community P-C Zone*-*V*.
AGENDA BILL NO.
DATE:
CITY OF CARLSBAD
May 18, 1976
DEPARTMENT:PLANNING
Initial(
Dept.Hd^
C.
C. Mgr
Subject:CASE NO. ZCA-80, AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 21.38 REVISING
THE PROVISIONS OF THE PLANNED COMMUNITY (P-C) ZONE.
Statement of the Matter*
On April 28, 1976, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1244,..
recommending adoption of an amendment to the Planned Community Zone.
.- \ :
This public hearing was held pursuant to a City Council Workshop session
in which staff was instructed to set the proposed P-C process to hearing
before the Planning Commission.
Exhibits :
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1244
Exhibit' "A", Draft Ordinance, dated 4/7/76
fitebtt cE"frE&aWi-n3t&?™$W?$ meno to city Council dated
Staff Report, April 28, 1976
' 1976
Recommendation:
If the City Council concurs with the findings and recommendations of
Planning/Commission Resolution No. 1244, the City Council should instruct
the City Attorney to prepare the necessary documents.
«
If the City Council concurs that the Planning Commission Resolution
No. 1244 should be amended as discussed in the City Manager report
to the City Council dated May 12, 1976, they should instruct the
staff to make those necessary changes in the documents to be prepared.
Council action .
5-18-76 The Council concurred with the findings and recommendations of
Planning Commission Resolution #1244 with amendments as recommend-
ed in the City Manager's memorandum; dated May 12, 1976, and with
the minor changes discussed; and, the City Attorney was instructed
to prepare the necessary documents including the changes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
--J10
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1244
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, SETTING
FORTH ITS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RELATIVE TO CHAPTER 21.38 OF TITLE 21 OF
THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE REVISING THE
PROVISIONS OF THE PLANNED COMMUNITY (P-C)
ZONE.
CASE NO.: ZCA-80
APPLICANT: CITY INITIATED
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad
did adopt Resolution of Intention No. 127 declaring its inten-
tion to conduct a public hearing to consider a Zone Code Amend-
ment revising the Planned Community (P-C) Zone regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a duly noticed
Public Hearing on April 28, 1976 to consider the subject amend-
ment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received all testimony
from those persons interested in and opposed to, if any, the
proposed Zone Code Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received all testimony
from those persons interested in and opposed to, if any, the
proposed Zone Code Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did find the following
facts and reasons to be present which in their opinion are
necessary to carry out the general purpose of Title 21 of the
Municipal Code:
(1) The proposed amendment is consistent with the General
Plan beca-use the General Plan indicates a desire
to have comprehensively planned communities.
(2) The proposed amendment will not have an adverse affect
on the environment since the P-C Zone will provide for
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
unique methods to develop land where there are sensi-
tive environmental problems.
(3) The proposed amendment is desirable since:
(a) The present P-C Zone regulations do not govern
.all possible circumstances.
(b) The present P-C Zone regulations do not contain
complete or adequate processing procedures.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
of the City of Carlsbad that it does recommend approval to the
City Council of an amendment to Title 21, revising Chapter 21.38
revising the provisions of the Planned Community (P-C) Zone, -
as per Exhibit A, dated April 7, 1976, and Exhibit B, dated
May 6, 1976, Memorandum to City Council, and attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Planning Commission held on April 28, 1976,
by the following vote, to wit:i
AYES: Commissioners Dominguez, Fikes, Jose, L'Heureux,
Larson and Watson
NOES: None '
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Stephen M. L'Heureux, Chairman
ATTEST:
Donald A. Agatep, Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
^ 4/07/76
ORDINANCE NO. ^ BP/mdp
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
TITLE 21 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY
THE AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 21.38 TO REVISE THE
PROVISIONS OF THE P-C PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE.
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does
ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: That Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
hereby amended by the amendment of Chapter 21.38 to read as follows:
"Chapter 21.38
P-C PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE
Sections:
21.38.010 Intent and purpose
21.38.020 Permitted uses and structures.
21.38.030 General provisions.
21.38.040 Master Plan required.
21.38.050 Application.
21.38.060 Contents of Master Plan.
21.38.070 Exceptions to Master Plan.
21.38.080 Profiling procedure.
21.38.090 Planning Director's duties.
21.38.100 Planning Commission duties.
21.38.110 City Council action.
21.38.120 Modification of Master Plan.
11.38.130 Implementation of Master Plan.
21.38.140 Additional standards.
21.38.150 Undeveloped Areas of Existing Planned
Communities.
21.38.010 Intent and purpose. The intent and purpose of the
P-C zone is to:
(1) Provide a method for and to encourage the orderly imple-
mentation of the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plans by
the comprehensive planning and development of large tracts of land
under unified ownership or development control, so that the entire
tract will be developed in accord with an adopted Master Plan to
provide an environment of stable and desirable character.
(2) Provide a flexible regulatory procedure to encourage
creative and imaginative planning of coordinated communities involving
a mixture of residential densities and housing types, open space, comnunity
facilities, both public and private and, where appropriate, commercial
and industrial areas.
(3) Allow for the coordination of planning efforts between
developer and City to provide for the orderly development of all
necessary public facilities to insure their availability concurrent
with need.
(4) Provide a framework for the phased development of an
approved Master Planned area to provide some assurance to the de-
veloper that later development will be acceptable to the City pro-
vided such plans are in accordance with the approved Planned Com-
munity Master Plan.
21.38.020 Permitted use and structures. In the P-C, Planned
Community Zone, the permitted uses and structures shall be established
by a Master Plan of Development approved in accordance with this
chapter which may include any use found to be necessary and desirable
-2-
for a community planned in accordance with the pruposes of this
chapter provided that such permitted uses and structures shall be
consistent with the General Plan and applicable Specific Plans.
Prior to approval of a Master Plan, the property may be used as
permitted by Chapter 21.07 for the E-A Exclusive Agricultural zone.
