HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-02-17; City Council; 14563 Exhibit 5; Hillside Ordinance AmendmentEXHIBIT, 5 DRAFT
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1. ZCA 96-04/LCPA 96-01 - HILLSIDE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - A Zone Code Amendment
and Local Coast Program Amendment to revise the City’s Hillside Development Ordinance and
Uses Generally regulations (Chapters 21.95 and 21.53 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to: (1)
streamline the Hillside Development Permit process, (2) clarify and simplify the Hillside
Development Ordinance to make it more user friendly, and (3) incorporate new development
standards to address identified Ordinance issue areas.
Chairperson Noble announced that the Commission’s action on this item is not final and it will be
forwarded to the City Council for its consideration.
Project Planner, Chris DeCerbo presented the staff report in the form of slide and overhead projections.
He described this project as an amendment to the City’s Hillside Development Ordinance and Uses
Generally Chapter 21.53 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The objectives are to streamline the Hillside
Development Permit process, clarify and simplify the Ordinance to make it more “user friendly”, and to add
and revise Development Standards to address identified ordinance issue areas. The Hillside Ordinance
was adopted in 1989 for the purpose of providing the City with specific regulations to control excessive
hillside grading and guide sensitive hillside development and this project constitutes the first review and
proposed revision since its adoption.
Mr. DeCerbo reviewed each of the ordinance revisions which are associated with each of the project
objectives and stated that two ordinance provisions are proposed to streamline the Hillside Permit
process, the first of which is directed to the applicability section of the Hillside Ordinance. This section
specifies that “no property which has a slope of 15% or more and an elevation differential greater than 15
feet shall be developed unless a Hillside Development Permit (HDP) has been issued.” Experience has
shown that the requirement to process an HDP is clearly unnecessary under the scenario that a proposed
development does not encroach upon the identified 15+ foot high 15% slope area(s) on a given property.
Accordingly, the following Hillside Ordinance amendment is proposed:
The addition of new Section 21.95.030(A) to specify that a Hillside Development Permit would
only be required if a person proposes to grade, erect or construct into or on top of a slope which
has a gradient of 15% or more and an elevation differential greater than 15 feet.
The second proposed amendment to the Hillside Ordinance is in response to concerns that have been
expressed (most notably by applicants proposing to develop either one single family dwelling unit on a
residential lot or to develop a previously graded property on a lot) that the Hillside Development Permit
process is a time-consuming and duplicative discretionary process which might be more efficiently
handled under a consolidated permit process. Consequently this proposed amendment would exempt
certain projects from having to process a Hillside Development Permit. These exemptions include: (1) one single family dwelling unit on a residential lot; (2) the additional development of previously graded slopes
on a single lot; and (3) underground utilities.
MINUTES 7b
PLANNING COMMISSION January 7, 1998 Page 3
Four Hillside Ordinance revisions and a Zoning Ordinance revision are being recommended for the
purpose of clarifying and simplifying the ordinance to make it more user friendly.
Section 21.95.010 Purpose and Intent is proposed for amendment to distil1 the existing nine separate, yet
overlapping, ordinance objectives into four more focused and clear objectives including:
1. Implementing the Land Use and Conservation Element hillside preservation related goals
and objectives of the General Plan;
2. Ensuring that hillside conditions on a project basis are incorporated into the Planning
Process;
3. Preserving the aesthetic qualities of natural hillsides and manufactured slopes; and
4. Assuring that hillside alteration is done in an environmentally sensitive manner,
This revision provides more organization to the ordinance through the establishment of clear and focused
ordinance objectives which directly relate to the subsequent development standards and the required
findings for the approval of a Hillside Permit.
The second revision would eliminate conflicting provisions within the City Zoning Ordinance regarding
whether manufactured slopes of greater than 40% gradient are or are not developable. Existing Section
21.95.030(b)(4) of the Hillside Ordinance states that “no development or grading can occur on
undevelopable portions of a property, as defined by Section 21.53.230 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.”
Section 21.53.230 specifies that undevelopable lands include slopes with a gradient of greater than 40%.
This section of Code does not address whether manufactured slopes of greater than 40% gradient are
undevelopable. However, existing Section 21.95.090(b) of the Hillside Ordinance does state that “areas
previously disturbed by authorized grading may be excluded from the requirements of the Hillside
Ordinance.” Consistent with this provision, the City has historically allowed limited development of
manufactured slopes of greater than 40% gradient through the Hillside Development Permit Process.
Accordingly, the following clarifications are proposed to Chapter 21.53 of the Zoning Ordinance and to the
Hillside Ordinance to allow the development of “manufactured slopes” of greater than 40% gradient.
A revision to existing Section 21.53.230(b)(4) of the Zoning Ordinance will clarify that “natural slopes” (and
not “manufactured slopes”) with a gradient of greater than 40% shall be undevelopable. As part of this
revision, a new Hillside Ordinance Section 21.95020 (DEFINITIONS) has been added and includes
definitions for “manufactured slope” and “natural slope”. New standards for the development of
manufactured slopes (including those greater than 40% gradient) are proposed to be added to the Hillside
Ordinance. In that the development of manufactured slopes will continue to be subject to the development
standards of the Hillside Ordinance, Subsection 21.95.0100 (PURPOSE AND INTENT) has been
modified to specify that the Ordinance is intended to “Preserve and/or enhance the aesthetic qualities of
natural hillsides and manufactured slopes . . .”
