HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-02-17; City Council; 14563; Hillside Ordinance Amendmentc-4
2ll-Y OF CARLSBAD - A&i BILL I,+
AB# /q, 6% 3 TITLE: DEPT. HD. b’v’
MTG. &j+?--%f HILLSIDE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CITY ATTY.
ZCA 96-04lLCPA 96-01 iE
DEPT. PLN W+ CITY MGR*
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. AS- l/Y6 APPROVING Zone Code
Amendment 96-04, ADOPT Resolution No. q 0 -‘IV APPROVING the Negative
Declaration issued by the Planning Director, Zone Code Amendment 96-04 and Local
Coastal Program Amendment 96-01.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On January 7, 1998, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and
unanimously (7-O) recommended approval of 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 reorganize the Hillside
Development Ordinance to make it more user friendly and (3) revise or add development
standards to address Ordinance issue areas.
The major revisions to the Hillside Development Ordinance include the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Exempt: a) the development of a single family residence on a residential lot and b)
the additional development of manufactured slopes on a single lot from having to
process a Hillside Development Permit. These exemptions would still be required to
comply with the Hillside Development and Design Standards and would be evaluated
for compliance during grading plan/building plan review.
Allow for the limited development of manufactured slopes subject to new
manufactured slope development standards.
Establish a new slope edge building setback standard to encourage the development
of multiple storied buildings that step away from a downhill slope.
Require the contour grading of all manufactured slopes that are greater than 20 feet
in height and 200 feet in length which are located adjacent to or are substantially
visible from major roads or useable public open space areas. The existing standard
requires manufactured slopes which are greater than 30 feet in height or 200 feet in
length to be contour graded.
Allow manufactured slopes to be developed to a maximum height of 40 feet for the
purpose of providing more open space separation between residential structures
which are terraced along a hillside. The existing standard limits manufactured slopes
to a maximum height of 30 feet.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDZILL NO. /q, 4/n 3
6. Allow for limited development of natural slopes with gradients of greater than 40% by
defining an undevelopable natural slope as having all of the following characteristics;
(a) a gradient of greater than 40%, (b) an elevation differential of greater than 15
feet, (c) a minimum area of 10,000 square feet and (d) the slope comprises a
prominent land form feature.
7. Similar to Circulation Element Roads, exempt collector streets from the development
standards of the Hillside Ordinance.
Over the past year, Planning staff has had ongoing meetings with the local development
community (including the Building Industry Association of San Diego County) to receive
critical input and comment on the draft amended Hillside Development Ordinance. As a
consequence, the draft Ordinance has been revised to achieve a Hillside Ordinance that is
streamlined, user friendly, and continues to focus on the protection of hillside resources
within the City. Four individuals from the local development community requested the
Planning Commission to recommend adoption of the proposed Hillside Development
Ordinance Amendment with minor modifications. However, the Planning Commission
recommended adoption of the ordinance without revision.
On January 7, 1998, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Negative
Declaration issued by the Planning Director on March 8, 1996.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Projects which are proposed to be exempted from a Hillside Development Permit will no
longer be required to pay a Hillside Development Permit application fee (currently $120 for
a single family residence and $350 - $400 for additional development upon a manufactured
slope which was approved and constructed through a previous grading or Hillside
Development Permit). There will be some additional administrative costs to the City
associated with this action in that these exemptions would still be subject to the Hillside
Development standards and would be reviewed by staff for compliance through the grading
plan and or building plan review processes. However, these additional administrative costs
for Hillside Ordinance standards compliance review are not anticipated to be significant in
that similar project details (i.e.; grading and architecture) are currently reviewed in the
grading/building plan processes.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Ordinance No. NS- Yylb
2. City Council Resolution No. 9 8 F q 4
3. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3939, 3940 and 3941
4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated January 7, 1998
5. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated January 7, 1998.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
,-
I ORDINANCE NO. ~-446
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE21, CHAPTER
21.95 AND CHAPTER 21.53, SECTION 21.53.230 OF THE
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO STREAMLINE THE
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS, CLARIFY
AND SIMPLIFY THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER
TO MAKE IT MORE USER FRIENDLY, AND ADD NEW
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THE HILLSIDE
DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER TO DRESS ORDINANCE
ISSUE AREAS.
CASE NO.:
CASE NAME: E AMENDMENT
The City Council of the City
SECTION I: That
forma does ordain as follows:
5 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
repealed and reenacted to read as follo$s: /
“21.95.010 Purpose And Intent
planning process;
of the Land Use and Open
arlsbad General Plan;
ions are properly identified and incorporated into the
or enhance the aesthetic qualities of natural hillsides and
ects which relate to the slope of the land, minimizing the
orating contour grading into manufactured slopes which
sensitive manner
es will be done in an environmentally
ereby lagoons and riparian ecosystems will be protected from increased
s, wildlife habitats or native vegetation
A. ;i Whenever the following terms are used in this Chapter, they shall have the
meaning e&blished by this section: ji 1. “Collector street” means any street with a minimum right-of-way width of
60 feet which intersects with a Circulation Element Road and provides either primary or
secondary access to a residential or non-residential project.
2. “Contour grading” means a grading concept designed to result in earth
forms which resemble natural terrain characteristics. Horizontal and vertical curve variations
should be used for slope banks.
3. “Development” means grade, erect or construct.
4. “Downhill Perimeter Slope” means a slope located between a pad or
gently sloping area (gradient is less than 10%) of a single lot and the property line that is at a
lower level than the pad or gently sloping area of the lot. 3
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
I 5. “Grade” means to excavate or fill or any combination thereof.
6. “Manufactured slope” means a man-made slope consisting wholly or
partially of either cut or fill material.
7. “Natural slope” means a slope which is not manufactured.
8. “Project” means any proposal for “development”.
9. “Slope” means ground that forms a natural or artificial incline.
10. “Total Graded Area” means all areas of project grading (both on-site and
off-site) which are necessary to enable the achievement of the project.
11. “Uphill Perimeter Slope” means a slope located between the pad or gently
sloping area (gradient is less than 10%) of a single lot and a property line located at a higher
level than the pad or gently sloping area of the lot.
21.95.030 Anplicabilitv Of Hillside Development Permit
A. No person shall grade, or erect, or construct into or on top of a slope which has a
gradient of fifteen percent (15%) or more and an elevation differential greater than fifteen (15)
feet without first obtaining a Hillside Development Permit pursuant to this Chapter.
B. Any application for a Hillside Development Permit which was deemed complete
prior to the effective date of the ordinance reenacting this Chapter, shall not be subject to the
amended provisions of this Chapter but shall be processed and approved or disapproved pursuant
to the ordinance superseded by this ordinance.
21.95.040 Exemptions From Hillside Development Permit
A. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 21.95.030, the following need not
obtain a Hillside Development Permit, provided that the development complies with Section
21.95.120 of this Chapter and the City’s Hillside Development and Design Guidelines:
1. The development of one single family dwelling unit on a residentially
zoned lot.
2. On a single lot, the additional development (i.e.; regrading, slope
alteration or building encroachment) of or upon any manufactured slope with a gradient of 40%
or greater and an elevational difference (height) of 15 feet or greater which has been previously
graded consistent with an authorized grading permit.
3. The development (trenching, utility construction and backfilling) of
underground utility systems.
B. Any development exempted by 21.95.040(A) above, which does not comply with
Section 21.95.120 and the City’s Hillside Development Guidelines, must obtain a Hillside
Development Permit or Hillside Development Permit Amendment pursuant to this Chapter.
C. Any project that has received final approval of a Hillside Development Permit
prior to the effective date of this 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.
21.95.050 Amendments To Hillside Development Permits
A. An amendment to a Hillside Development Permit shall be processed in the same
manner as an original application for a Hillside Development Permit.
B. Unless exempted by Section 21.95.040, a Hillside Development Permit
Amendment shall be required for any portion of a project which has a Hillside Development
Permit that is proposed for redesign and otherwise requires a Hillside Development Permit per
Section 21.95.030.
-2- 4
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
21.95.060 Application
Application for a Hillside Development Permit shall be made in accordance with the
procedures set forth in this Section.
A. An application for a Hillside Development Permit may be made by the record
owner or owners of the property affected or the authorized agent of the owner or owners. The
application shall be filed with the Planning Director upon forms provided by the Director. The
application shall be accompanied by adequate plans, which allow for detailed review pursuant to
this Chapter and demonstrate compliance with Hillside Mapping Procedures in Section
21.95.110, a legal description of the property and all other materials and information specified by
the Director.
B. At the time of filing the application, the applicant shall pay a processing fee in an
amount specified by City Council resolution.
21.95.070 Review Process
A. Hillside Development Permit - An application for a Hillside Development Permit
or Hillside Development Permit Amendment shall be processed and approved concurrently with
any other development permits required by Titles 11, 18, 20 or 21 of this code. The same
decisiomnaking body or offkial which has the authority to finally approve, conditionally approve
or deny the other development permits required for the project shall have the authority to finally
approve, conditionally approve or deny a Hillside Development Permit. Amendments to Hillside
Permits shall be acted on by the same decision making body that approved the original Hillside
Permit and any subsequent Hillside Permit Amendments.
B. Exemptions - Development satisfying the Hillside Development Permit
Exemptions, set forth in Section 21.95.040(A), shall be evaluated for compliance with Section
21.95.120 and the Hillside Development and Design Guidelines through required grading plan
and/or building plan review processes.
21.95.080 Anneals
A. Hillside Development Permits - The decision of the final decision making body or
official is final and effective ten calendar days after the adoption of the resolution or written
decision, unless within such ten-day period the applicant or any other interested person files a
written appeal utilizing the same appeal procedure applicable to the other permits which are
processed concurrently with the Hillside Development Permit. If no other discretionary permits
are being processed concurrently with the Hillside Development Permit, then the appeal
procedures contained in Section 21.54.140 shall apply.
B. Decisions regarding Hillside Development Permit Exemptions, which are
reviewed through the grading plan and/or building plan review processes, may be appealed to
the City Council utilizing the same appeal procedure applicable to grading permits and/or
building permits.
21.95.090 Reauired Findings
A. No hillside development permit shall be approved unless the decision making
body or official finds that:
1. Undevelopable areas of the project, pursuant to Subsection 21.53.230(b) of
this Code, have been properly identified;
2. The project complies with the Purpose and Intent provisions of Section
2 1.95 .O 10 of this Chapter.