21.38.030 General provisions.
(A) P-C Planned Community zone may be established on parcels
of land which are suitable for and of sufficient size to be planned
and developed in a manner consistent with the purposes and objectives
of this chapter. No P-C zone shall include less than 100 acres of
contiguous land.
(B) All land in each proposed planned community shall be held
in one ownership or shall be under unified control unless otherwise
authorized by the City Council. For the purposes of this section,
the written agreement of all owners in the planned community, to
develop in accord with the Master Plan as approved, shall be deemed
to indicate unified control.
(C) An owner may transfersectionsof the development. The
transferee shall be required to use the property in accord with the
approved Master Plan.
(D) A planned community shall be subject to all other applicable
provisions of Title 20 - Subdivision and Title 21 - Zoning of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code. Where a conflict in regulation occurs
the regulations specified in this Chapter or the approved Master Plan
shall control.
-3-
21.38.040 Master Plan required. Prior to the approval for any
permits for development on property zoned P-C, Planned Community,
a Master Plan of Development must be approved by the City Council
in accord with the provisions of this chapter. A Master Plan when
approved by ordinance shall establish the regulations for the
development of the planned community within the P-C zone and said
regulations shall become a part thereof.
21.28.050 Application. An application for approval of a
Master Plan shall be made to the City council through the Planning
Department and Planning Commission in accordance with procedures
set forth below:
(1) An application for a Master Plan may be made by the
record owners or owners, or their duly authorized agents, of the
subject property. It shall be filed with the Planning Director
and must contain the signatures of the record owner or owners of
the subject property.
(2) The Planning Commission may prescribe the form and content
for such application.
"(3) A fee of $100.00, plus $2.00 per acre for the first
200 acres and $1.00 per acre for all acreage above 200 acres, shall
be paid when the application is filed."
"(4) The application shall be accompanied with a preliminary
Master Plan graphic and text, open area plan and sign provision."
21.38.060 Contents of Master Plan. A Master Plan for the
development of a planned community shall consist of the following:
(1) Graphic plans of the proposed development that include
the following:
(a) A map and legal description of the property with
a north point scale not less than one inch equals two hundred feet,
showing the date of preparation and the name and address of the
plan's preparer.
-4-
(b) Location of the various land uses shall be indicated
by the use of zone designations of development zones and overlay
zones as provided in this Title. Development of property within
the area of each such zone shall be subject to the regulations
of the indicated zone unless specifically modified as a part of
the Master Plan approval.
(c) An integrated open space program that is at least 35%
of the total Master Planned area is required, except that the City
Council may reduce this amount if the proposed open space is found
to be adequate and is integrated with a proportional amount of off-
site open space. Land uses considered open space in the interest of
this Chapter are public or commonly owned parks, recreation facilities,
greenbelts that are at least 20' wide, natrual area that are at least
10,000 sq. ft. in area, bikeways, and pedestrian paths.
(d) Specific development provisions to be applied such as a
Planned Unit Development permit or a Conditional Use Permit shall be
indicated. Development of property within areas so indicated shall
be in accord with the applicable provisions of this Title.
(e) The location of public and quasi public facilities such
as schools, fire stations, transmission lines and booster stations.
(f) The locations of major circulation systems-and
collector streets and their relationship to the circulation element
shall be indicated. Bikeways, pedestrian paths, interconnecting
open space areas and other special access means shall also be shown.
(g) Facilities for water supply and sewerage disposal,
including sewer and water trunk lines, fire station sites, storm
drainage structures and any other public facility needed to pro-
perly service the proposed community shall be indicated.
(h) Phasing of development shall be indicated. Adequate
public facilities, recreation areas and street system shall be
provided for each phase.
(i) Topographical contours at no less that 25-foot
intervals showing existing trees and other natural features.
-5-
(j) Areas and extent of proposed grading.
(2) A text shall accompany the graphic and contain certain
information in the order as listed below:
(a) A description of each type of land use by acre
and area showing: the number and type of anticipated dwelling
units in each of the residential areas, anticipated uses in the
commercial, industrial zones, and the land area for parks, schools,
common open area and other public facilities and community services
(b) Economic feasibility report indicating feasibility
of a community as proposed and the feasibility of each of the
various types of land use developments within the community.
(c) Special development regulations, including any
modifications of zone designation regulations.
(d) A program to meet the needs for parks, schools
and other public facilities based on the anticipated population of
the community and the timing of its development.
(e) Method to be employed for the maintenance of
commonly held private land such as: open space, recreation areas,
street and parking areas. Some possible methods, depending on the
circumstances are: maintenance by developer, homeowners' associ-
ation, maintenance district, City.
(f) Phasing schedule indicating the timing for each
section of the development, what public facilities, open space,
recreation facilities or other facilities or amenities will be
provided with each phase.
(g) Special requirements as requested by the applicant
or required by the City council which may include, but are not
limited to, any of the matters which may be regulated by specific
plan pursuant to Section 65451 of the Government Code.
-6-
(3) An open area plan generally indicating areas that will
be landscaped, left natural, used as recreation, open space, bike
or pedestrian ways, shall be submitted. This plan shall also
indicate proposed private or public ownership and maintenance
responsibilities of the various types of open areas.
(4) A sign plan which may include the following:
(a) Graphic representation of design motif.
(b) Location of permanent community entrance, direc-
tional and informational signs.
(c) Type, number and dimensions of temporary informa-
tion and directional sign that will be used during development only
(d) Special sign program for the commercial and indus-
trial portion of the community including standards for development
based on sign area footage per lineal foot, face of building and
sign height maximums. However, in no case may the sign program
exceed that allowed by Chapter 21.41.
In a planned community only the signs approved as a part of the
Master Plan shall be allowed. All such signs shall comply with the
sign plan.
21.38.070 Exception to Master Plan. Areas within a Master
Plan may be reserved for future planning, provided such areas do
not exceed 40% of entire Master Plan area. Such reserved areas
shall be so indicated and will require amendment to the Master
Plan to include all required contents prior to development.