The benefits of these revisions are that: the existing confusion within the Hillside Ordinance and the
Municipal Code is corrected whereby manufactured slopes of greater than 40% gradient would be allowed
to be developed; and that the Purpose and Intent provisions of the Hillside Ordinance have not been
compromised in that the development of “manufactured slopes” would continue to be reviewed (through
grading plan and/or building plan review processes) for compliance with the development standards
provisions of the Ordinance.
The third Ordinance revision is proposed to define the term “sufficiently set back” from the edge of slope.
MINUTES 77
-
PLANNING COMMISSION January 7, 1998 Page 4
The existing Ordinance specifies that “buildings proposed for development on hilltops and on pads created
on hillsides shall be sufficiently set back from the adjoining downhill slope.” This proposed amendment to
new Subsection 21.95.120(l) (Slope Edge Building Setbacks), quantifies the term “sufficiently set back’
through the addition of a specific slope edge building setback standard which would apply to main and
accessory buildings that are developed on downhill natural or manufactured slopes which are greater than
15 feet in height. Buildings proposed on such slopes shall not be set back less than the minimum setback
requirements of the underlying zone but shall be set back so that the building does not intrude into a .7
foot horizontal to 1 foot vertical imaginary diagonal plane that is measured from the edge of slope to the
building.
The proposed edge of slope setback would not apply to: (1) manufactured or natural slopes which are
less than or equal to 15 feet in height; (2) downhill slopes which are located along the side yards of
residential lots; (3) substandard residential lots where the top/edge of slope setback standard would
preclude a reasonable use of the property; and (4) the intervening slopes of split level pads which are
located on a single lot, but would apply to the edge of slope of the lowest pad. If the edge of a downhill
manufactured slope is regraded (filled) and a vertical retaining structure (wall) is used, then the required
building setback would be measured from the edge of slope which existed prior to regrading. This revision
will provide clear direction for Hillside Development Permit applicants and staff, thereby enabling easier
resolution of related setback issues and consequently expedited permit processing.
The fourth ordinance clarification revision adds new sections to the ordinance addressing Amendments to
Hillside Development Permits, applications, review processes, and appeals. These new sections will
provide guidance for ordinance users.
New Development Standards
An integral component of the Ordinance revision to allow the development of manufactured slopes of
greater than 40% gradient and to exempt the development of manufactured slopes on a single lot, which
were graded consistent with a previously authorized grading permit from having to process a Hillside
Development Permit, is the establishment of adequate development standards to regulate the
development of such slopes. Accordingly, new manufactured slope development standards are proposed
to be added as new Subsection 21.95.120(c) (Development of Manufactured Slopes of Over 40%
Gradient). The proposed manufactured slope development standards apply to manufactured slopes with
gradients of greater than 40% which have an elevation differential of greater than 15 feet which are
located along perimeter property lines. No Ordinance restrictions are recommended to be placed upon
interior manufactured slopes (those not located along perimeter property lines) which are located on a
single lot due to the facts that these slopes typically do not include significant natural resources, and are
generally less visible from public roads than perimeter slopes. There are different standards for “downhill”
manufactured slopes and “uphill” manufactured slopes. New Section 21.95.020 (DEFINITIONS) includes
definitions for “downhill perimeter slope” and “uphill perimeter slope”.
Development that would be permitted on Downhill Perimeter Slopes includes: the construction of a
maximum 6 foot tall retaining wall and the placement of additional fill material behind the wall to extend the
pad area of a property, the construction of a deck, or the grading (cutting) of a pad area into the slope for
the purpose of once again increasing the pad area. No structures would be allowed to be developed on
the manufactured pads which are developed along a slope face.
The proposed Uphill Perimeter Slope development standards would allow grading (cutting) into the slope
and building a maximum 6 foot tall retaining wall to increase the pad area of a property or constructing a
main or accessory building on top of the slope to the same point within that slope that a maximum 6 foot
tall retaining wall would be located. Because Uphill Perimeter Slopes (including development upon them)
MINUTES 7 g
PLANNING COMMISSION January 7, 1998 Page 5
would typically only be visible to the owner of the subject property, a provision has been included to allow
uphill slope encroachment to the required building setbacks of the underlying zone for the construction of
decks. Manufactured slopes developed pursuant to these standards would also be subject to the other
Hillside Development standards within Section 21.95.120.
Several slides were shown, depicting several scenarios, each of which were explained by Mr. DeCerbo.
The second new development standard is a revision to the existing contour grading standard to specify
that all manufactured slopes which are greater than twenty (20) feet in height and two hundred feet in
length and are located adjacent to or are substantially visible from a Circulation Element road, collector
street or useable public open space area, shall be contour graded.
The existing Hillside Ordinance specifies that contour grading shall only be required when a manufactured
slope of greater than 30 feet in height or 200 feet in length is created. As a consequence, the typical
manufactured slope developed within the City pursuant to these provisions is less than or equal to 30 feet
in height and 200 feet in length and is not contour graded. The benefit of this revision, is that the
requirement to contour grade is more appropriately focused on those manufactured slopes which are most
visible to the public along major streets and useable public open space areas. Another benefit of revising
the contour grading standard from greater than 30 feet in height/200 feet in length to greater than 20 feet
in height/200 feet in length is that a greater number of more natural appearing contoured slopes will be
created.