3. The project complies with Section 21.95.120 of this Chapter, and Section
2 1.95.140 if a modification to the Development and Design Standards is approved.
-3-
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
j
- A
4. The project design substantially conforms to the Hillside Development
Guidelines manual.
21.95.100 Minimum Development Of Hillside Lands
The provisions of this Chapter shall be applied so as to:
A. Not preclude a reasonable use of a legal parcel which includes hillside conditions
as regulated by this Chapter;
B. Not preclude the efficient and safe provision of public facilities or services to any
legal parcel; and
C. Allow development of at least one single family dwelling unit per parcel
described in subsection A.
21.95.110 Hillside Manning Procedures
A slope analysis and slope profiles shall be illustrated on a constraints map, and shall
accompany all development submittals which propose grading or development of slopes which
have a gradient of fifteen percent or more and have an elevation differential greater than fifteen
feet.
A. Slope Analysis. The slope analysis shall identify the acreage of all natural and
manufactured slopes within each of the following slope categories.
1. 0 - less than 15% slopes
2. 15 - less than 25% slopes
3. 25 - 40% slopes and
4. Slopes greater than 40%
a. Percentage of slope is determined by:
Vertical Distance
(Contour interval)
Horizontal Distance x 100 = %Slope
(Distance between contour intervals)
B. Slope Profiles. A minimum of three slope profiles (slope cross sections) shall be
included with the submittal of the slope analysis on the constraints map. Slope profiles shall:
1. Be drawn at the same scale and indexed or keyed to the constraints map,
grading or preliminary grading plan and project site map;
2. Show both existing and proposed topography, structures and surface
infrastructure. Proposed topography, structures and infrastructure shall be drawn with a solid
heavy line. Existing topography, structures and infrastructure shall be drawn with a thin or
dashed line;
3. Include the slope profile for at least one hundred feet outside of the project
site boundary or adjacent public street;
4. Be drawn along those locations of the project site where:
it.
The greatest alteration of the existing topography is proposed,
The most intense or bulky development is proposed, and
C. The site is most visible from surrounding land uses;
5. Two of the slope profiles shall be roughly parallel to each other and
roughly perpendicular to existing contour lines. The remaining slope profile shall be roughly at a
-4- 6.
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
I h h
forty-five degree angle to the other slope profiles and existing contour lines.
C. Assurance of Accurate Hillside Mapping. Both the slope analysis and slope
profiles shall be stamped and signed by either a registered landscape architect, civil engineer or
land surveyor indicating the datum, source and scale of topographic data used in the slope
analysis and slope profiles, and attesting to the fact that the slope analysis and slope profiles have
been accurately calculated and identified, consistent with this section.
D. Development which is exempt per Section 21.95.040 or excluded per Section
21.95.130 is generally exempt from the hillside mapping requirements of this section except in
cases where the Planning Director determines that hillside mapping is necessary to assess project
compliance with the Hillside Ordinance.
21.95.120 Hillside Development And Design Standards
The provisions of this Section shall apply to all projects that propose to grade, erect or
construct into or on top of a natural slope or manufactured slope which has a gradient of fifteen
percent (15%) or more and an elevation differential greater than fifteen (15) feet.
A. Coastal Zone Hillside Development Regulations
1. All development on natural slopes of twenty-five percent or greater within
the coastal zone shall comply with the requirements of Chapters 21.38 and 21.203 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code and the slope protection policies of the applicable Local Coastal
Program segment. Additionally, all hillside development processed pursuant to this Chapter
shall be consistent with all applicable provisions and policies of the certified Local Coastal
Program(s) and shall not result in significant adverse impacts to coastal resources.
B. Development of Natural Slopes of Over 40% Gradient
1. Natural slopes which have all of the following characteristics shall be
undevelopable:
Z.
A gradient of greater than 40%; and
An elevation differential of greater than 15 feet; and
C. A minimum area of 10,000 square feet; and
d. The slope comprises a prominent land form feature.
2. Projects which propose the development of natural slopes defined in
Subsection 21.95.120(B)(l) above shall nevertheless be allowed, only if the project qualifies as
an exclusion or obtains a modification, pursuant to Sections 21.95.130 and 21.95.140,
respectively.
C. Development of Manufactured Slopes of Over 40% Gradient
1. Manufactured slopes which have a gradient of greater than 40% and an
elevation differential of greater than 15 feet shall be subject to the following development
standards.
a. Development of Uphill Perimeter Slopes.
(9 The following types of development on or into an uphill
perimeter manufactured slope shall be limited to a maximum of 6 vertical feet as measured from
the existing grade at the toe of slope:
(a> Main building(s);
(W Accessory buildings; and
Cc) Retaining Walls.
(ii) Decks may be constructed upon an uphill perimeter
manufactured slope up to the required building setback(s) of the underlying zone.
b. Development of Downhill Perimeter Slopes
-5- 7
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
(0 The following types of development over a downhill
perimeter manufactured slope shall be limited to a maximum of 6 vertical feet as measured from
the existing grade at the top of slope:
(a) Decks; and
@I Retaining Walls.
(ii) Deck surface areas shall be allowed to extend to the same
point that a 6 foot vertical retaining wall would be permitted.
(iii) No main or accessory building may encroach over the
top/edge of a Downhill Perimeter Slope.
C. The manufactured slope standards, within this section do not apply
to manufactured slopes which are not located along perimeter property lines (including
intervening manufactured slopes between split level pads which are located on a single lot).
D. Volume of Grading
1. The volume of earth moved for cuts and fills shall be minimized.
2. The relative acceptability of hillside grading volume shall be determined
by the following:
Cubic Yards of Cut or Fill
Grading per Acre of Cut and
Fill Area (in acres)
Relative Sensitivity of
Hillside Grading Volume
0 -7,999 cubic yards/acre Acceptable
8,000 - 10,000 cubic
yards/acre
Potentially acceptable
> 10,000 cubic yards/acre Unacceptable
3. The methodology for determining the volumes of both the cut and fill in
cubic yards shall be calculated as follows. A grading and preliminary grading plan, shall be
prepared and shall include: the cut or fill volumes noted for each particular cut or fill and the
total volume of cut and fill for the project. The larger volume of the total cut or total fill volumes
divided by the total graded area (in acres) shall equal the volume of hillside grading for the
project.
4. Applications proposing grading volumes which are potentially acceptable
(eight thousand to ten thousand cubic yards/acre of cut or fill) shall, on the preliminary grading
plan, submit for review specific written findings justifying the reasons for the amount of grading,
subject to the approval of the Planning Director and City Engineer.
5. Applications proposing grading volumes which are unacceptable (greater
than ten thousand cubic yards/acre of cut or fill) shall be allowed only if they qualify as an
exclusion or modification pursuant to Section 21.95.130 and 21.95.140 of this Chapter
respectively.
-6-
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
-
E. Slope Height.
1. Manufactured slopes shall not be greater than forty (40) feet in height.
2. Slope Height Exclusions. See Section 2 1.95.130 of this Chapter.
F. Contour Grading.
1. All manufactured slopes which are greater than twenty (20) feet in height
and two hundred (200) feet in length and which 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.
G. Screening Manufactured Slopes.
1. All manufactured slopes shall be landscaped consistent with the City’s
Landscape Manual.
H. Hillside and Hilltop Architecture.
1. Hillside and hilltop structures shall be consistent with the architectural
guidelines included within the City’s Hillside Development Guidelines,
I. Slope Edge Building Setbacks (pursuant to this Chapter).
1. Slope edge building setbacks shall be sufficient to eliminate or
significantly reduce views of vertical building forms which would be visually incompatible with
hillside landforms. Notwithstanding the building setback requirements of the underlying zone,
all main and accessory buildings that are developed on hilltops and/or pads created on downhill
perimeter slopes of greater than fifteen (15) feet in height shall be setback 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. For all buildings which are subject to this slope
edge building setback standard, a profile of the diagonal plane shall be submitted with all other
development application requirements.
2. Building setbacks pursuant to this Chapter do not apply to:
::
Slopes which are less than 15 feet in height;
the intervening slopes of split-level pads which are located on a
single lot, but do apply to the edge of slope of the lowest pad;
C. downhill slopes which are located along the sideyards of
residential lots; and
d. substandard residential lots where the top/edge of slope setback
standards would preclude a reasonable use of the property.
3. If a Downhill Perimeter Slope is regraded (filled) consistent with
Subsection 21.95.120(C) of this Chapter, and a vertical retaining structure is used, then the
required building setback shall be measured from the edge of slope which existed prior to
regrading (filling).
4. Fencing proposed along a slope edge should be of an open design which
does not visually extend the height of the slope. Exceptions to this provision may include, but
are not limited to, noise attenuation walls, privacy walls or security walls.
J. Roadway Design.
1. Hillside roadway design shall be consistent with the City’s Hillside
Development Guidelines Manual.
K. Hillside Drainage.
1. Hillside drainage shall be consistent with the City’s Hillside Development
Guidelines.
-7-
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
21.95.130 Exclusions
A. The following are excluded from the Hillside Development and Design Standards
of Section 21.95.120:
1. Hillside areas where a Circulation Element roadway or a collector street
must be located provided that the proposed alignment(s) are environmentally preferred and
comply with all other City standards.
2. Grading volumes, slope heights and graded areas which are directly
associated with Circulation Element roadways or collector streets, provided that the proposed
alignment(s) are environmentally preferred and comply with all other City standards.
3. Hillside areas that have unusual geotechnical or soil conditions that
necessitate corrective work that may require significant amounts of grading.
21.95.140 Modifications To The Development And Design Standards
A. The decisionmaking body or official may approve a modification to the Hillside
Development and Design Standards of Section 21.95.120 if it finds that the proposed
development complies with the Purpose and Intent provisions of Section 21.95.010 and makes
one or more of the following findings:
1. The proposed modification will result in significantly more open space or
undisturbed area than would a strict adherence to the requirements of Section 2 1.95.120.
2. 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 Section 21.95.120.