21.38.080 Prefiling Procedure. Prior to filing an applica-
tion for a Master Plan, an applicant may prefile the proposal
with the Planning Director for review. The Director shall contact
interested departments and agency personnel and arrange any neces-
sary meetings with the applicant. This procedure may involve a
review of the general outline of the proposal. After review,
the Planning Director shall furnish the applicant with written
-7-
comments regarding the review conferences including recommendations
as appropriate to inform and assist the applicant prior to his
formal application for Master Plan approval. The Planning Director
shall submit written comments within 20 days after completion of
review or within 30 days after receiving written request for such
comment from the applicant.
21.38.090 Planning Director's Duties. The Planning Director
shall set a Master Plan for hearing before the Planning Commission
within 60 days of receipt of a complete application. The public
hearing shall be noticed and held in accordance with the provisions
of Chapters 21.52 and 21.54. A staff report containing recommenda-
tions on the plan shall be prepared and furnished to the public,
applicant and Planning Commission prior to the hearing.
21.38.100 Planning Commission Duties. The Planning Commission
shall hear and consider the application for a Master Plan and shall
prepare recommendations and findings for the City council including
all matters set out in Section 21.38.110.
The action of the Commission shall be filed with the City Clerk
and a copy shall be mailed to the applicant.
21.38.110 City Council Action.
(1) When the Planning Commission action is filed with the
City Clerk, the Clerk shall set the matter for public hearing
before the City Council, to be noticed and held in accordance with
the provisions of Chapters 21.52 and 21.54.
-8-
(2) The City Council shall hear the matter and after con-
sidering the findings and recommendations of the Planning
Commission may by ordinance approve a Master Plan if, from the evi-
dence presented at the hearing, they find that all of the following
facts exist:
(a) The proposed development as described by the
Master Plan is consistent with the provisions of the General Plan
and any applicable Specific Plans.
(b) All necessary public facilities can be provided
concurrent with need and adequate provisions have been provided to
implement those portions of the Captial Improvement Program applica-
ble to the subject property.
(c) The residential and open space portions of the
community will constitute an environment of sustained desirability
and stability; and that it will be in harmony with or provide compatible
variety to the character of the surrounding area, and that the sites
posed for public facilities, such as schools, playgrounds and
parks, are adequate to serve the anticipated population and appear
acceptable to the public authorities having jurisdiction thereof.
(d) The proposed commercial and industrial uses will
be appropriate in area, location and overall design to the purpose
intended; that the design and development standards are such as
to create an environment of sustained desirability and stability;
and that such development will meet performance standards estab-
lished by this Title.
(e) In the case of institutional, recreational, and
other similar nonresidential uses, that such development will be
appropriate in area, location and overall planning to the pur-
pose proposed, and that surrounding areas are protected from any
adverse effects from such development.
(f) That the streets and thoroughfares proposed are
suitable and adequate to carry the anticipated traffic thereon.
(g) That any proposed commercial development can be
justified economically at the location proposed and will provide
adequate commercial facilities of the types needed..at such location
proposed.
-9-
(h) That the area surrounding said development can
be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility
with said development.
(3) The City Council shall make no modification of a pro-
posed Master Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission unless
and until such modification shall have been referred to the
Planning Commission for additional study, report and recommendation.
Such additional study, report and recommendation shall be made by
the Planning Commission within thirty (30) days of the date of the
referral, unless and except as the City Council may grant the
Planning Commission additional time for its review of the matter.
Failure of the Planning Commission to act within the time limit
shall constitute their concurrence with the City Council's action.
21.38.120 Modification of Master Plan. From time-to-time,
it may be necessary and desirable to modify the approved Master Plan.
Modification of such a plan may be initiated by the City Council,
or by the property owner or authorized agent.
(1) Requests for modifications shall be submitted to the
Planning Department in written form and shall be accompanied by
such additional graphics, statements, or other information as may
be required to support the proposed modification. The Planning
Commission shall consider the proposed modification at its next
regular meeting.
(2) If the Planning Commission considers the modification
minor in nature, the additional graphics, statement or other
information is approved by Planning Commission Resolution and made
part of the original City Council approval.
(3) A minor modification shall not change the densities,
or the boundaries of the subject property or involve an addition
of a new use or group of uses not shown on the original Master
Plan or the rearrangement of uses within the Master Plan. If
the modification is not minor or if the Planning Commission for
any other reasons deems if necessary, a public hearing shall be
held on the proposed modification.
-10-
(4) If public hearing is required the applicant shall submit
a completed application with graphics, statements, or other infor-
mation as may be required to support the proposed modification.
(5) Fees of $50 plus $1.00 per acre is required for all
property within the portion of the Master Plan to be modified.
(6) All property owners within the Master Plan area to be
modified must be notified of the proposed public hearing as well
as property owners within 300' of the area of the Master Plan to
be modified.
(7) The hearing procedures for such modification shall be
the same as for a new Master Plan in accordance with this chapter.
21.38.130 Implementation of Master Plan.
(1) To insure the provisions and requirements of the approved
Master Plan are fulfilled the following procedures shall be used:
(a) Upon final approval of a Master Plan the Planning
Director shall affix the Master Plan designation number on the
official zone map.
(b) Subdivision of land in the Master Plan area shall
meet all requirements of the City Code and the approved Master
Plan.
(c) Special process such as Site Development Plan,
Planned Unit Development and Conditional Use permit shall meet all
requirements of the City Code and the approved Master Plan.
(d) Ministerial permits such as building permits,
business license, home occupations, shall meet all requirements of
the City Code and the approved Master Plan.
(2) The Planned Community-Master Plan process is part of
the ongoing City Planning effort. It is anticipated that amendments
to the Master Plan may be necessary prior to completion of the
Planned Community. Approval and construction of a sectional part
of the Master Plan shall not vest rights in the remainder of the
plan. The plan is intended rather as a planning framework to
insure that the parts of the plan as constituted are properly
integrated into the City's planning area.