The third new proposed Standard revision would revise the existing permitted manufactured slope height
standard from 30 feet to 40 feet.
The existing ordinance specifies that manufactured slopes shall not be greater than 30 feet in height. This
standard appears to be based primarily upon an Engineering requirement to construct drainage benches
in manufactured slopes which are greater than 30 feet in height. An unintended effect of restricting
manufactured slope heights to 30 feet is that in terraced hillside developments, where structures range
from 24 to 35 feet in height, there is no apparent landscape relief between structures located on the
terraces. The net effect is that from view corridors (roads), hillside development appears to be dominated
by structures. The proposal to revise the permitted manufactured slope height standard to 40 feet will
allow for a minimum 10 feet of vertical landscaped separation between typical residential structures which
are terraced along a hillside.
Commissioner Monroy asked if this proposal affects density and suggested that this issue be addressed
during discussion following the staff report.
The fourth new development standard would exempt collector streets from complying with the
development standards of the Hillside Ordinance provided that the proposed road alignment is
environmentally preferred and complies with all other City standards.
The Hillside Ordinance currently excludes Circulation Element Roads from complying with the
development standards of the Hillside Ordinance. This Ordinance exclusion was based upon the
realization that the construction of the City’s major circulation system could not comply with the Hillside
development standards due to the existence of significant topographic constraints throughout the entire
City. Collector streets generally intersect with Circulation Element Roads and provide primary or
secondary access to residential neighborhoods and nonresidential projects. Because the grading required
to construct a collector street is generally determined by the alignment and grade of the intersecting
Circulation Element Road, it is being recommended that collector streets be similarly excluded from
complying with Hillside Ordinance development standards.
MINUTES 79
-
PLANNING COMMISSION January 7,1998 Page 6
The fifth new development standard would modify the provisions within the Hillside Ordinance and Uses
Generally, Chapter 21.53 which currently prohibits the development of slopes with a gradient of greater
than 40%, to allow the development of such slopes. The specific wording in Section 21.53 of the
Municipal Code basically states what lands are developable and what density credit can be obtained and
was prepared based upon the recommendations of the Citizens Committee for the Review of the Land
Use Element of the Carlsbad General Plan in 1985. A review of the Citizens Committee minutes pertaining
to slopes with gradients of greater than 40% reveals that the primary objectives were to not allow
residential density credit for such slopes and to not allow the development of such slopes when they
comprise prominent topographic features of a property. However, it was never the intent of the Citizens
Committee to outright prohibit the development of such slopes. A strict interpretation of the Code could
preclude the ability to develop much of the remaining vacant hillside property within the City. Based upon
this realization, the existing Hillside Ordinance was written to allow for the development of some slopes
with gradients greater than 40%, including those which are less than 15 feet in height and less than 4,000
square feet in area, which are not a part of the surrounding generalized slope and some small, isolated
ravines where there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the
environment. These specific exclusions do not appear broad enough in their definition to allow for the
development of other slopes with gradients of greater than 40%, which clearly are not prominent landform
features. In order to more accurately address one of the intended objectives of the Citizens Committee
(1985) and of the Hillside Ordinance, which is the preservation of prominent landform features and provide
specific measurable criteria which more accurately define what a prominent landform feature is, a
standards modification is proposed. The proposed modification would define an undevelopable natural
slope as having the following characteristics:
1.
2.
3.
4
A gradient of greater than 40%; and
An elevation differential of greater than 15 feet; and
A minimum area of 10,000 square feet; and
A finding that the slope does comprise a prominent land form feature, which would be
interpreted through an Environmental Review process.
The last proposed revision includes an additional finding to allow for modification to the Development and
Design Standards of the Hillside Ordinance. The additional proposed Standards modification finding is,
“The proposed modification will result in the development of manufactured slopes which are more
aesthetically pleasing and natural appearing than would a strict adherence to the requirements of the
ordinance.”
Mr. DeCerbo concluded h/s presentation by stating that this proposed Zone Code Amendment and this
Local Coastal Program Amendment achieve the overall project objectives and is consistent with the
General Plan and the Local Coastal Program. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of ZCA 96-04
and LCPA 96-01.
Commissioner Monroy stated that in his opinion, by allowing greater heights more flat area will be required
for any development and that, in turn, could reduce the density that was originally allowed under the
Density Zoning.
Mr. DeCerbo replied that a reduction in density is conceivable, but in the context of trying to create an
additional amenity, this will provide some flexibility for the developers .
Commissioner Compas referred to a letter received from Mr. Jerry Livingston of the Building Industry
Association of San Diego County (a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department), and asked Mr.
DeCerbo to comment on Mr. Livingston’s remarks,
MINUTES 80
PLANNING COMMISSION January 7, 1998 Page 7
Mr. DeCerbo stated that regarding the Contour Grading, the Building Industry Association (BIA) is
suggesting that areas of less than 4000 square feet are not appropriate for effective engineering of contour
graded slopes and further suggests that slope heights of 30 feet and lengths of 500 feet would be more
appropriate. Mr. DeCerbo’s response was that the City has seen no evidence of BIAS reasoning.