B. Any request for a modification to the development and design standards of this
Chapter shall be accompanied by two preliminary grading plans. One plan shall illustrate how a
site would be developed with a strict adherence to the requirements of Section 21.95.120. The
second set shall illustrate the extent and type of the requested modification. This plan shall also
be accompanied by any other documentation needed by the decisionmaking body to determine
that the proposed modifications will result in a superior project with less adverse environmental
impacts.
C. If a modification is proposed to allow grading in excess of ten thousand cubic
yards/acre of cut or fill, or a manufactured slope in excess of forty (40) feet in height, the
applicant shall submit both written and graphic exhibits to justify the proposed grading to the
satisfaction of the decisionmaking body or official. In addition, a detailed mitigation and
landscaping plan shall be submitted as part of the application. This plan shall illustrate the
mitigation measures and landscaping utilized to screen the proposed grading.
D. Development on land designated for nonresidential development shall comply
with all requirements of this Chapter except Sections 21.95.120(D) and 2 1.95.120(E). Any
nonresidential project proposing grading in excess of ten thousand cubic yards per acre or
creating slopes in excess of forty (40) feet in height shall provide both written and graphic
exhibits to justify the proposed grading to the satisfaction of the decisionmaking body.
SECTION II: That Subsection (b) of Section 21.53.230 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
“21.53.230 Residential Densitv Calculations. Residential Development
Restrictions on Open Space and Environmentally Sensitive Lands
-8- /b
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
(4 For the purposes of Titles 20 and 21 of this code, residential density shall be
determined based on the number of dwelling units per developable acre of property.
co The following lands are considered to be undevelopable and shall be excluded
from density calculation
(1) Beaches;
(2) Permanent bodies of water;
(3) Floodways;
(4) Natural slopes with an inclination of greater than forty percent except as
permitted pursuant to Section 2 1.95.120(B) of this Code;
(5) Significant wetlands;
(6) Significant riparian or woodland habitats;
(7) Land subject to major power transmission easements;
(8) Land upon which other significant environmental features as determined
by the environmental review process for a project are located;
(9) Railroad track beds.
(4 No residential development shall occur on any property listed in subsection (b).
Subject to the provisions of Chapters 21.33 and 21 .l 10, the city council may permit limited
development of such property if, when considering the property as a whole, the prohibition
against development would constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of property. The planning
commission or city council, whichever is the final decisionmaking body for a residential
development may permit accessory facilities, including, but not limited to, recreational facilities,
view areas, and vehicular parking areas, to be located in floodplains (subject to Chapter 21 .l 10)
and on land subject to major power transmission easements.
/Ill
l/II
l/II
/Ill
II/l
l/II
l/II
l/II
l/II
/Ill
l/II
-9- /f
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
h
(4 Residential development on slopes with an inclination of twenty-five to forty
percent, inclusive, shall be designed to minimize the amount of grading necessary to
accommodate the project. For projects within the coastal zone, the grading provisions of the
Carlsbad local coastal program shall apply.”
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its
adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be
published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within
fifteen days after its adoption, except in the Coastal Zone where it becomes effective upon
certification by the California Coastal Commission.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council held on the day of , 1998, and thereafter
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the
day of , 1998, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-lO- /2
1 RESOLUTION NO. 98-44
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, ZONE CODE AMENDMENT AND LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT, TO AMEND TITLE
21, CHAPTERS 21.95 AND 21.53 OF THE CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL CODE TO STREAMLINE THE HILLSIDE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS, CLARIFY AND
SIMPLIFY THE ORDINANCE TO MAKE IT MORE USER
FRIENDLY AND ADD NEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
TO ADDRESS ORDINANCE ISSUE AREAS.
CASE NAME: HILLSIDE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
CASE NO.: ZCA 96-04/LCPA 96-01
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve
11 II
as follows:
12
13
14
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on January 7, 1998, hold a duly
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Negative Declaration, Zone
Code Amendment 96-04 and Local Coastal Program Amendment 96-01 and adopted
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3939, 3940 and 3941 recommending to the City
Council that they be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 17th day of February 1998
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Negative
Declaration and proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
’ Program; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council
considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration, Zone Code Amendment and
Local Coastal Program Amendment.
27 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does hereby resolve
28 as follows: ?3 II I-J
I
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
1. That the above recitations are’true and correct.
2. That the findings of the Planning Commission in Resolution Nos.
3939, 3940 and 3941 constitute the findings of the City Council in
this matter.
3. That the Negative Declaration, Zone Code Amendment and Local
Coastal Program Amendment, ZCA 96-04 and LCPA 96-01
respectively, are approved as shown in Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 3939, 3940 and 3941 on file with the City Clerk
and incorporated herein by reference.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad on the 17th day of 7bru%58, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:Council Members Lewis, Nygaard, Ramona, Kulchin & Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUT
(SW J-)
-2-
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
EXHIBIT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3939
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ZONE
CODE AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT TO REVISE THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
AND USES GENERALLY CHAPTERS 21.95 AND 21.53 OF
THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE.
CASE NAME: HILLSIDE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
CASE NO: ZCA 96-04/LCPA 96-01
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 4th day of December 1996, the
15th day of January 1997, the 19th day of February 1997, the 4th day of June 1997, the 18th
day of June 1997, the 16th day of July 1997, the 20th day of August 1997, the 1st day of
October 1997, the 15th day of October 1997, and the 7th day of January 1998 hold a duly
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration
according to Exhibit “ND” dated March 8,1996, and “PII” dated March 1, 1996,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and considered
Negative Declaration ZCA 96-04/LCPA 96-01, the environmental impacts therein
identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to recommending approval of
the project. Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, the Planning Commission /5
-
finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the
environment and thereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration.
2. The initial study shows that this Zone Code Amendment/Local Coastal Program
Amendment will not result in any significant impacts on the environment because
future development projects processed pursuant to this amended Hillside Ordinance
will be subject to project specific environmental review and the revised development
standards are comparable to the existing standards with respect to environmental
protection.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 7th day of January 1998, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioner’s Compas, Heineman, Monroy,
Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3939 -2-
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Zone Code Amendment/Local Coastal Plan
Amendment to be implemented Citywide.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An amendment to the City’s Hillside Ordinance
(Chapter 21.95 of the Municipal Code) and to the
City’s Local Coastal Plan to (1) clarify ordinance
provisions; (2) streamline the permitting process; and
(3) revise shortcomings of the ordinance.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a
result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a
significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project.
Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within
30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Chris DeCerbo in the
Planning Department at (619) 438-l 161, extension 4455.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH DATE:
CD:kr
MARCH 8, 1996
MICHAEL J.-HOmILLER
ZCA 96-04/LCPA 96-01 Planning Director
HILLSIDE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
MARCH 8,1996
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (619) 438-11610 FAX (619) 438-0894
-
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. ZCA 96-04/LCPA 96-01
DATE: 3-l-96
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CASE NAME: Hillside Ordinance Amendment (ZCA 96-04/LCPA 96-011
APPLICANT: Citv of Carlsbad
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad
California 92009; (619) 438-1161
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMI’ITED:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An Amendment to the Citv’s Hillside Develooment regulations
JChaDter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municinal Code) and it’s Local Coastal Plan to: (1) clarifv stxxific
ordinance Drovisions. (2) streamline the Dermitting txocess. and (31 revise shortcomings of the
existing ordinance.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTE NTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact”, or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
- Land Use and Planning _ Transportation/Circulation _
- Population and Housing _ _ Biological Resources -
- Geological Problems _ Energy and Mineral Resources _
_ Water _ Hazards -
- Air Quality _ Noise -
- Mandatory Findings of Significance
Public Selvices
Utilities and Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
1 Rev. 3/28/95 lB
DETERMINATION.
-
(To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. El
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. cl
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least
one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed. El
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have
been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been
prepared. 0
Pranner Signature
3-q-96
Date
CD:kr
2 Rev. 3/28/95 lQ
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the
environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a
checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by
the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to
prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved
EIR or Negative Declaration.
. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately
supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No
Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact
simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained
when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as
general standards.
. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact
is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
. “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than
Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the
mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant.
. Based on an “E&Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the
environment, but &I potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances
requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures
required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no
additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
. When “Potentially Significant Impact“ is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare
an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations”
has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the
project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 3/28/95 CM
. If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if
there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation
measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate
“Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated
Negative Declaration may be prepared.
. An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not
limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed
or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree
to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier
EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4)
through the E&Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a
potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a
potentially significant effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form
under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to
discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
4 Rev. 3/28/95 221
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning? (Source #(s): )
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? ()
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ()
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? ()
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)? ()
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed offkial regional or local
population projections? ()
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? () .
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ()
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ()
b) Seismic ground shaking? ()
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
0
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
5 Rev. 3/28/95 cd3
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ()
e) Landslides or mudflows? ()
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ()
g) Subsidence of the land? ()
h) Expansive soils? ()
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ()
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a)
b)
4
4
e)
9
Ii9
h)
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ()
Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? () -
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g. temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ()
Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ()
Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? ()
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? ()
Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? ()
Impacts to groundwater quality? ()
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
6 Rev. 3/28/95 ’ 3
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public
water supplies? ()
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? ()
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ()
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? ()
Create objectionable odors? ()
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
0
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ()
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? ()
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
0
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
0
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ()
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ()
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
7 Rev. 3/28/95 2Lf
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
VII.
al
4
4
d)
e)
VIII.
a)
9
4
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants,
fish, insects, animals, and birds? ()
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
0
Locally designated natural communities (e.g.
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ()
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? 0
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ()
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would
the proposal:
x
x
x
x
x
Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? ()
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ()
x
x
Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that .would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the State? () x
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? () x
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ()
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? ()
x
x
8 Rev. 3/28/95 ad/
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? ()
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? ()
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ()
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? () - -
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ()
b) Police protection? ()
c) Schools? ()
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? ()
e) Other governmental services? ()
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for. new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ()
b) Communications systems? ()
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? ()
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ()
e) Storm water drainage? ()
x
x
X
x .:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
9 Rev. 3/28/95 26
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
f) Solid waste disposal? () x
g) Local or regional water supplies? ()
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ()
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? ()
c) Create light or glare? ()
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
al
b)
Cl
d)
4
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
x
Disturb paleontological resources? ()
Disturb archaeological resources? ()
Affect historical resources? () -
Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? ()
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? ()
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
0
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ()
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
10 Rev. 3/28/95 2 7
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a)
9
Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wild life species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means
that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
x
x
x
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
a) Earlieranalyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,“
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
11 Rev. 3/28/95 3 g
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project (ZCA 96-04/LCPA 96-01) is an amendment to the City’s Hillside Development regulations
(Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) and it’s Local Coastal Plan. The existing Hillside
Development regulations were adopted in January, 1989 and this project constitutes the first
comprehensive review and proposed revision to the Hillside Development regulations since it’s
adoption. The objectives of ZCA 96-04/LCPA 96-01 include:
A. Clarifying Specific Ordinance Provisions
1. That the primary intent and purpose of the ordinance is the protection of natural slopes.
The existing ordinance does not distinguish between natural and manufactured slopes
with respect to ordinance application. Definitions for natural slopes and manufactured
slopes have been added to the Hillside Ordinance. The development of manufactured
slopes shall continue to be regulated by the ordinance but shall not require a Hillside
Development Permit.