-11-
21.38.140 Additional Standards. The City Council may by
resolution adopt additional standards of development for Master
Plans. Master Plans approved or amended after the effective
date of such regulations shall comply therewith. For amended
Master Plans that are partially constructed, the new standards
shall apply to the undeveloped portions only.
21.38.150 Undeveloped Areas of Existing Planned Communities.
Undeveloped portions of properties zoned P-C, on the effective
date of this chapter, shall be regulated by this section as follows
(1) Properties of less than 100 acres shall be con-
sidered lawfully nonconforming. The development of such
property shall require a Planned Unit Development which
shall be accomplished in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 21.45. If no master plan has been approved for
the property, the land use shall be consistent with the
General Plan. If a Master Plan has been approved, the density
and other provisions of such plan shall constitute the under-
lying zone for purposes of the Planned Unit Development permit.
(2) Properties of more than 100 acres for which no master
plan has been approved shall comply fully with the provisions of
this Chapter.
(3) Properties of more than 100 acres, with an approved
Master Plan, shall be developed in accord with the provisions
of Chapter 21.45. The density and other provisions of such plan
shall constitute the underlying zone for purposes of Planned
Unit Development permits. The City Council, by motion, or the
property owner, by application, my initiate an amendment to the
Master Plan to bring it in accord with the provisions of this
chapter. If such amendment is approved, the development of such
property shall be in accord with this chapter.
-12-
EXHIBIT "B"
Final Draft
MEMORANDUM
May 6, 1976
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: PLANNING. COMMISSION
SUBJECT: SUGGESTED CHANGES TO EXHIBIT A, 4-07-76
CASE NO. ZCA 80 -REVISIONS TO P-C ZONE
At their public hearing of April 28, 1976, the Planning
Commission recommended approval of ZCA 80, the revision to the
P-C Zone. In doing so, the Planning Commission adopted
Exhibit A, dated April 7, 1976, but suggested to the City
Council that certain portions be amended. These suggestions
are as follows:
V. Replace the term "Master Plan" with "Specific Plan" in
keeping with State legislation. The Planning Commission
feels that the term "Specific Plan" is a term used through-
out the State and has legal status as per Title 7, Chapter 3,
Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Government Code.
Section 21.38.040 would need to be amended to make direct
referral to State-legislated Specific Plans.
2. Add to Section 21.38.060 (1) (a) the following:
"...be it company or person."
3. Amend Section 21.38.060(1) (c) by changing the open space
requirement from 35% to 15%* and adding that:
"No more than 5% of this open space to be dedicated
in fee to the pub!ic".
The Planning Commission concern is that open areas in planned
communities primarily serve the residents of that community
.and therefore should be primarily maintained by that
community, not the City at large.
*The 35% figure came from an error in calculation on
the proposed La Costa Master Plan. Staff used the
open space acreage for the entire La Costa area but
only the portion within the proposed Master Plan for
the site area. After correction, the open space
without schools came to 15% —with schools, 16%.
c
In addition the Planning Commission suggests clarification
and specificity as to the areas to be in open space. They
suggest (c) be amended as follows:
"c" An integrated open space program that is at
'• • least 15 percent of the total Master Planned area
is required, except that the City Council may reduce
this amount if the proposed open space is found to
be adequate and is integrated with a proportional
amount of off-site open space; and further provided
that no more than 5 percent of this open space to be
dedicated in fee to the public. Land uses considered
as open space in the interest of this chapter are
properties that are public or commonly owned for the
benefit and use of residents of this community such as
parks, recreation facilities, greenbelts that are at
least 20 feet wide, natural areas that are at least
10,000 sq. ft. in area, bikeways and pedestrian paths.
These areas are to be indicated in the Master Plan and
not used for any other purpose.
4. Amend Section 21:38.060 (1) (g) by.changing "storm drainage
structures" to "storm drainage and flood control structures".
5. Amend Section 21.38.060 (1) (h) by adding "open space"
to those uses to be provided in .each phase.
6. Delete Section 21.38.060 (1) (j) because It is not possible
to determine adequately the amount and location of grading
at the Master Plan level.
7. Amend Section 21.38.060 (2) (b) as follows:
"(b) Land Use and Public Facility Economic Impact Report
that contains the following:
1. Justified the proportions of the various land uses
based on the projected population and acceptable marketing
or planning techniques;
2. Projected fiscal impacts the development will have on
the City's and other governments' or quasi public agencies.'
abilities to provide necessary.services . This report to
include approximate cost of dwelling units, anticipated
land and sales taxes to City and costs of necessary public
services.
The report shall be prepared by an economic consultant
independent of the applicant but at the applicant's expense."
8. Add to Section 21.38.060 (2) the following:
(h) Measure to be used to mitigate any adverse environ-
mental impact as noted in the adopted Environmental
Impact Report for the project.
-2-
9. Amend Section 21.38.060(2) to clarify who is to maintain
landscaping and open areas:
"(3) A landscape open area plan that includes all open
spaces as required in this Section and all other areas to
be maintained by the City or property owner association.
This plan shall include a graphic indicating areas to be
landscaped, left natural, used as recreation, open space
and bike or pedestrian way. In addition the plan shall
include the proposed ownership and who shall have the res-
ponsibilities of the maintenance of the various types of
open areas."
10. Amend Section 21.38.060 (4) as,follows:
(4) A Community Identification Sign Program that, in
addition to permitted signs in the Master Plan area, will
permit community entrance signs, directional signs and
temporary" information signs. The program may include the
following:
(a) Graphic representation of design motif;
(b) Location of permanent community entrance, direc-
tional and informational signs;
(c) Type, number and dimensions of temporary informa-
tion and directional sign that will be used during develop-
ment only;
(d) Special sign program for the commercial and indus-
trial portion of the community including standards for
development based on sign area footage per lineal foot,
face of building and sign height maximums.
A Community Identification Sign Program is in addition to
those signs permitted in Chapter 21.41, but in no case
may the Sign Program exceed that allowed for community
identity signs in Chapter 21.41.
If no Community Identification Sign Program is desired,
the Master Plan text shall indicate such.