Regarding the proposed Building Setback Standard, Mr. DeCerbo stated that after countless meetings,
staff feel that although there has not been total consensus, the City and the BIA have come very close to
consensus with the standard that is being proposed (.7 ft. horizontal to 1 foot vertical). The requested
fifteen foot setback, as requested by the BIA, is currently the required rear yard setback for our small lot
Planned Unit Development, Residential. Mr. DeCerbo further stated that he does not agree with the BIAS
proposal.
Commissioner Heineman asked what the BIA is proposing in place of the .7 ft. horizontal.
Mr. DeCerbo replied that there is no specific proposal in the letter but that it has been suggested by other
developers that .67 ft. would work. Some, however, don’t believe there would be a problem with .7 and
others have not voiced opinions. The effect of the City’s proposal will be to restrict the building height to
2 1.42 feet.
Commissioner Heineman asked if he is correct in his assumption that staff is not necessarily trying to
reduce the building heights, but are actually trying to integrate some “stepping” that will break up the
vertical plane.
Mr. DeCerbo replied that the proposed standard might achieve that, in some cases, and if not, there will be
some breakup of the roof plane to create a little bit of visual softening.
For clarification, Commissioner Monroy asked if the objective would be met if a deck was placed at a
height of seventeen feet and a rail installed around it.
Mr. DeCerbo replied that the objective would be met, and that the railing would be there for safety
purposes.
Commissioner Welshons asked how a manufactured slope with a 40% gradient is created.
Mr. DeCerbo responded that a manufactured slope is one that is created after previous grading has been
done to prepare a property for development.
Regarding the ability to go twelve feet out over a slope, Commissioner Welshons asked if that twelve feet
is the maximum allowed.
Mr. DeCerbo replied that it is the maximum with a 2 to 1 slope.
Commissioner Welshons asked if it would be appropriate to put a cap on how far out over a slope, a deck
or any other roofless object, can be built.
Mr. Wayne interjected that the “6 and 12” rule or allowing encroachments of 6 feet vertical or 12 feet
horizontal originated from allowing a maximum wall height of 6 feet on a manufactured slope. Since most
manufactured slopes in the City are graded at 2 to 1 or 50%, that generates a horizontal encroachment of
12 feet. Allowing the same 6 foot vertical encroachment into or on a gentler slope could produce a greater
horizontal encroachment than 12 feet. However, the amendment clarifies the issue because it sets the
maximum encroachments at 6 feet vertical and 12 feet horizontal.
MINUTES 81
-
PLANNING COMMISSION January 7,1998 Page 8
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Wayne how this revision will affect Green Valley.
Mr. Wayne replied that it will not affect Green Valley because the slopes there are “constrained” slopes
and are designated “open space”. They are still undevelopable by the terms of Code Section 21.53.230
that defines what lands are developable and those that are not.
Commissioner Welshons asked if the Rosalina Development can not extend their properties out over a
slope.
Mr. Wayne replied that there are protective easements for public access across the rear of all of those
properties next to the lagoon and desiltation basin so they cannot extend over slopes.
Regarding “natural slopes that have all of the following characteristics shall be undevelopable”, a gradient
greater than 40%, a minimum of 10,000 square feet, etc., Commissioner Welshons asked how that 10,000
square feet is measured.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that it is an aerial measurement of a flat surface.
Mr. Wayne further stated that the city has equipment that traces around the boundaries of a property and
measures the area inside those boundaries.
Commissioner Welshons, referring to another of the revisions regarding contour grading, pointed out that it
specifies that “, . all manufactured slopes which are greater than 20 feet in height and 200 feet in
length .‘I and asked if both conditions must apply. Mr. DeCerbo responded affirmatively.
Chairperson Noble opened Public Testimony and offered the invitation to speak.
Jerry Livingston, Staff Counsel for the Building Industry Association, 6336 Greenwich Dr., Suite A, San
Diego, stated that as stated in his letter, it is the opinion of the BIA that contour grading is much more
viable with a larger area of land to grade. He pointed out that the slides showing very large contoured
grading are in reality about 100 feet high and they look very nice. However, he stated, when the height
and area become considerably smaller, they become extremely difficult to engineer and the effects could
probably be better achieved through landscaping. He further stated that that is an area where staff and
the BIA agreed to disagree, very early in the process. Regarding the setback, Mr. Livingston stated that
their real concern is for the smaller lot and the significant reduction in the footprint of a dwelling. He
quoted his builders as having said that they are finding it very difficult to build the square footage (without
the second story) that they would like and still adhere to the required setback.
Commissioner Monroy asked if Mr. Livingston considers soil when he talks about slope contouring.
Mr. Livingston replied that certainly soil is taken into consideration, in that one of the main areas of
concern is drainage.
Dale Greenholm, Project Design Consultants, 701 B Street, San Diego, stated that, contrary to the beliefs
of many of those concerned, he feels that the proposed revisions will create a situation where builders will
end up creating more of a plane effect and it will not allow for different interesting vertical articulation. He
further stated that he believes that the proper place to address the setbacks is in the Architectural
Guidelines in the Planned Development Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinances.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Greenholm if he has ever purposely not used the minimum setback
and instead allowed for an even greater setback than required.