2. The regrading of or encroachment into manufactured slopes of greater than 40%
gradient shall be subject to new manufactured slope development and design standards.
3. That a Hillside Development Permit (HDP) is only required if the project proposes to
develop a natural slope which has a gradient of 15% or greater and an elevation
differential of greater than 15%. The existing ordinance indicates that an HDP is
required if the property has a slope of 15% gradient or more and an elevation differential
of greater than 15 feet, regardless of whether the identified slope area is proposed for
development.
B. Streamlining the Hillside Development Review Process
1. The following types of projects shall no longer require a Hillside Development Permit.
However, these types of projects shall still be required to comply with the Hillside
Development and Design Standards of the Hillside Ordinance (Section 21.95.080) and
will be evaluated for compliance through the grading plan and building plan review
processes.
a. One single family dwelling unit on a residentially zoned lot; and
b. The proposed regrading, slope alteration or other development encroachment on
or into any manufactured slope or other graded area which has been graded
consistent with a previously authorized grading permit.
C. Ordinance Revisions to Address Shortcomings
1. Adds new development standards for the development of manufactured slopes of greater
than 40% gradient.
12 Rev. 3/28/95 ~9
2. Adds specific building setbacks from top/edge of slopes of greater than 40% gradient as
follows:
a. 10’ - 15’ setback for buildings up to 15’ tall;
b. 15’ - 20’ setback for buildings taller than 15’.
3. Allows the development of up to 50’ tall manufactured slopes if slope gradient is less than
50% (c 2:l) and slope is contour graded.
4. Similar to Circulation Element Roads, Collector Streets which are necessary to provide
primary or secondary access to a property would be exempted from complying with the
development prohibition of natural slopes greater than 40% gradient.
In that this Zone Code Amendment is administrative in nature and is not associated with any specific
development project, it will not directly or indirectly result in any significant environmental impacts.
Any future development project processed pursuant to the amended Hillside Development regulations
shall be required to undergo project specific environmental review.
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING
al
b)
c-e)
The Hillside Development Ordinance is an overlay zone that includes hillside
development regulations that apply to all projects which propose development of natural
slopes which have a gradient of 15% or greater and an elevation differential of greater
than 15 feet. The proposed.amendrnents are consistent with the City’s General Plan
(Land Use Element and Open Space and Conservation Element) and would be applicable
within all underlying zones of the City.
The proposed zone code amendment would be consistent with all applicable
environmental plans or policies adopted by other agencies including the Coastal Overlay
Zone of the City’s Local Coastal Program.
In that no physical development is proposed, this zone code amendment will not result
in any impacts to existing land uses, agricultural resources, operations and farmlands or
an established community.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a-c) Since no physical development is proposed, this zone code amendment will not
cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections, induce substantial
growth or displace existing housing.
III. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
a-i) Because no physical development is proposed, this zone code amendment will not result
impacts involving: fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure,
liquefaction, seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard, landslides, mudflows, erosion, unstable
soil conditions, subsidence of the land or expansive soils. All future development
13 Rev- 3p8’g5 c3 0
processed pursuant to these amended Hillside Development regulations shall be required
to apply for a grading permit and or Hillside Development Permit. The applicable
standards and conditions associated with these permits will ensure that impacts associated
with unstable earth conditions, geologic hazards, soil erosion, and topographic changes
are adequately mitigated.
IV. WATER
a-i) This proposed zone code amendment is not associated with any development project,
therefore the proposed amendment to the Hillside Development regulations will not
result in: changes in the absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff, exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding,
discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality, changes in the
amount of surface water in any water body, changes in currents or the course or direction
of water movements, changes in the quantity of groundwaters, altered direction or rate
of flow of groundwater, impacts to groundwater quality, or substantial reduction in the
amount of groundwater available for public water supplies. Future projects processed
pursuant to these amended Hillside Development regulations shall be required to
undergo environmental review and to adequately mitigate all identified water quality
impacts.
V. AIR QUALITY
a-d) Since this amendment to the City’s Hillside Ordinance is not associated with any
development project, no air quality impacts such as: a violation of an air quality standard,
exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutants, alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature or change in climate or the creation of objectionable odors will occur.
Future projects processed pursuant to these amended Hillside Development regulations
shall be required to undergo environmental review and to adequately mitigate all
identified air quality impacts.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
a-g) This proposed zone code amendment to the City’s Hillside Ordinance is not associated
with any development project and therefore will not result in traffic/circulation impacts
such as: increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion, traffic hazards, inadequate
emergency access or access to nearby uses, insufficient parking, hazards or barriers for
pedestrians or bicyclists, conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation, or rail, waterborne, or traffic impacts. Future projects processed pursuant to these amended Hillside Development regulations shall be required to undergo
environmental review and to adequately mitigate all identified transportation/circulation
impacts.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a-e) One of the primary purposes of the Hillside Ordinance is to assure that alteration to
natural hillsides does not result in impacts to significant natural resource areas, wildlife
habitats or native vegetation areas. Otherwise, since no specific development is proposed
14 Rev. 3/28/95 3 /
with this zone code amendment, there will be no impacts to: endangered, threatened or
rare species or their habitats, locally designated species, locally designated natural
communities, wetland habitat or wildlife corridors. Future development projects processed
pursuant to these amended hillside development regulations, shall be subject to
environmental review and shall be required to adequately mitigate identified biological
resource impacts.
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
a-c) This proposed zone code amendment to the City’s Hillside Ordinance is not in conflict
with adopted energy conservation plans. In that no development is proposed with this
zone code amendment, the proposal would not use non-renewable resources in a wasteful
and inefficient manner nor result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. Future projects
processed pursuant to these amended Hillside Development regulations shall be required
to undergo environmental review and to adequately mitigate all identified impacts to.
energy and mineral resources.
IX. HAZARDS
a-e) No development is proposed as part of this zone code amendment. Accordingly, this
Hillside Ordinance Amendment proposal would not result in: a risk of accidental
explosion or release of hazardous substances, possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan, the creation of any health hazard, exposure
of people to existing sources-of potential health hazards, or increase fire hazard in areas
with flammable brush, grass or trees. Future development projects processed pursuant to
these amended regulations shall be required to mitigate all hazard impacts which are
identified through the environmental review process.
X. NOISE
a-b) Since no development is proposed as part of this zone code amendment, this proposal
would not result in increases in existing noise levels or the exposure of people to severe
noise levels. Future development projects processed pursuant to these amended hillside
development regulations, shall be subject to environmental review and shall be required
to adequately mitigate identified noise impacts.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES
a-e) No development is proposed with this zone code amendment, therefore, no public service
impacts (i.e.; fire protection, police protection, schools, other governmental services and
the maintenance of public facilities, including roads) will occur. Future development
projects processed pursuant to these amended hillside development regulations, shall be
subject to environmental review and shall be required to adequately mitigate identified
public service impacts.
15 Rev. 3128195 34
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
a-g) In that no project development is proposed as part of this zone code amendment, no
impacts to utilities and service systems (i.e.; power, natural gas, communications systems,
water treatment or distribution facilities, sewer or septic tanks, storm water drainage,
solid waste disposal, or water supplies) will occur. Future development projects processed
pursuant to these amended hillside development regulations, shall be subject to
environmental review and shall be required to adequately mitigate identified utility and
service system impacts.
XIII. AESTHETICS
a-c) One of the primary objectives of the Hillside Ordinance is to preserve the aesthetic
qualities of natural hillsides by assuring that hillside development retains, where possible,
the natural topographic landform. In that no development is proposed with this zone
code amendment, no scenic vistas or scenic highways will be impacted, and no
demonstrable negative aesthetic effects or light and glare impacts will occur. Future
development projects processed pursuant to these amended hillside development
regulations, shall be subject to environmental review and shall be required to adequately
mitigate identified aesthetic impacts.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a-e) This zone code amendment is not a development project and therefore will not impact
cultural resources (i.e.; paleontological, archaeological, historical). Future projects
processed pursuant to the amended Hillside Ordinance shall be required to undergo
environmental review and to adequately mitigate cultural resource impacts.
XV. RECREATION
a-b) Since no development is proposed with this zone code amendment, no impacts to existing
neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities will occur. Future
development projects processed pursuant to these amended hillside development
regulations, shall be subject to environmental review and shall be required to adequately
mitigate identified recreation impacts.
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a-c) In that no physical development is proposed with this zone code amendment, this project
will not: degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory, have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable, or have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
16 Rev. 3/28/95 3 3
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3940
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT, AMENDING
TITLE 21, CHAPTERS 21.95 AND 21.53, OF THE CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL CODE TO STREAMLINE THE HILLSIDE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS, CLARIFY AND
SIMPLIFY THE ORDINANCE TO MAKE IT MORE USER
FRIENDLY AND ADD NEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
TO ADDRESS ORDINANCE ISSUE AREAS.
CASE NAME: HILLSIDE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
CASE NO.: ZCA 96-04
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved a Community Development
Workplan for Streamlining the Development Review and Permitting Processes;
WHEREAS, this Workplan recommended revisions to the City’s Hillside
Ordinance as a high priority streamlining worktask;
WHEREAS, staff has prepared revisions to Chapter 21.95 and 21.53 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code to accomplish this streamlining objective;
WHEREAS, the revisions take the form of a zone code amendment;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 4th day of December 1996,
the 15th day of January 1997, the 19th day of February 1997, the 4th day of June 1997, the
18th day of June 1997, the 16th day of July 1997, the 20th day of August 1997, the 1st day
of October 1997, the 15th day of October 1997, and on the 7th day of January 1998, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all
factors relating to the Zone Code Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows: -34
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
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Zone Code Amendment, ZCA 96-04,
according to Exhibit “X”, dated January 7, 1998, attached hereto and made a
part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission fmds that the project, as conditioned herein for ZCA 96-
04, is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan. The General Plan
Land Use and Open Space and Conservation Elements include hillside
preservation and design policies as follows:
a.
b.