11. Add Section 21.38.065 as follows:
"21.38.065 Density Consistency: Densities as indicated
ijn the General Plan mav be transferred within the
Master Plan area provided such transfer shall be
accomplished with a single subdivision tract map."
12. Add to Section 21.38.0§0 after the first sentence:
"The hearing date may be extended beyond 60 days
provided there is written concurrence from the
applicant".
-3-
13. Add new paragraph to Section 21.38.110 (2) as follows:
"( ) Appropriate measures are-proposed to mitigate
any adverse environmental impact as noted in the
adopted Environmental Impact Report for the
project".
14. Delete from the first sentence of Section 21.38.120 the
following:
"From time-to-time," l
15. Amend Section 21.38.120 (2) as follows:
"If the Planning Corrtmissiori considers the modifica-
tion minor in nature, the additional graphics, state-
ment or other information shall be approved by Planning
Commission and made a part of the original City
Council approval without the necessity of. a public
hearing."
16- Add to Section 21.38*150 the following:
"(4) Notwithstanding the .above, property with approved
Specific Plan adopted as per P-C regulations in effect
at the time of approval of such Specific Plan, can
be developed in accord with the Specific Plan without
further processing as required in this Chapter."
BPrcpl
-4-
MEMORANDUM
May 12, 1976
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION,
ZCA-80
The Planning Commission recommended approval of ZCA-80 with
suggested changes as noted in their memorandum to the City
Council dated May 6, 1976. The suggestions have merit; however,
these suggestions were made at the hearing, thereby not giving
Staff the ability to consider all the ramifications. Staff
has given further consideration to these suggestions and generally
concurs with the Planning Commission except for the following
items. (Please refer to Planning Commission memorandum dated
May 6, 1976.)
The Planning Commission suggests the term "Master Plan" be
replaced with "Specific Plan" to tie our process directly into
the Government Code. Staff agrees that the Master Plan is
very similar to a State-authorized Specific Plan, but upon
further consideration, Staff believes there are important
distinctions. One is that the Master Plan is applicant-
initiated whereas a State-authorized Specific Plan is local-
jurisdiction initiated. Another difference is that the City
may actually wish to initiate Specific Plans over an area that
either includes more than one Master Plan or a part of one
Master Plan. (An example would be a Specific Plan setting
scenic corridor guidelines along all of El Camino Rea.l)
Staff recommends that the term "Master Plan" be retained.
**********
Section 21 . 38. 060(1) (c) -Open Space Program:
Staff concurs with the wording; however, there should not be
a limitation on the land to be dedicated to the public. There
may be instances where the City may wish more land. The
Planning Commission's concern was to prevent the City from
Accepting undesirable land that becomes a City maintenance
problem. However, the Planning Commission and the City Council
have the ability and responsibility in determining the owner-
ship and maintenance responsibility of the open space as well
as other open and landscaped areas as part of the Master Plan
approval.
/*-*
Staff recommends the following be deleted from the Planning
Commission changes:
"...and further provided that no more than 5 percent
of this open space to be dedicated in fee to the
public."
**********
Section 12.38.060 (l)(j) -Grading:
The Planning Commission suggests removing this requirement
since it is not possible to determine amounts of grading at
the Master Plan level. Staff agrees, but believes the Ordinance
should contain mention that it is expected that grading is to
be kept to a minimum and therefore proposed development needs
should relate to topography.
Staff recommends that (j) be reworded as follows:
"(j) Proposed development shall be consistent with
the topography to reduce the amount of grading. The
graphic is to indicate where massive grading is antici-
pated and for what reasons it is necessary."
**********
Density C o n s i stency: The Planning Commission suggests adding
a proviso that permits transfer of density within a Master
Plan. Staff agrees that these transfers have merit, but upon
further consideration Staff believes that a proviso for density
transfer would best be accomplished as an amendment to the
General Plan. There is the legal question of General Plan
consistency if densities; were transferred unless the General
Plan expressly permitted it.
Staff recommends that density transfer provisions not be
adopted, but if the City Council is interested in this concept —
Staff be directed to review a possible General Plan amendment
for its inclusion into the General Plan.
' /( v „
Staff agrees with the Planning Commission that no other portion
of the Ordinance needs revision even though there were ques-
tions raised by citizens and at the Planning Commission and City
Council workshops on certain other aspects. Many of these
questions have been answered sufficiently or are already
contained in the Ordinance; or should be addressed later when
other portions of the Zone Ordinance are amended.
PB/BP:cpl
-2-
MEMORANDUM
April 28, 1976
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: CASE NO. ZCA-80
REQUEST: REVISION TO THE PLANNED COMMUNITY (P-C) ZONE,
CITY COUNCIL INITIATED
RECOMMENDATION; It is recommended that the modification to
Section 21.38.060(2)(b) per alternative 3 be adopted as out-
lined in staff report, and
It is recommended that staff be directed to prepare necessary
documents adopting ZCA-80 as contained in Exhibit A, dated
4/7/76.
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan
because the General Plan indicates a desire to have compre-
hensively planned communities.
2. The proposed amendment will not have an adverse affect on
the environment since the P-C Zone will provide for unique
methods to develop land where there are sensitive environ-
mental problems.
3. The proposed amendment is desirable since:
(a) The present P-C Zone regulations do not govern all
possible circumstances.
(b) The present P-C Zone regulations do not contain
complete or adequate processing procedures.
BACKGROUND: At the direction of the City Council (Nov. 4, 1975),
Staff reviewed the present P-C Zone regulation. The subsequent
report is attached for your information (see "Review of Present
P-C Zone", December 18, 1975). This report lists the major prob-
lems with the P-C Zone and is the basis for the alternatives sug-
gested by Staff in a memo to the City Manager (See "Report on
Planned Community Development", December 18, 1975). This memo
suggests that that the P-C Zone needs to be revised so that it
serves as a means for "large-scale" Community development and that
a P.U.D. process be adopted to provide for "small-scale" site
development.