MINUTES 8A
-
PLANNING COMMISSION January 7,1998
-
Page 9
Mr. Greenholm responded by stating that they look at the existing zoning and General Plan on a piece of
property and that defines what can be done with the property and whether or not the builder will elect to
build to the minimums. Each builder must produce a product that is economically viable and must take
advantage of any or all of the opportunities presented to him. He further stated that contour grading is
aesthetically pleasing but people want back yards and useable space around them and the builder has to
be sensitive to the needs and wants of the prospective home buyer.
Bob Ladwig, Ladwig Design Group, 703 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300, Carlsbad, speaking to the
subject of density, stated that contour grading will definitely have an effect on density. Mr. Ladwig stated
that his concern and question is, where there is open space that has been set aside as habitat, is that
considered useable open space if there is a trail there? He went on to state that in his opinion the answer
would be no, because it would be a very limited use and the city still has not accepted any trail for
maintenance and there are no official trails in the city’s system, to date. Mr. Ladwig voiced his concern
about the developer being required to set aside open space for habitat and then have to do contour
grading adjacent to that open space where there may be very limited future public viewing of those slopes
that face down onto that open space. Mr. Ladwig also pointed out that there are a number of Master Plan
communities, in varying stages of development, and asked how this Hillside Ordinance Amendment will
affect those projects that are currently negotiating through the system.
Mike Howes, Hofman Planning Associates, 2386 Faraday Avenue, Suite 120, Carlsbad, speaking on
behalf of two developers, in particular, as well as others, stated that overall, this is a significant
improvement over the existing ordinance. Regarding the setbacks on “top of slopes”, Mr. Howes stated
that he is in agreement with the BIA and suggested that some additional wording be added to Page 7,
Paragraph I, Line 11 of the Hillside Ordinance Amendment, as follows: “. . .hillside landforms.
Notwithstanding the building setback requirements of the underlying zone, all main and accessory
buildings that are located on top of slopes that are adjacent to or are substantially visible from a
circulation element roadway, collector street or useable public open space . . .” Mr. Howes stated
that if it is in the interior of a project and is not really visible, would it be that much of a concern?
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Noble closed Public Testimony.
Responding to previous testimony, Mr. DeCerbo disagreed with Mr. Greeholm’s assessment of the
contour grading issue. He agreed with Mr. Ladwig that contour grading does take away some developable
property and it could affect density or the size of residential or non-residential product and that is why it is
not practiced. However, that does not mean that in small lot neighborhoods the City will not continue to
get common recreation areas which is a mandate of the Planned Development Ordinance. Also, units
located on the top of slope would have larger than normal rear yards. Regarding the definition of useable
open space, Mr. DeCerbo stated that staff does not know if any of the habitat that is set aside as open
space will ever have trails. However, in the event that Carlsbad does have trails and open spaces that are
useable and there are no objections from the various agencies for passive recreational use, it is important
to incorporate those elements into the amendment.
Commissioner Compas asked if Mr. DeCerbo agrees with Mr. Ladwig and Mr. DeCerbo replied that he
doesn’t believe that it needs to be defined any more than it already is.
Mr. Wayne further stated that staff does not agree with Mr. Ladwig’s suggestion about removing the
requirement for contour grading next to open space.
Regarding projects that are already “in the mill”, Mr. DeCerbo pointed out that there are two provisions in
the ordinance; 1) under Section 2195030(b), “any application for a Hillside Development Permit which was
deemed complete, prior to the effective date of the Ordinance, reenacted in this Chapter, shall not be
MINUTES 83
PLANNING COMMISSION January 7, 1998 Page 10
subject to the amended provisions of this Chapter but shall be processed and approved or disapproved
pursuant to the Ordinance superceded by this Ordinance.“; and 2) under Section 2195040(c), “any project that has received final approval of a Hillside Development Permit, prior to the effective date of the
Ordinance, is exempted from the provisions of this Chapter, provided that such permit or approval has not expired or is not otherwise revoked, and the development is in accordance with the existing Hillside
Development Permit and related approvals.”
Mr. Wayne stated that the Hillside Ordinance sits in Title 21 and is a Planning Document and has always
been intended to include Hillside Architecture. There are architectural guidelines that go along with it and
the City is very concerned how houses look on these hills. Also, the way this ordinance has been constructed, it will help to emeliorate the problem of very large houses on small lots by setting the
structures further back from visible area.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. DeCerbo if he agrees with Mr. Howes suggestion of adding language
to the amendment.
Mr. DeCerbo replied that while he understands Mr. Howes’ reasoning, it is entirely possible that there
could be questions as to what is visible and what is not, and if that should ever happen, he would prefer
that the ordinance remain as it is.
Commissioner Welshons asked staff to clarify the meaning of “side yard”
Mr. DeCerbo stated that “side yard” is defined in the Zoning Ordinance which says that a side yard will be
determined in varying situations but is relative to the width of the lot and the location of the front yard.
Typically, the narrowest part of a lot would be considered a side yard.
Mr. Wayne quoted the Zoning Ordinance as follows: “Side yard means the yard between the main building
and the side lot lines, extending from the rear line of the required front yard or a front lot line where no front
yard is required, to the rear line of the main building or the rear line of the rearmost building, if there is
more than one building. The width of which side yard shall be measured horizontally from and at right
angles to the nearest point of the side lot line towards the nearest part of a main building.”
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3939, recommending approval of the Negative
Declaration issued by the Planning Director and adopt Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 3940 and 3941, recommending approval of ZCA 96-04 and
LCPA 96-01, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein.