C.
d.
Land Use Element Policy C.3 - Ensure that grading for building pads and
roadways is accomplished in the manner that maintains the appearance of
natural hillsides.
Open Space and Conservation Element Policy C.3 - Assure that
development on hillsides relates to the slope of the land in order to preserve
the integrity of the hillsides.
Open Space and Conservation Element Policy C.12 - Require that grading
be accomplished in a manner that will maintain the appearance of natural
hillsides and other landforms where possible.
Open Space and Conservation Element Policy C.14 - Implement ordinances
limiting density, intensity and character of development of hillside areas
and ridges, and provide standards for sensitive grading where development
of hillsides is allowed.
The proposed project is in conformance with these General Plan policies in that
the hillside development and design standards and other ordinance revisions
proposed will function to regulate the grading and development of hillsides,
thereby preserving the appearance and integrity of natural hillsides and
manufactured slopes.
2. This proposed zone code amendment achieves the overall project objectives
including:
a. Streamlining the Hillside Development permit process;
b. Clarifying and simplifying the ordinance to make it more “user friendly;”
and
C. Incorporating new development standards to address identified ordinance
issue areas.
-35 PC RESO NO. 3940 -2-
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
-
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 7th day of January 1998, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
Chairperson Noble, Commissioner’s Compas, Heineman, Monroy,
Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H~Lz&LLER
Planning Director
~ PC RESO NO. 3940 -3-
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3941
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO ALL SIX SEGMENTS
OF THE CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO
ADOPT THE CITY’S HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT AND USES
GENERALLY CHAPTERS AS AMENDED AS
IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES FOR CARSLBAD’S LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM.
CASE NAME: HILLSIDE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
CASE NO: LCPA 96-01
WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program, and the
implementing Zoning provisions for properties in the Coastal Zone be in conformance;
WHEREAS, a verified application for an amendment to the Local Coastal
Program, as shown on Exhibit “X” dated January 7, 1998, attached to Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3940 and incorporated herein, has been filed with the Planning Commission;
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal
Program Amendment as provided in Public Resources Code Section 30574 and Article 15 of
Subchapter 8, Chapter 2, Division 5.5 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations of the
California Coastal Commission Administrative Regulations;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 4th day of December 1996, the
15th day of January 1997, the 19th day of February 1997, the 4th day of June 1997, the 18th
day of June 1997, the 16th day of July 1997, the 20th day of August 1997, the 1st day of
October 1997, the 15th day of October 1997, and on the 7th day of January, 1998, hold a duly
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the proposed Local Coastal Program
Amendment shown on Exhibit “X”, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
37
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
- -
relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment.
WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six week public review period for
any amendment to the Local Coastal Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A)
W
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on March 14,
1996, and ending on April 26, 1996, staff shall present to the City Council a
summary of the comments received.
C) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LCPA 96-01 as shown on Exhibit “X” dated
January 7, 1998, attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 3940 and
incorporated herein, based on the following findings, and subject to the following
conditions:
Findinm:
1.
2.
3.
4.
That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment is consistent with all applicable
policies of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, in that the Hillside Ordinance
amendment specifies that, “All hillside development processed pursuant to this
amended ordinance shall be consistent with all applicable provisions and policies of
the certified LCP(s) and shall not result in significant adverse impacts to coastal
resources.”
That the. proposed amendment to the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program is required to
maintain consistency between the proposed amended zone code and the City’s Local
Coastal Program.
The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and
considered Negative Declaration (ZCA 96-04/LCPA 96-Ol), the environmental impacts
therein identified for this Project and any comments thereon prior to recommending
approval of the Project. Based on the EIA Part-II and comments thereon, the Planning
Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence the Project will have a significant
effect on the environment and thereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF the Negative
Declaration.
The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration (ZCA 96-04/LCPA 96-
01) reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad.
38 PC RESO NO. 3941 -2-
-
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 7th day of January 1998, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioner’s Compaq Heineman, Monroy,
Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
7
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H~LzI&LLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3941 -3- 39
f'.
I ue City of CARLSBAD Planning Departmew
P.C. AGENDA OF: Jan~my 7,1998
EXWUBIT 4
Application complete date: N/A
Project Engineer: N/A
Project Planner: Chris DeCerbo
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
ItemNo. @
SUBJECT: ZCA 96-04LCPA 96-01 - HILLSIDE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - 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.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission 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 on the findings contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
In 1995 the City Council approved a Community Development Workplan for Streamlining the
Development Review and Permitting Processes. This Workplan recommended revisions to the
City's Hillside Ordinance as a high priority streamlining work task. This Zone Code
Amendment recommends specific amendments to the Hillside Development and Uses Generally
chapters of the Zoning Ordinance which streamline the Hillside Development Permit process and
clarify the Zoning Ordinance with respect to hillside development. Additionally, staff has
undertaken a review of the Hillside Ordinance to identify and resolve specific Ordinance issue
areas. Based upon this review, staff is recommending several Ordinance amendments.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
This project (ZCA 96-04LCPA 96-01) is an amendment to the City's Hillside Development
Ordinance and Uses Generally regulations (Chapters 21.95 and 21.53 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code) and its Local Coastal Program. The existing Hillside Development regulations were
adopted in January, 1989 and this project constitutes the first review and proposed revision to
this Ordinance since its adoption. The overall objectives of ZCA 96-04LCPA 96-01 include:
40
/“ . ’ ZCA 96-04LCPA 96-01 - hiLLSIDE ORDINANCE AMENDMEN I
January 7,1998
A. Project Objectives
1. Streamline the Hillside Development permit procedures;
2. Clarify and simplify Ordinance provisions (Le. intent, applicability and
standards) to make it more “user friendly”; and
3. Incorporate new development standards to address identified Ordinance issue
areas.
The City’s Zoning Ordinance also functions as the implementing zoning for Carlsbads Local
Coastal Program (LCP). Accordingly, a Local Coastal Program Amendment is being processed
to ensure consistency between the proposed amended zone code and the City’s LCP.
IV. ANALYSIS
Included below is a discussion and analysis of the specific Hillside Ordinance revisions
associated with each above noted project objective. Reference can be made to Attachment “A”
(Strikeournighlight version of amended Ordinance) or Exhibit “X to review in detail all text
revisions. The recommendation for approval of this Zone Code AmendmentLocal Coastal
Program Amendment was developed by analyzing it’s achievement of the overall project
objecdves and it’s compliance/consistency with the Carlsbad General Plan and applicable Local
Coastal Program policies.
A. Project Objectives
1. Streamlining the Hillside Development Permit Procedures
a. The primary objective of this Hillside Ordinance amendment is to streamline the Hillside
Development Permit procedures. 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. Over the past eight years of experience
with the Hillside Ordinance, concerns 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 or lot) that the Hillside Development Permit
process is a time-consuming and duplicative discretionary permit process which might be
more efficiently handled under a consolidated permit process.
Accordingly, the Hillside Ordinance is proposed for amendment as follows:
The addition of new Subsection 21.95.040(A) to exempt: (1) one single family dwelling
unit on a residentially zoned lot; (2) additional development (i.e. regrading, slope
alteration or building encroachment) of previously graded slopes which are located on a
single lot; and (3) the development of underground utility systems from having to process
a Hillside Development Permit.
1 ’ ZCA 96-04LCPA 96-01 - hlLLSIDE ORDINANCE AMENDMEN I
January 7,1998
b. However, in order to ensure that the grading and structural development associated with
these Hillside Permit exemptions are consistent with the purposes of the Hillside
Ordinance, this new Exemption Subsection mandates that “any development (i.e. grading
and architecture), associated with the development of one single family unit on a
residentially zoned lot and the additional development of previously graded slopes on a
single lot (proposed exempted projects), which encroaches into or on top of a natural or
manufactured slope which has a gradient of 15% or more and an elevation differential
greater than 15 feet, shall still be required to comply with the Hillside Development and
Design Standards of the Ordinance (Section 21.95.120) and the City’s Hillside
Development Guidelines, and shall be evaluated for compliance through required grading
plan andor building plan review processes.” Any exemption which does not comply
with Section 21.95.120 of the Ordinance and the Hillside Development Guidelines shall
be required to process a Hillside Development Permit.
The benefits associated with this ordinance amendment are that applicants (Le. owner-builders)
proposing to build a single family residence upon an existing residential lot within the City will
be spared the time (from 1 to 2 months) and expense ($120.00 per single family residence) of
having to process a Hillside Development Permit in addition to required grading andor building
permits. Similar benefits (Le. a $400.00 HDP application savings) will accrue to developers of
previously graded industrial, commercial or residential lots in that a Hillside Development
Permit would not be required in addition to other required discretionary permits (i.e. Planned
Industrial Permit (PIP), or Site Development Plan(SDP)), or ministerial permits (i.e. building
permit or grading permits).
c. The existing Hillside Ordinance 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 benefit of this revision is that a Hillside Development Permit would no longer be required
for those projects which are not proposing to develop (encroach upon) onsite 15+ foot high, 15%
and greater slope areas.
2. Clarifying and Simplifying the Ordinance
A number of Hillside Ordinance revisions and a Zoning Ordinance revision are being
recommended for the purpose of clarifying and simplifLing the Ordinance to make it more “user 4Q
‘ ZCA 96-04LCPA 96-01 - HILLSIDE ORDINANCE AMENDMEN 1’
January 7,1998
friendly.” These revisions include revising the Purpose and Intent Section to clarifL and focus
the objectives of the Hillside Ordinance, the clarification of Zoning Ordinance provisions with
respect to whether manufactured slopes of greater than 40% gradient are developable, the
definition (quantification) of the term “sufficiently setback,” the addition of new Ordinance
sections dealing with Amendments, Applications and Appeals and the reorganization of
Ordinance subsections to make the Hillside Ordinance more readable and understandable.
a. Section 21.95.010 Purpose and Intent, is proposed for amendment to distill 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 development standards
and required findings of the Hillside Ordinance.