The City Council reviewed these reports on December 26, 1975, and
set a moratorium on P-C development and directed Staff to prepare
an Ordinance revision to the P-C Zone and simultaneously start
processing the P.U.D. Ordinance that had been drafted earlier by
the Planning Commission. Staff prepared draft Ordinance and re-
viewed with the City Council (on January 13, 1976, February 10,
1976 and March 30, 1976); and with interested citizens (mostly
development or real estate interests); and with the Chamber of
Commerce Property Review Committee. From comments received at
these various meetings, Staff amended the draft P-C Ordinance
where amendments appeared mutually beneficial (See Exhibit A
dated April 7, 1976). Staff did not incorporate Into'the' " '
dtraft all of the requested chance* since they either were
not appropriate to this particular Ordinance Amendment;
appeared counter to the policy of the City; or more importantly,
Staff felt needed further discussion at the public hearing
level. This latter group of coments are discussed in this rep
report under "Areas of Discussion".
DISCRETION OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, Exhibit A. 4/7/76:
General Discussion: Presently the P-C Zone emphasis site develop-
ment. This leads to difficulties in corrdinating City desires as
each segment of a "planned community" is approved by Specific Plan
basically independent of other sites in the overall area. This is
not only a problem with the City, but developers are never sure
what the City will require as each site plan is reviewed. It is
important that major policies and requirements are established in
the planning stage, not the development stage.
The basic premises of the revised P-C Zone is that it is to be used
for the development of large-scale "planned communities" such as
La Costa. From the City's standpoint, the significant point of
planning a large-scale development is at the planning stage (not the
site development stage). Therefore, the P-C revision emphasizes the
Master Plan content and processing. Subsequent site development
plans will be processed through established procedures; i.e. sub-
division maps, site development plans, Conditional Use Permits and
Planned Unit Developments.
Zoning: Present P-C Zone required Master Plan and development;
otherwise, the P-C is forfeited.
The Proposed P-C Zone will be administered similar to other zones.
After rezoning, the property can be used with interim uses (agri-
culture) - with no time requirements for Master Plan or construction
Master Plan: Presently the Master Plan is basically a reiteration
of the General Plan - it does not give the City additional guidance
or answers questions. These questions are referred to the Tract Map
and Specific Plan processing stage, when unfortunately the City has
-2-
little discretionary ability and the applicant has spent much
time and effort in plans that may not be acceptable to the City.
In the proposed P-C Zone, the Master Plan will establish parameters
for future development. The various land uses will be represented
by zone symbols and development will have to meet the requirements
of those zones, excpet if special standards are incorporated into
the Master Plan Processes such as Site Development Plan ("Q" Zone)
or P.U.D. will also be indicated in areas where special concerns
or need for flexibility exists. Public facilities will be included
and how and when they will be constructed.
Processing Master Plans: Presently there are no written procedures,
which means both the City and the applicant are not sure if it is
being done correctly.
In the proposed P-C Zone, processing will be by adoption of an
Ordinance after Public Hearings by the Planning Commission and
City Council.
Existing P-C Districts: The presently existing P-C district will
be considered lawfully nonconforming and will be permitted to
develop. Development of these districts will be by P.U.D. since
the Special Plan process in the P-C Zone will be deleted. Exist-
ing districts that meet minimum standards will be permitted to
submit revised Master Plans to take advantage of the simpler pro-
cessing methods.
Areas of Discussion: As noted earlier in this report, the City
Council wishes the Planning Commission to consider certain ques-
tions that were brought up during the workshops and comments made
by citizens. They are:
Section 21.38.060(1 ) (c): This Section has been modified in
Exhibit A, 4/7/76, since the last City Council workshop. The
present open space has been reduced from 40 to 35% and schools
have been deleted from uses considered as open space. This was
done since there may be inequities between P-C districts that
contain school sites vs. those without school sites.
The 407. figure c«M froe the latest proposed La Costa Master Plan
with school sites. Bui revised 35X figure is based on the same
Master Plan but without school sitas.
Section 21.38.060(2)(b) Economic Feasibility Report: Both the
City Council and some citizens raised questions regarding this
requirement. Staff added this requirement for discussion pur-
poses; therefore, the wording was never finalized pending certain
policy decisions. Staff intended the condition to require a report
determining proper relationship between the various uses. For
example, the size of commercial areas are generally based on the
-3-
number of persons served. Also, demand for residential and
the need for industrial can be documented to some degree. All
of this is conjecture to be sure, but it is a guide; and if the
applicant is forced into the process, it may be financially re-
warding also. (It was stated that developers already do this -
If this is true, then the requirement will be easy to meet and
will simply allow the City the same information as the developer)
During the last workshop, there was discussion on the possibility
of adding to the economic report information on the impact a pro-
posed development will have on the ability of a City to provide
services (a cost factor). The Planning Commission was directed
to consider an alternative to include this requirement.
The following are alternatives to the present (b):
1. Retain (b) as worded;
2. Delete (b) entirely;
3. Modify (b) to clarify present requirement as follows:
"Economic feasibility report justifying the proportion
of the various land uses based on the projected population
and acceptable marketing or planning techniques;
4. Modify (b) to add fiscal impacts as follows:
"Economic feasibility report that does the following:
(1) Justified the proportions of the various land uses
based on the projected population and acceptable marketing
or planning techniques; (2) Projected fiscal impacts the
development will have on the City's and other governments'
or quasi public agencies' abilities to provide necessary
services. This report to include approximate cost of dwell-
ing units, anticipated land and sales taxes to City, and
costs of necessary public services.
Section 21.&. 150 Oud*v»loped Areas of Bxitting PUnw
'Cotnmattfcf+M; TH> r«vlslon its drafted doss not contain provisions
tor undeveloped propertyln the P-C Zone that development has
been approved by Specific Plan. Staff suggests adding the
following subsection:
"(4) Notwithstanding the above, property with
approved Specific Plan adopted as per P-C regulations
in effect at the time of approval of such Specific Plan,
can be developed in accord with the Specific Plan
without further processing as required in this Chapter."
Staff recommends adoption.