In discussion, all Commissioners stated their support for this project.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
7-o
Noble, Heineman, Savary, Monroy, Welshons, Compas, and Nielsen
None
None
.
I .I
I
FEB. 17.1999 9 : 3SAM f?QRROw DEVELOPMENT
: -
NO. 004 P. 112
r
c
Villages of crtjf NIanager city Attorney d-Pm*&.,, . city Clerk
PO mx smo-w,. cdRi;ssAo:~ mmwdo PI+! ~&m-mr
: n
TOTAL NBR PAGES&c. cover): Q( . SUBJECTi
* .
0 URGENT ’ 0 FOR REWW AND COMMEWZi 0 maTacoPY
a FmseREPCr R YOUR INFORMATION 0 AS REQUESlXD
NOTES:
‘J
_I
.,,, .., * .
cc: ’
t
,
NO.004 P.Z/Z
- FEB..17.1998 9 : 35fw tqf-J@R~ DEVELOPMENT ’ ‘. ‘.L ,I+.. ., ,. _,. : ” ,. - !.. . ,: - .. _._.” ,_.. ..1 ’ ..,‘:‘. ‘y .-( : ,,i :. . . . . _.. . . ” ,e- ,, .d. -,.- i.:.,4+ _ ,&._ - ___,, I - ,’ . II ’ -Se+’ .‘.. ,A. .- - . - . I
I-
. UrIsbad to Consid- Hillside Development
(this includm Box Canyon)
6 PM this Xbeshy Feb. I?
Techbilt Construction Co&
3575 Kenyon St.
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone (6 19) 223- 1663
Mayor Lewis and Council Members
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Mailing Address -
P.O. Box 80036
San Diego, CA 92138
FAX (619) 223-2865
February lo,1998
SUBJECT: ZCA 96-04/LCPA 96-01 Hillside Development Ordnance Amendment
Dear Mayor Lewis and Council Members:
We are the developers of the Carlsbad Oaks and Carlsbad Oaks East Business Parks and
are currently processing the tentative map application for the Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park.
As you are probably aware, the existing industrial land in Carlsbad is being rapidly absorbed and
additional industrial land will be needed in the City of Carlsbad to satisfy demand generated by
business relocating to Carlsbad and existing Carlsbad businesses that are expanding. Our Carlsbad
Oaks North development is going to be the next major industrial park to develop in Carlsbad.
We have been meeting with Planning Staff to work out the details of the Hillside
Development Ordnance Amendment. In particular one area that we appeal to you to change is the
area in the proposed amendment regarding “contour grading”.
Staff has been asking for contour graded slopes to be slopes with varying 2:l to 6:l
inclinations. The effect of this request is to substantially reduce the buildable portions of lots and
increase the maintenance costs. There is an impending shortage of industrial land in Carlsbad, and
the only effect of the contour grading requirements is to reduce the amount of industrial land
available in Carlsbad. We would point to the approved Cornerstone Corporate Center, PIP 97-04
on the north side of Palomar Airport Rd. as an example of a project that can keep 2: 1 slopes and
use enhanced landscaping to achieve a high quality appearance. We propose that the Hillside
Development Ordnance Amendment delete the contour grading requirement, retain the current 2: 1
slope requirements, and achieve natural looking slopes by requiring enhanced landscaping.
We thank you for the opportunity to make comments to the proposed amendment of the
Hillside Development ordnance, and we would be happy to answer questions.
Sincerely,
Techbilt Construction Corn.
PKT:tt
-.
7106 Lantana Terrace
Carlsbad, CA 92009
February 16, 1998
City Of Carlsbad
City Council Meeting
Dear Council Members:
It is my understanding that the issue of lowering the steep slope requirements in
order to build on such property is being considered. As informed people I am sure you
are aware that some property is simply not suitable for development. Regulations
insuring that certain hillsides and steep slopes will remain natural make sense. If
these requirements are weakened a number of undesirable events take place: houses
may have to be built on stilts, land fill may have to be used, houses will be built for
which no insurance can be obtained, the likelihood of erosion and flooding (I’m sure
you can picture this happening in light of recent weather conditions) will be increased,
wildlife will be without a habitat and property values, in all probability will decrease.
Please do the intelligent, foresightful thing and dismiss this consideration,
leaving the general plan intact.
Sincerely,
@fzLey&
Barbara E. Tice
February 15, 1998
. Honorable Councilpersons:
I hereby present my strong objection to the current effort to relax the
maximum slope requirement for residential construction by amending
the so-called Hillside Ordinance. Hillside ordinances are in effect in
most forward-looking municipalities to prevent the kind of landslide
and building-collapse disasters that had been suffered without such laws
in Glendale, Malibu, and Bluebird Canyon in Laguna Beach.
The Carlsbad ordinance was weakened a few years back, and this is an
effort to further gut it.
The developer’s interest in maximizing profits by building on steeper
siopes is understandable. The City’s responsibility should be to assert
and protect the public interest and safety. However this responsibility
is undercut by elected officials’ overwhelming need for reelection
campaign funds. The largest and most reliable source of those funds is
the development industry, and the funds are available, Santa Claus-like,
to those officials who have been, in the developers’ view, not naughty,
but nice.
I ask that the City Council stand by the present protective regulations
in the interest of public safety.