The following discussion addresses the Zoning Ordinance clarification regarding whether
manufactured slopes of greater than 40% gradient are or aren’t developable.
b. Existing Section 21.95.030@)(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 2 1.95.090(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 21.53.23O(b)(4) of the Zoning Ordinance to clarifL 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
2 1.95.020 (DEFINITIONS) has been added and includes definitions for “manufactured 43
’ ZCA 96-04hCPA 96-01 - nlLLSIDE ORDINANCE AMENDMEN I
January 7,1998
Page 5
slope” and “natural slope”. As discussed later in this report, 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 2 1.95.01 O(C) (PURPOSE
AND INTENT) has been modified to specify that the Ordinance is intended to “Preserve
andor 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 andor building plan review processes) for
compliance with the development standards provisions of the Ordinance.
b. An Ordinance revision is proposed to define (quantify) the term “sufficiently set back”
as follows:
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 2 1.95.120(1) (Slope Edge Building
Setbacks), quantifies the term “sufficiently set back” through the addition of a specific
slope edge building setback standard which applies 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 setback less than the minimum
setback requirements of the underlying zone but shall be setback 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. (See Exhibits “F” and “G”.)
The proposed edge of slope setbacks 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
sideyards 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 fiom the edge of
slope which existed prior to regrading.
Even without an existing quantified slope edge building setback standard, staff has historically
negotiated a minimum building setback of 15 feet. The proposed building setback standard will
provide an adequate separation between slope and structure. The benefit of this proposed
revision is that specific (quantified) and reasonable building setback standards from edge of
slope, which achieve an intended Ordinance objective (the elimination or reduction of views of
vertical building forms which would be incompatible with hillside landforms) are clarified within
the Ordinance. This revision will provide clear direction for Hillside Development Permit 44
ZCA 96-04LCPA 96-01 - MLLSIDE ORDINANCE AMENDME~v J
Jan~wy 7,1998
applicants and staff, thereby enabling easier resolution of related setback issues and consequently
expedited permit processing.
c. A new section (21.95.050) addressing Amendments to Hillside Development Permits has
been incorporated into the Ordinance. This new section includes: (1) the procedure for
applying for a Hillside Development Permit Amendment, which is similar to other permit
amendment procedures (e.g. PUDs and Master Plans) which exist within the zoning
ordinance; (2) the criteria for when an amendment is required; and (3) the process for
review of a HDP Amendment. Specifically, a Hillside Development Permit Amendment
is required for any project which has an approved Hillside Development Permit, that is
proposed for redesign and is not exempted from a Hillside Develoiment Permit. An
amended project would be evaluated for compliance relative to the Hillside Ordinance
Development and Design Standards (Le., Section 21.95.120). The process for review of a
Hillside Development Permit Amendment is the same as for the adoption of a Hillside
Development Permit.
d. New Sections (21.95.060 and 21.95.070) addressing Applications for Hillside
Development Permits and Review Process have been added to the Ordinance. Section
21.95.060 includes the procedures for processing a Hillside Development Permit for
review and a provision that a permit processing fee will be charged. Revised Section
2 1.95.070 (Review Process) specifies that Hillside Development Permit Exemptions shall
be evaluated for compliance with the standards of the Hillside Ordinance (Section
21.95.120) through the grading plan and/or building plan review processes.
e. New Section 21.95.080 (Appeals) specifies that appeals of decisions on Hillside
Development Permits shall be processed utilizing the same appeal procedures applicable
to the other discretionary permits which are processed concurrent with the Hillside
Development Permit request. Decisions regarding Hillside Development Permit
Exemptions would be appealed using the same appeal procedure applicable to grading
and/or building permits.
f. The existing Hillside Ordinance includes three separate sections (2 1.95.070 -
Modifications to the development and design standards, 21.95.080 - Non-residential
development and 21.95.090 - Exclusions) pertaining to Hillside Ordinance exclusions or
modifications. These three sections are proposed for revision for the purpose of
clarifying the Ordinance. The revisions include:
1. Revising Section 2 1.95.130 (Exclusions) to specifically exclude the following
from the requirements of the Hillside Ordinance without the necessity of
decisionmaking body approval:
(1) Hillside areas where a Circulation Element roadway or collector street
must be located;
(2) Grading volumes, slope heights and graded areas which are directly
associated with Circulation Element roadways or collector streets; and 45-
r’ f4?
ZCA 96-04LCPA 96-01 - nlLLSIDE ORDINANCE AMENDMElY I’ ’
January 7,1998
(3) Hillside areas that have unusual geotechnical or soil conditions that
require significant grading associated with corrective work.
.. 11. Revising Section 21.95.140 (Modifications to the Development and Design
Standards) to add the existing non-residential development standards modification
provision (existing Section 21.95.080) to this Section and to delete Circulation
Element roads and sites with unusual geotechnical/soils conditions from this
Section. These two existing modification types are proposed as blanket
exclusions, as discussed above.
g. The overall Ordinance has been reorganized, i.e. reorganization of section sequence and
elimination of duplicative provisions, for the purpose of making it more usable and clear,
as follows:
1. Delete existing Section 21.95.030 (GENERAL RESTRICTIONS). The
provisions of this Section have been incorporated into new Sections 21.95.030
(APPLICABILITY OF HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT), 21.95.070
(REVIEW PROCESS) and 21.95.090 (REQUIRED FINDINGS). These new
Ordinance Sections more clearly identify for the user where such important
Ordinance provisions are located.
.. 11. Delete existing Section 21.95.040 (RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCU-
LATION). The provisions of this Section are adequately and more appropriately
covered under existing Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21 S3.230
MENT RESTRICTIONS ON OPEN SPACE AND ENVIRONMENTALLY
SENSITIVE LANDS).
(RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATIONS, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP-
iii. Revise existing Section 2 1.95.090 (EXCLUSIONS). The exemption provision of
this Section (21.95.090(a)) has been incorporated into new Section 21.95.040
(EXEMPTIONS FROM HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT) and the
exclusion provisions of existing Section (2 1.95.090(b)) have either been
incorporated into new Section 21.95.130 (Modifications) or revised and
incorporated into new Section 21.95.120(B).
iv. Delete existing Subsections 21.95.060(~)(1) (Area or Extent of Grading) and (2)
(Modifications). The volume of grading provisions have been incorporated into
new Subsection 21.95.120@) (Volume of Grading) and Area of Grading
provisions have been deleted and a definition for “Total Graded Area” has been
added to Definitions Sections 21.95.020. The modifications provisions within
Subsection 21.95.060(~)(2) are also adequately covered under Section 21.95.140
(MODIFICATIONS TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS).
v. Delete provisions of existing Subsection 21.95.070(c) that deal with required
landscaping of manufactured slopes or other graded areas which are approved as
modifications to existing Hillside Ordinance Standards. These provisions are 46
n /I
ZCA 96-04hCPA 96-01 - rilLLSIDE ORDINANCE AMENDMEN I’ ’
January 7,1998
vi.
vii.
... v111.
ix.
unnecessary in that they are adequately covered within the City’s Landscape
Manual policies and Grading Ordinance.
Revise Local Coastal Program Hillside provisions (new Section 21.95.120(A)) to
directly reference the applicable Coastal Overlay Zones (Chapters 21.38 and
2 1.203) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Revise Section 21.95.120(G) (Screening of Manufactured Slopes) to specify that
all manufactured slopes shall be landscaped consistently with the City’s
Landscape Manual.
Revise Section 21.95.120(H) (Hillside and Hilltop Architecture) to delete the
architectural standards from the Ordinance. These standards will be incorporated
into the City’s Hillside Development Guidelines manual and Section
21.95.120(H) will specifl that Hillside and hilltop structures shall be consistent
with the architectural guidelines included within the City’s Hillside Development
Guidelines manual.
Revise Sections 2 1.95.120(3) and 2 1.95.120(K) to delete the specific Roadway
Design and Hillside Drainage standards from the Ordinance. These standards will
be incorporated into the City’s Hillside Development Guidelines manual and
these sections of the Ordinance will specify that Roadway Design and Hillside
Drainage shall be consistent with the City’s Hillside Development Guidelines
Manual.
3. New Development Standards
a. An integral component of the aforementioned 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 2 1.95.020 (DEFINITIONS) includes
definitions for “downhill perimeter slope” and “uphill perimeter slope”.
47
‘ ZCA 96-04LCPA 96-01 - H~LLSIDE ORDNANCE AMENDMEN 1
January 7,1998
Page 9
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 (see Exhibit “A”), the construction of a deck, or the
grading (cutting) of a pad area into the slope (see Exhibit “A”) 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
(see Exhibit “B”) 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 (see Exhibit
“B”). Because Uphill Perimeter Slopes (including development upon them) 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 (see Exhibit “C”). Manufactured slopes developed pursuant to these standards would
also be subject to the other Hillside Development standards within Section 21.95.120.
b. Revise the existing contour grading standard (new Subsection 21.95.12O(F)(l) 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 proposed standard modification would require manufactured slopes which are
greater than 20 feet in height (rather than 30 feet in height) and 200 feet in length which are
located adjacent to or are substantially visible from a Circulation Element road or collector street
or useable public open space area to be 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). Slopes
which are less visible (i.e. those located along rear and sideyards which are typically screened by
fences and structures) would not be required to be contour graded. Another benefit of revising
the contour grading standard from greater than 30 feet in heightl200 feet in length to greater than
20 feet in heightl200 feet in length is that a greater number of more natural appearing contoured
slopes will be created, thereby satisfying one of the primary objectives of the Hillside Ordinance,
which is to ensure that hillside development preserves the natural appearance of hillsides.
Consistent with this objective and revision a definition for “contour grading” has also been
added to new Section 2 1.95.020 (DEFINITIONS).
c. Revise the existing permitted manufactured slope height standard (new Subsection
21.95.120(E)(l)) from 30 feet to 40 feet.
r”. ?
ZCA 96-04LCPA 96-01 - HILLSIDE ORDINANCE AMENDMEh I’
January 7,1998
’
The existing ordinance specifies that manufactured slopes shall not be greater than 30 feet in
height. This standard appears to be based primarily upon the Engineering Department standard
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 (see Exhibit “D). The net effect is
that from view corridors (roads), hillside development appears to be dominated by structures.