-4-
2. "The Ordinance is layering of P-C Zone with regular
zones": This comment is a misunderstanding of the
intent of the P-C Zone. The P-C Zone is a process for
planning large tracts of land to coordinate the public's
needs with the developer's desires, all in a long-range
plan. The use of regular zones in the Master Plan is
a method to guide the site development."
Comments from the Planning Commission at the April 22, 1976
Workshop":
1. The Commission suggested that the Master Plan be tied
directly to the State enabling legislation regarding
Specific Plans. This can be done in two ways:
(a) Change the term "Master Plan" to "Specific Plan"
and place the State Code Section number for Specific
Plans in the Ordinance. (b) Simply explain in the Ordina
ance that a Master Plan is in effect a Specific Plan
by State law. Either alternative could be combined
with a new Title in the City Code giving authority and
processing to Specific Plans. This may be necessary
anyway since the City is presently working on a Specific
Plan (Agua Hedionda Lagoon Study) and may do others
(Downtown, etc.).
Staff recommends that alternative (b) be adopted and such
wording be added to Section 21.38.040. In addition, Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission request that the
City Council consider adopting a Title for processing
State authorized specific plans.
2. The Planning Commission suggested that provision be
made for density transfer within a Master Plan.
This concept is appropriate; however, Staff needs to
research tt further prior to making recommendation.
Staff will attempt to present alternatives at the
Public Hearing.
No recommendation at this time.
Discussion: The Planning Commission should review the entire
Ordinance, then refer to the specific concerns noted in
this report and taken from hearing discussions. For clarity
of action, the Planning Commission should make a separate
motion for each suggested change. After changes have been
considered, the Ordinance itself is to be considered. The
report to the City Council will contain Exhibit A dated
April 7, 1976, with Planning Commission suggested changes
as part of the Resolution.
BP:cpl
ATTACHMENTS:
Review of Present P-C Zone, 12/18/75
Report on P-C Development, 12/18/75
Exhibit A, P-C Revision Ordinance, 4/7/76
-5-
REVIEW OF PRESENT P-C ZONE
December 18, 1975
Staff has noted the problems with the P-C Zone process as discussed by
the Planning Commission and City Council. In additon staff has dis-
cussed administrative problems that normally do not come to the attention
of the Planning Commission or City Council. The more pertinent of all
problems noted is listed below: The first two problems are the most
severe and most apparent.
1) Lack of Development Standards: The P-C Zone lacks sufficient
development standards: The only development standards in the
present P-C Zone are open space of 66-2/3% of total develop-
ment (which is generally within open space of "normal"
residential subdivisions) and residential parking space require-
ments (which are the same as regular development, except that
that one of the spaces must be covered in the P-C Zone). The
P-C Zone is therefore a zone with total design flexibility.
However, the zone does not provide for discretionary decisions
to guide development.
Therefore, the P-C Zone is a complicated process involving
three or more public hearing actions yet permits the City little
control on development.
Flexibility in zoning is necessary, especially in some of
Carlsbads more environmentally sensitive areas; however, the
process should contain standards for guidelines or discretionary
decisions or both.
2) Lack of processing procedures: The present P-C Zone requires
that an applicant meet with staff prior to submittal of plans
and that these plans be approved by the Planning Commission. No
other processing procedures are indicated. These other processes
have been worked out in time but there is no authority. The
Master Plan is approved by the City Council in Ordinance form since
it is part of the Zone Change. The Specific Plan has been done
differently at different times. Presently Specific Plan are
approved by City Council in ordinance form since the Specific
Plan is now considered equivelent to the zoning ordinance. For the
benefit of an applicant as well as the City processes should be
formalized and given proper authority.
3) The intent of the P-C Zone is not clear: Specifically what does
"Planned" mean? Is it a process where communities containing
various land uses can be developed comprehensively or is it a zone
where flexability is given to development regulations for a
single development as a trade off for community amenities. An
example of this confusion is the recent Sommers Development
(SP-170). What was finally approved was a development (SP-170
contains 3500 sq. ft. lots) and was also not an adequate "Planned"
development since the amenities were very minor (one vest
pocket play area and a steep manufactured slope that is
unusable for recreation with questionable scenic value) and
there is not a variety of housing types and land uses. In
other words, it is not a community containing various living
styles and neighborhood centers and shopping, it is simply a
single development with reduced development standards.
4) No provisions to require "Planned Unit" development: The
major misconception of the Planned Community Zone is that it
requires some sort of "clustering" of units in buildable areas
with common open space and recreational areas. The zone does
not require this and some of the developments are simply "nor-
mal" subdivisions without development standards. Flexability
in development standards is good and there are areas in the
City where clustering or unique development is beneficial and
there should be a means that the City could require it or an
applicant such as La Costa Land Company could guarantee it.
5) Discretionary decisions lacking: The Master Plan is the basic
document in guiding development in the P-C Zone, with subse-
quent action of the Specific Plan and Carlsbad Tract's simply
implementing the Master Plan. The Master Plan however is not
sufficiently detailed to permit the discretionary decision
necessary to insure development as desired by the City.
6) There is confusion in what is meant by the 66-2/3% open space.•
We have had problems where a Master Plan is approved with
66-2/3% open space, but an individual subdivision within this
Master Plan will not meet the 66-2/3% requirement. The ordinance
should clarify this.
7) Amendments to the Plans: The P-C Zone does not provide for
amendment procedures. Presently these are generally handled as
a new item, which means full hearing to Planning Commission and
City Council with ordinance amendments. Under these procedures
amendments can be much more time consuming and costly than the
original request, especially if portions of the development has
already been completed and sold.
8) No provision for lot sales: It was assumed that the Specific Plan
would indicate location of all buildings. However, many of the
Specific Plans approved have no buildings shown because they are
"lot sales" programs. This means that unless the City places
special restrictions on the property, there are no meaningful
development standards or protection - a building could be built
on the front or svide property line and the City or neighbors
would have no recourse.