Sincerely,
7304 Borla Place
Carlsbad, CA 92009
I
I DuQlnlC zi‘&v 48’
‘i?EAD h-
PROOF OF PUBLIC _ ;.‘ION
(2010 8 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of
North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of
California, under the dates of June 30, 1989
(Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Times-
Advocate) case number 171349 (Blade-Citizen)
and case number 172171 (The Times-Advocate)
for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad,
Solana Beach and the North County Judicial
District; that the notice of which the annexed is a
printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpareil), has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
Fkb. 6, 1998
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct. San Marcos
Dated at California, this 6th day
of Feb. 1998
--kz-+ ----- -------- Si ature
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
This space k the County Clerl .‘s Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
Public Hearing
------------------ ------- -I-
TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(Form A)
. .
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice
ZCA 96-04/LCPA 96-01 - HILLSIDE ORDINANCE
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the council meeting of
.
Thank you.
Assistant City Man--
January &, 1998
Date
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
h
ZCA 96-04/LCPA 96-Ol- HILLSIDE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00
p.m., on Tuesday, February 17, 1998, to consider approval of a Negative Declaration, Zone Code
Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to revise the City’s Hillside Development
Ordinance and Uses Generally regulations, Chapters 21.95 and 21.53 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code to: (1) streamline the Hillside Development Permit process, (2) clarify and simplify the
Hillside Development Ordinance to make it more user friendly, and (3) incorporate new
development standards to address identified Ordinance issue areas on property generally located
citywide, in the City of Carlsbad.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Chris DeCerbo, in the Planning
Department, at (760) 438-l 161, extension 4445.
If you challenge the Zone Code Amendment and/or Local Coastal Program Amendment in
court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public
hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad
City Clerk’s Office at, or prior to, the public hearing.
APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
PUBLISH: February 6,1998
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will
hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 4, 1997, to consider a Zone Code
Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to revise the City’s Hillside
Development Ordinance and Uses Generally regulations (Chapters 21.95 and 21.53 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code to: (1) streamline the Hillside Development Permit
process, (2) clarify and simplify the Hillside Development Ordinance to make it more
user friendly, and (3) incorporate new development standards to address identified
Ordinance issue areas on property generally located citywide, in the City of Carlsbad.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the
public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after May 28, 1997. If
you have any questions, please call Chris DeCerbo in the Planning Department at (760)
438-l 161, extension 4445.
If you challenge the Zone Code Amendment and/or Local Coastal Program Amendment
in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at
the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the
City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: ZCA 96-04/LCPA 96-01
CASE NAME: HILLSIDE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
PUBLISH: MAY 22,1997
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (619) 438-11610 FAX (G19) 438-0894 @
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST
801 PINE AVE 1 CIVIC CENTER DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008 SAN MARCOS CA 92069
SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST
701 ENCINITAS BLVD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
VALLECITOS WATER DIST
788 SAN MARCOS BLVD
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
CALIF DEPT OF FISH 81 GAME
SUITE 50
330 GOLDENSHORE
LONG BEACH CA 90802
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
MIKE HOWES, HPA
STE 120
2386 FARADAY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PROJECT PLANNER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CHRIS DECERBO
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS - OAK
LEUCADIA CNTY WATER DIST
1960 LA COSTA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SD COUNTY PLANNING
SUITE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300.NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST
101 SO RANCH0 SANTA FE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
OLIVENHAIN WATER DIST
1966 OLIVENHAIN RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICES 2730 LOKER AVE WEST CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY SANDAG
SUITE B SUITE 800
9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD 400 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331 SAN DIEGO CA 92101
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST JERRY LIVINGSTON
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR BIA SUITE A
SAN DIEGO CA 92123 6336 GREENWICH DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92122-5994
ROBERT LADWIG, LADWIG DESIGN
STE 300
703 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CMWD
LABELS FOR ZCA 96-04/LCPA 96-01
- HILLSIDE ORDINANCE
LABELS - 5 163
LCPA MAILING LIST (GOVERNMENT AGENCIES)
SANDAG (SAN DIEGO COUNTY)
WELLS FARGO PLAZA
SUITE 800
APPENDIX A (LIST IS REQUIRED BY COASTAL 401 B STREET
COMMISSION) SANDIEGO CA 92101
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
ROOM 700
110WESTASTREET
SANDIEGO CA 92101
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
350 MCALLISTER STREET
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
OFFICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFAIRS
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
STEVE SHAFFER, AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
ROOM 100
1220 N STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION & HSG AGENCY
WILLIAM G. BRENNAN
DEPUTY SECRETARY AND SPECIAL COUNCIL
SUITE 2450
980 NINTH STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ROOM 5504