The proposal to revise the manufactured slope height standard from 30 feet to 40 feet will allow
for a minimum 10 feet of vertical landscaped separation between typical residential structures
which are terraced along a hillside (see Exhibit “E”).
d. Amend Subsections 21.95.130(A)( 1) and 21.95.130(A)(2) to: exclude collector streets
from having to comply with the development prohibition of natural slopes which have a
gradient of greater than 40%, exclude collector streets from having to comply with the
maximum 40 foot high manufactured slope standard, to allow the graded area and grading
volumes associated with the construction of both Circulation Element Roads and
collector streets to be excluded from project grading area and grading volume totals
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 Ordinance 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
recommended that collector streets be similarly excluded from complying with Hillside
Ordinance development standards provided that the proposed road alignment (Circulation
Element and/or collector) is environmentally preferred and complies with all other City
standards. Consistent with this objective and revision, a definition for “collector street” has
also been added to new Section 21.95.020 (DEFINITIONS).
The proposed revision to exclude graded areas and grading volumes associated with Circulation
Element Roads from project graded area and grading volume totals is an Ordinance clarification,
in that existing Section 21.95.090 excludes Circulation Element Roads from the requirements of
the Ordinance. For the reasons discussed above, staff is also recommending that graded areas
and grading volumes associated with collector streets likewise be excluded from project graded
area and grading volume totals.
e. Modify the provisions within the Hillside Ordinance and Uses Generally Chapter
(21.53.230(~)), which prohibit the development of slopes with a gradient of greater than
40%, to allow the development of such slopes.
As discussed earlier in this report, the Hillside ordinance and Section 21 S3.230 of the Carlsbad 47
ZCA 96-04LCPA 96-01 - dLLSIDE ORDINANCE MNDMEh I’
January 7,1998
Municipal Code currently prohibit the development of slopes with gradients of greater than 40%.
The existing prohibition provision (Section 2 1.95.030(b)(4)) of the Hillside Ordinance specifies
that “no development or grading can occur on undevelopable portions of a property (i.e. slopes
with an inclination of greater than 40% or more), as defined by Section 21.53.230 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code”. The specific wording in Section 21.53.230 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code was prepared based upon the recommendations of the Citizens Committee for
the Review of the Land Use Element of the Carlsbad General Plan (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 Section 21.53.230 could preclude the
ability to develop much of the remaining vacant hillside property within the City. Based upon
this realization, the existing Hillside Ordinance (Section 21.95.090) was written to include
various “Exclusions” fiom the standards of the Hillside Ordinance including: (1) slopes with
gradients of greater than 40% 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 (2) small, isolated ravine
(slopes of greater than 40% gradient) where there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant impact on the environment as determined by the Planning Director. The City
has historically allowed the development of such slopes pursuant to these exclusions. However,
these specific exclusions are not broad enough in their definition to allow for the development of
other slopes with gradients of greater than 40% which are not prominent landform features
worthy of preservation. In order to: (1) more accurately address one of the intended objectives
of the Citizens Committee (1995) and of the Hillside Ordinance, which is the preservation of
prominent landform features; and (2) provide specific measurable criteria (slope height and land
area) which more accurately define what a prominent landform feature is, a standard
modification is proposed.
The proposed standard modification would delete the above noted two exclusions for slopes with
gradients of greater than 40% and replace these exclusions with the following standard (new
Subsection 21.95.120(B)): “Natural slopes which have all of the following characteristics
shall be undevelopable:
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
The slope comprises a prominent land form feature.
The above noted standard addressing permitted development of slopes with gradients of greater
than 40%, references (Section 21.95.120(B)(2)) permitted exceptions (exclusions or
modifications included in Sections 21.95.130 and 21.95.140 of the Hillside Ordinance). These
modifications include the same exclusions/modifications currently included within the Hillside
Ordinance (i.e. sites which require more grading due to geotechnical or soils problems, extensive
grading required to accommodate a circulation element road or collector street and cases where
significantly more open space would be achieved in addition to an additional modification (see f
below)). 3‘
P- rn
ZCA 96-04LCPA 96-01 - HILLSIDE ORDINANCE AMENDMELUT
January 7,1998
’
Consistent with this proposed revision, Section 21.53.230(b)(4) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
has also been modified to specify that no residential development shall occur on slopes with
gradients of greater than 40% gradient except as permitted pursuant to Section 21.95.120p)
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
f. The existing Hillside Ordinance includes three findings to allow for modifications to the
Development and Design Standards of the Hillside Ordinance. An additional finding
(Subsection 21.95.140(A)(2)) to allow for the modification to the Development and
Design Standard, is proposed as follows:
“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.”
This finding is proposed to enable and encourage the development of creatively designed
manufactured slopes, (i.e. slopes rich in horizontal and vertical undulation) which would
be more aesthetically pleasing than the natural landforms or manufactured slopes that the
standards of the ordinance would otherwise achieve.
B. General Plan
The General Plan Land Use and Open Space and Conservation Elements include a number of
hillside preservation and design policies which are listed below.
1. Land Use Element Policy C.3 - “Ensure that grading for building pads and
roadways is accomplished in a manner that maintains the appearance of natural
hillsides.”
2. Open Space and Conservation Element Policy C.3 - ‘‘Assure that development on
hillsides ‘relates to the slope of the land in order to preserve the integrity of the
hillsides.”
3. Open Space and Conservation Element Policy C.12 - “Require that grading be
accomplished in a manner that will maintain the appearance of natural hillsides
and other landforms where possible.”
4. Open Space and Conservation Element Policy C.14 - “Implement ordinances
limiting the density, intensity and character of development of hillside areas and
ridges, and provide standards for sensitive grading where development of hillsides
is allowed.”
This proposed Hillside Development Ordinance amendment is consistent with the applicable
policies and programs of the General Plan in that the hillside development and design standards
which are proposed will function to regulate the grading and development of hillsides, thereby
preserving the appearance and integrity of natural hillsides and manufactured slopes. 5/
’ ZCA 96-04LCPA 96-01 - WLLSIDE ORDINANCE AMENDMEN I
January 7,1998
C. Local Coastal Program
Currently the LCP implementation does not include the Hillside Ordinance. However,
Subsection 2 1.95.120@) of the existing Hillside Ordinance specifies that, “All development on
slopes of twenty-five percent or greater within the coastal zone shall comply with the
requirements of the coastal overlay zone.” This specific development standard has been
supplemented with the following provision:
a. That all hillside development processed pursuant to this Chapter shall be
consistent with all applicable provisions of the certified Local Coastal Program
and will not result in significant adverse impacts to coastal resources.
With this proposed amendment, the Hillside Development Ordinance is clearly consistent with
applicable coastal policies (including the slope preservation policies) of Carlsbad’s Local Coastal
Program. Any hillside development proposal within the Coastal Zone shall be required to
comply with all applicable Local Coastal Program policies and provisions.
The LCP amendment will add the amended version of the Hillside Ordinance and the
modifications to Chapter 21.53.230 to the implementation portion of all of the City’s LCP
segments. This will accomplish the required consistency between the City’s Zoning Ordinance
and its LCP.
V. ENVIRONMfiNTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that this Zone Code Amendment/Local Coastal Program
Amendment (ZCALCPA) to amend the City’s Hillside Development and Uses Generally
regulations (Chapters 21.95 and 21.53 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code), will not have a
significant impact on the environment and therefore has issued a Negative Declaration on March
8, 1996. The environmental analysis (EIA Part 11) concluded that this ZCA/LCPA will not result
in any physical, biological or human environmental impacts because future development projects
processed pursuant to‘this amended Hillside Ordinance will be subject to project specific
environmental review and the revised development standards are comparable to the existing
standards with respect to environmental protection. Therefore, no significant environmental
impacts are anticipated to occur. There were no letters of comment received during the public
review period for this Negative Declaration.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3939
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3940
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3941
Attachment “A” (StrikeoutLHighlight version of amended Ordinance) 5. Exhibits ‘‘A)’-‘‘G)).
CD:mh
P /? ATTACHMENT “A”
21.95.01 0 PURPOSE AND INTENT
The purposes and intent of this Chapters ’ are to: ..
A.
B.
C.
D.
Implement the We& goals and objectives of the Land Use and Open
Space/Conservation Rements of the Carlsbad General Plan;
Assure hillside conditions are properly identified and incorporated into the
planning process;
Preserve and/or enhance the
-; aesthetic
qualities of natural hillsides and manufactured slopes by designing
projects which relate to the slope of the land, minimizing the amount of
project grading, and incorporating contour grading into manufactured
slopes which are located in highly visible public locations;
-1
Assure that the alteration of natural hillsides will be
done in an environmentally sensitive manner whereby lagoons and riparian
ecosystems will be protected from increased erosion and no substantial
impacts to natural resource areas, wildlife habitats or native vegetation
areas will occur;
F.
1. n,
21.95.020 DEFINITIONS
A. Whenever the following terms are used in this Chapter, they shall have the
meaning established by this section:
-1 -
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
21.95.030
“Collector street” means any street with a minimum right-of-way
width of 60 feet which intersects with a Circulation Element Road
and provides either primary or secondary access to a residential or
non-residential project.
“Contour grading” means a grading concept designed to result in
earth forms which resemble natural terrain characteristics.
Horizontal and vertical curve variations should be used for slope
banks.
“Development” means grade, erect or construct.
“Downhill Perimeter Slope” means a slope located between a pad or
gently sloping area (gradient is less than 10%) of a single lot and the
propenty line that is at a lower level than the pad or gently sloping
area of the lot.
“Grade” means to excavate or fill or any combination thereof
“Manufactured slope” means a man-made slope consisting wholly or
partially of either cut or fill material.
“Natural slope” means a slope which is not manufactured.
“Project” means any proposal for “development”.
“Slope” means ground that forms a natural or artificial incline.
“Total Graded Area” means all areas of project grading (both on-site
and off-site) which are necessary to enable the achievement of the
project.
Wphill Perimeter Slope” means a slope located between the pad or
gently sloping area(gradient is less than 10%) of a single lot and a
property line located at a higher level than the pad or gently sloping
area of the lot.