Some of the recent Specific Plans the City has adopted contain
a condition to the affect that development will occur as per an
existing zone. This means there is a great deal of processing
and costs involved to end up with a "normal development zone".
-2-
9) No provision for later construction: A problem of another
nature occurs for those units approved by Specific Plan where
there are no provisions for additions. For example, a property
owner in Alta Mira may wish to add a den and has it approved
by the Homeowners Association. By ordinance the Specific Plan
would have to be amended. This not only takes lots of time and
staff costs, it also will cost the home owner hundreds and even
thousands of dollars in engineering, planning and fees, not to
mention his time delay and frazzeled patience.
10) Redundency of Plans: Since there are no processes or definitions
of what is a Master Plan or Specific Plan and how they fit
with the Tentative Subdivision Map, many times the Specific Plan
or Tentative Subdivision Map become duplications. There is little
value in this process.
-3-
x MEMORANDUM
December 18, 1975
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: REPORT ON PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
It has been apparent to the Planning Commission and City Council for some
time that development has been occuring in the P-C Zone that is not the
type of development as originally intended when this zone was adopted.
In addition, some problems in the processing planned development proposals
and administering P-C developments after being completed have been noted
by staff. Therefore, on November 4, 1975, the City Council requested
that staff review these problems, provide alternative solutions and report
back.
A major concern raised by the Planning Commission and City Council is the
inability to promote the type of development that is felt should be used
in some of the unique areas of the City. Specifically, the P-C zone does
not provide the development guideline or criteria to assure "planned unit
development".
The fact is the P-C zone is not designed to guide or promote "planned
unit development". The P-C zone in Carlsbad as well as in most communi-
ties'in California is designed to provide for a process to plan communi-
ties within the City. Examples of Planned Communities are Rancho Bernardo,
Rancho San Diego, and La Costa (not just the P-C zoned portions, but all of
La Costa). P-C zones provide for all uses that make up a viable community
such as the various density levels of residential, commercial, professional
and compatible industrial. A Planned-Community zone does not imply "planned
unit development" though it may contain some or be all "planned unit".
In contrast, in most California cities, "planned unit" meais a process to
develop property in a single use with flexibility of development standards
provided certain ammenities are built into the project. Examples of "planned
unit" are the Papagayo and Tiburon developments.
Therefore, to meet the type of development requests in Carlsbad and to
provide for the desires of the Planning Commission and City Council, we
need both a P-C zone and a Planned Unit Development process. More specif-
ically, they are needed because:
P-C ZONE:
1) Provides for large scale planning in greater detail than the
General Plan.
2) Provides a more detailed and meaningful joint city/applicant
planning process than the General Plan provides.
3) Carlsbad has large areas of undeveloped property that can pro-
vide for communities within the City.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS:
1) Provide a means to develop "planned" developments in all
zones and in any appropriate property at the initiation
of the applicant.
2) Provides for flexability in planning areas where "normal"
development would be inappropriate.
3) Provides for joint City/applicant approval process.
4) Carlsbad has many areas in all zones that would benefit
from flexability of development standards.
5) The PUD could be used to implement parts or all of a P-C zone.
Recognizing the need for a PUD Ordinance, the Planning Commission held
workshops to develop a PUD Ordinance. Based on these workshops, the
PUD Ordinance has been drafted by the City Attorney. Also, as requested
by the City Council, staff has prepared an outline of a P-C Zone that
would meet the City's desires and dovetail with a PUD process, thus giving
the City a complete range of development possibilities.
In preparing the proposed amendment, staff considered the Planning Commis-
sion and City Council desires, and how any change would affect the existing
ordinance and the existing P-C zoned land and developments. Taking all
this together, the methods that seem simple and are successful in other
cities would not be appropriate in Carlsbad. The method worked out by
staff, as indicated in the attached outline, does take into account the
expressed desires and the existing situations. Generally, the proposed
alternative method is as follows:
1) Amend the P-C zone to provide for a true "planned community"
concept with a means to give development standards, but at
the same time providing for the existing small P-C zoned
areas that are not communities. Also, an important part is
a PUD process that not only will give the assurance of "planned
unit development" where desirable in a P-C zone, but will also
provide a means to develop small P-C properties without the
cumbersome Master Plan and Specific Plan process. In addition,
the PUD can be used at the request of owner of property anywhere
in the city in any zone with the approval of the City Council.
Staff believes this is the most appropriate solution, however, there are
any number of alternative solutions; three of these alternatives that gen-
erally fit into the compendium are as follows:
2) Revise the existing P-C zone, but do not adopt a PUD process.
The revision to the P-C zone would establish by ordinance the
process and establish development standards, City discretion
or both. This would be the simpliest amendment and would
change the process little from the present method. The weak-
nesses with this method are as follows:
a) Does not change the present relatively difficult method
of approval process, involving three public hearings and
redundant plans.
-2-
b
c
Will not provide for "planned unit development".
Will not assure "planned community development".
3) Revise P-C zone to a "true" planned community zone, and
rezone to appropriate zones those P-C properties that are
too small to be communities. A PUD process would not be a
necessary part of this alternative. This alternative will
assure planned community development and the most straight
forward process and cause the least administrative problems
in the future. However, there are problems as follows:
a) Many properties would have to be rezoned out of the P-C
zone. Not only is this time consuming and objectionable
to the property owners, but the City may not have appro-
priate zones for all of the existing P-C zone that would
need rezoning.
b) The P-C zone still will not assure "planned unit develop-
ment".
4) Provide for both a P-C zone and PUD process as suggested by
staff, but have the PUD process ministerial. This has all
of the positive attributes as noted in the first alternative
and will make the processing of a PUD simpler. However,
there are problems as follows:
a) No discretion in the approval of PUDs.
b) No public input during the review of a PUD.
There are many more alternatives and combinations thereof. However,
staff believes that in Carlsbad with the existing situations and history
of P-C applications, the modifications as suggested in the first alterna-
tive are the most satisfactory.
Donald A. Agatep
Planning Director
DAA:BP:mdp
-3-