1120 N STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DISTRICT 11 CALTRANS RESOURCES AGENCY
TIM VASQUEZ, ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING RM 1311
2829 SAN JUAN ST 14 16 NINTH STREET
SANDIEGO CA 92138 SACRAMENTO CA 95812
-
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
ANNE GERAGHTY, MANAGER
GENERAL PROJECTS SECTION
PO BOX 2815
SACRAMENTO CA 95812
ENERGY RESOURCES, CONSERVATION
AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
CHUCK NAJARIAN
1516 NINTH STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 958 14
MARINE RESOURCES REGION, DR & G
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SUPERVISOR
350 GOLDEN SHORE
LONG BEACH CA 90802
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
SUITE 1100
1330 BROADWAY
OAKLAND CA 94612
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
DON LOLLOCK, CHIEF
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
RM 120620
1416 NINTH STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
DOUG WICKIZER, ENVIROMENTAL COORD
RM 1516-2
1416 NINTH STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
SOUTHERN REGION
JOHN WALSTROM, TECHNICAL SERVICES
8885 RIO SAN DIEGO DRIVE
SAND DIEGO CA 92108
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION
AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
BILL TRAVIS
30 VAN NESS AVENUE
SANFRANCISCO CA 95814
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
DWIGHT SANDERS
SUITE 1005
100 HOWE AVE
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202
WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
PO BOX 100
SACARAMENTO CA 95801
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SUITE B ROBERT L. ERWIN, DIRECTOR
9771 CALAIREMONT MESA BLVD SUITE 1037
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331 630 SANSOME STREET
SANFRANCISCO CA 94111
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
ATTN: GARY
RESOURCE CONSERVATIONIST
SUITE 102
2 12 1 -C SECOND STREET
DAVIS CA 95616
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
OFFICE OF OCEAN AND COASTAL
L McGILVRAY
1825 CONNECTICUT AVENUE
WASHINGTON DC 20235
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SUITE 700
333 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION
IRWRIN HOFFMANN
SUITE F
194 W MAIN STREET
WOODLAND CA 95695
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CHAIRMAN
722 JACKSON PLACE NORTH WEST
WASHINGTON DC 2006
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ENGINEER
POBOX2711
LOS ANGELES CA 90053
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
JOHN B. MARTIN, REGIONAL DIRECTOR
SUITE 210
1450 MARIA LANE
WALNUT CREEK CA 94596-5368
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
COMMANDANT, ELEVENTH NAVAL DISTRICT
DISTRICT CIVIL ENGINEER
SAN DIEGO CA 92132
-
U. S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
2135 BUTANO DRIVE
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
CLIFFORD EMMERLING, DIRECTOR
SUITE 350
901 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103
U. S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
LOWER COLORADO REGION
PO BOX 427
BOULDERCITY CO 89005
SUPERINTENDENT
CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK
1901 SPINNAKER DRIVE
SAN BUENAVENTURA CA 93001
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
RONALD M. JAEGER
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SUITE 200
3 111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH
SAN DIEGO CA 92108
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVE
DUNCAN LENT HOWARD, REGIONAL ADMIN
450 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
U. S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
MID-PACIFIC REGION
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
DOUGLAS WARNOCK, SUPERINTENDENT
REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK
DRAWERN
1111 2mSTREET
CRESCENT CITY CA 9553 1
U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
SUITE 130
33 10 EL CAMINO AVENUE
SACRAMENTO CA 95821
- -
BARRY BRAYER, AWP-8
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
WESTERN REGION
PO BOX 92007
LOS ANGELES CA 90009
H:m&ABELS\LCP
INTERESTED PARTIES
UPDATED 1 l-96
OLIVENHAIN M.W.D.
1966 OLIVENHAIN ROAD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CRAIG ADAMS
SIERRA CLUB
SAN DIEGO CHAPTER
3820 RAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
LESLIE ESPOSITO
1893 AMELFI DRIVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
LANIKAI LANE PARK
SHARP; SPACE 3
6550 PONTO DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KIM SEIBLY
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC
PO BOX 1831
SAN DIEGO CA 92112
PERRY A LAMB
890 MERE POINT ROAD
BRUNSWICK MAINE 04011
RICHARD RETECKI
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
SUITE 1100
1330 BROADWAY
OAKlAND CA 94612
DALE/DONNA SCHREIBER
7163 ARGONAURA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CITY OF ENCINITAS
COM.DEV. DEPARTMENT
505 S. VULCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
REGIONAL WATER QUAL. BD
EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SUITE B
9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92124
GUY MOORE JR
6503 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CYRIL AND MARY GIBSON
12142 ARGYLE DRIVE
LOS ALAMITOS CA 90702
-JOtii LAMB
1446 DEVLIN DRIVE
LOS ANGELES CA 90069
MARY GRIGGS
STATE LANDS COMMISSSION
SUITE 100 SOUTH
100 HOWE AVE
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
PLANNING & LAND USE DEPT
JOAN VOKAC - SUITE B-5
5201 RUFFIN ROAD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
ANTHONY BONS
25709 HILLCREST AVE
ESCONDIDO CA 92026
MR/MRS MICHAEL CARDOSA
6491 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
.
TABATA FARMS
PO BOX 1338
CARLSBAD CA 92018
KENNETH E SULZER
SANDAG - EXEC DIRECTOR
IST INTL PLAZA, SUITE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
JAN SOBEL
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
PO BOX 1605
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BILL MCLEAN
c/o LAKESHORE GARDENS
7201 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SPIERS ENTERPRISES
DWIGHT SPIERS
SUITE 139
23 CORPORATE PLAZA
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
SUPERVISOR BILL HORN
ATTN: ART DANELL
COUNTY OF SD, ROOM 335
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
LEE ANDERSON
CRA PRESIDENT
5200 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FLOYD ASHBY
416 LA COSTA AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CARLENE TIMM
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC
PO BOX 1831
SAN DIEGO CA 92112