APPLICABILITY OF HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT G€N€RAL -
A. No person shall grade, or erect, or construct into or on top of a slope which
has a gradient of fifteen percent (15%) or more and an elevation differential greater than fifteen (15) feet Wl without first obtaining a
Hillside Development Permit pursuant to this Chapter.
B. Any application for a Hillside Development Permit which was deemed
complete prior to the effective date of the ordinance reenacting this
-2-
Chapter, shall not be subject to the amended provisions of this Chapter but
shall be processed and approved or disapproved pursuant to the
ordinance superseded by this ordinance.
21.95.040 EXEMPTIONS FROM HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
A.
B.
C.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 21.95.030, the following need
not obtain a Hillside Development Permit, provided that the development
complies with Section 21.95.120 of this Chapter and the City’s Hillside
Development and Design Guidelines:
I. The development of one single family dwelling unit on a residentially
zoned lot.
2. On a single lot, the additional development (Le.; regrading, slope
alteration or building encroachment) of or upon any manufactured
slope with a gradient of 40% or greater and an elevational difference
(height) of 15 feet or greater which has been previously graded
consistent with an authorized grading permit.
3. The development (trenching, utility constnrction and backfilling) of underground utility systems.
Any development exempted by 21.95.040(A) above, which does not comply
with Section 21.95.120 and the City’s Hillside Development Guidelines,
must obtain a Hillside Development Permit or Hillside Development Permit
Amendment pursuant to this Chapter.
Any project that has received final approval of a Hillside Development
Permit prior to the effective date of this 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.
21.95.050 AMENDMENTS TO HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS
A. An amendment to a Hillside Development Permit shall be processed in the
same manner as an original application for a Hillside Development Permit.
B. Unless exempted by Section 21.95.040, a Hillside Development Permit
Amendment shall be required for any portion of a project which has a
Hillside Development Permit that is proposed for redesign and otherwise
requires a Hillside Development Permit per Section 21.95.030.
6’ H:\ADMINSTAFNCA\ZC.AlT
21.95.060 APPLICATION
Application for a Hillside Development Permit shall be made in accordance with
the procedures set forth in this Section.
A. An application for a Hillside Development Permit may be made by the
record owner or owners of the propedy affected or the authorized agent of
the owner or owners. The application shall be filed with the Planning
Director upon forms provided by the Director. The application shall be
accompanied by adequate plans, which allow for detailed review pursuant
to this Chapter and demonstrate compliance with Hillside Mapping
Procedures in Section 21.95.1 lo, a legal description of the property and all
other materials and information specified by the Director.
B. At the time of filing the application, the applicant shall pay a processing fee
in an amount specified by City Council resolution.
21.95.070 REVIEW PROCESS
A. Hillside Development Permit - An application for a Hillside Development Permit
or Hillside Development Permit Amendment shall be processed and approved
concurrently with any other development permits required by Titles 1 I, 18, 20 or
21 of this code. The same decisionmaking body or official which has the
authority to finally approve, conditionally approve or deny the other
development permits required for the project shall have the authority to finally
approve, conditionally approve or deny a Hillside Development Permit.
Amendments to Hillside Permits shall be acted on by the same decision
making body that approved the original Hillside Permit and any subsequent
Hillside Permit Amendments.
B. Exemptions - Development satisfying the Hillside Development Permit
Exemptions, set forth in Section 21.95.040(A), shall be evaluated for
compliance with Section 21.95.120 and the Hillside Development and
Design Guidelines through required grading plan ancUor building plan
review processes.
21.95.080 APPEALS
A. Hillside Development Permits - The decision of the final decision making
body or official is final and effective ten calendar days after the adoption of
the resolution or written decision, unless within such ten-day period the
applicant or any other interested person files a written appeal utilizing the
same appeal procedure applicable to the other permits which are
processed concurrently with the Hillside Development Permit. If no other
discretionary permits are being processed concurrently with the Hillside
Development Permit, then the appeal procedures contained in Section
-4- 3% H:\ADMIN\STAFNCAVC.AlT
21.54.140 shall apply.
B. Decisions regarding Hillside Development Permit Exemptions, which are
reviewed through the grading plan andor building plan review processes,
may be appealed to the City Council utilizing the same appeal procedure
applicable to grading permits andor building permits.
21.95.090 REQUIRED FINDINGS
A. No A hillside development permit shall be approved unless the decision
making body or official finds that: 1
fma&
1. %a# Undevelopable areas of the project, pursuant to Subsection
21.53.230(b) of this Code, have been properly identified;
2. The project complies with the Purpose and Intent provisions of
Section 21.95.010 of this Chapter.
3.
The project complies with Section 21.95.120 of this
Chapter, and Section 21.95.140 if a modification to the Development
and Design Standards is approved.
E.
4. Tba4 The project design substantially conforms to the MeM cf tbe
Hillside Development Guidelines manual. feFEc
21.95.100 MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT OF HILLSIDE LANDS
The provisions of this Chapter shall be applied so as to:
A. Not preclude a reasonable use of a legal WsicJe parcel which includes hillside
conditions as regulated by this Chapter e ..
B. Not preclude the efficient and safe provision of public facilities or services to any
legal parcel ' ;and
-5- H:\ADMIN\STAFNC.ATT 5-7
C. Allow development of at least one single family dwelling unit per parcel described
in subsection A. &W&WX§ 2 {:&>, ?3W)
21.95.1 10 HILLSIDE MAPPING PROCEDURES
A slope analysis and slope profiles shall be illustrated on a constraints map, and shall
accompany all development submittals which propose
grading or development of slopes which have a gradient beme66 of fifteen percent
or more and have an elevation differential greater than fifteen feet.
A. Slope Analysis. The Sslope analysis shall identify the acreage of a// natural
and manufactured slopes within each of the following slope
categories &:
1. &less than 15% slopes
2.
3. 25-ks4bm 40% slopes and
4. 0 slopes greater than 40%
1 &less than 25% slopes
a. Percentage of slope is determined by:
Vertical Distance
(Contour interval)
Horizontal Distance x 100 = % Slope
(Distance between contour intervals)
B. Slope Profiles. A minimum of three slope profiles (slope cross sections) shall be
included with the submittal of the slope analysis on the constraints map. Slope
profiles shall:
1. Be drawn at the same scale and indexed or keyed to the constraints map,
grading or preliminary grading plan and project site map;
2. Show both existing and proposed topography, structures and surface
infrastructure& Proposed topography, structures and infrastructure shall
be drawn with a solid heavy line. Existing topography, structures and
infrastructure shall be drawn with a thin or dashed line;
3. include the slope profile for at least one hundred feet &em outside of the
project site boundary or adjacent public street,
4. Be drawn along those locations of the project site where:
58 -6- H:\ADMIN\STAFNCAUCAQ604.ATT
a. The greatest alteration of the existing topography is proposed,
C.
D.
b. The most intense or bulky development is proposed, and
c. The site is most visible from surrounding land uses;
5. Two of the slope profiles shall be roughly parallel to each other and
roughly perpendicular to existing contour lines. The remaining slope
profile shall be roughly at a forty-five pwe& degree angle to the other
slope profiles and existing contour lines.
Assurance of Accurate Hillside Mapping. Both the slope analysis and slope
profiles shall be stamped and signed by either a registered landscape architect,
civil engineer or land surveyor indicating the datum, source and scale of
topographic data used in the slope analysis and slope profiles, and attesting to
the fact that the slope analysis and slope profiles have been accurately
calculated and identified, consistent with this section. @sl-EBX 5 2 (m *
Development which is exempt per Section 21.95.040 or excluded per
Section 21.95.130 is generally exempt from the hillside mapping
requirements of this Section except in cases where the Planning Director
determines that hillside mapping is necessary to assess project
compliance with the Hillside Ordinance.
21.95.120 HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS
The provisions of this Section shall apply to all projects that propose to grade,
erect or construct into or on top of a natural slope or manufactured slope which
has a gradient of fifteen percent (15%) or more and an elevation differential
greater than fifteen (15) feet
A. Coastal Zone Hillside Development Regulations
1. All development on natural slopes of twenty-five percent or greater within
the coastal zone shall comply with the requirements of
-7-
zwm Chapters 21.38 and 21.203 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and
the slope protection policies of the applicable Local Coastal Program
segment. Additionally, all hillside development processed pursuant
to this Chapter shall be consistent with all applicable provisions and
policies of the certified Local Coastal Program(s) and shall not result
in significant adverse impacts to coastal resources.
B. Development of Natural Slopes of Over 40% Gradient
1. Natural slopes which have all of the following characteristics shall
be undevelopable:
a. A gradient of greater than 40%; and
b. An elevation differential of greater than 15 fbet; and
c. A minimum area of 10,000 square feet; and
d. The slope comprises a prominent land form feature.
2. Projects which propose the development of natural slopes defined in
Subsection 21.95. IZO(B)(I) above shall nevertheless be allowed, only
if the project qualifies as an exclusion or modification, pursuant to
Sections 21.95.130 and 21.95.l40, respectively.
C. Development of Manufactured Slopes of Over 40% Gradient
1. Manufactured slopes which have a gradient of greater than 40% and
an elevation differential of greater than 15 feet shall be subject to the
following development standards.
a. Development of Uphill Perimeter Slopes.
(i) The following types of development on or into an uphill
perimeter manufactured slope shall be limited to a
maximum of 6 vertical feet as measured from the
existing grade at the toe of slope:
(a) Main building(s);
(b) Accessory buildings; and
(c) Retaining Walls.
(ii) Decks may be constructed upon an uphill perimeter
manufactured slope up to the required building
setback(s) of the underlying zone.
60 -8- H:\ADMIN\STAFN.A?T
b. Development of Downhill Perimeter Slopes
8,000 - 10,000 cubic
yard s/ac re
> 10,000 cubic yardslacre
(i) The following types of development over a downhill
perimeter manufactured slope shall be limited to a
maximum of 6 vertical feet as measured from the
existing grade at the top of slope:
Potentially acceptable
Unacceptable
(a) Decks; and
(b) Retaining Walls.
(ii) Deck surface areas shall be allowed to extend to the
same point that a 6 foot vertical retaining wall would be
permitted.
(iii) No main or accessory building may encroach over the
top/edge of a Downhill Perimeter Slope.
c. The manufactured slope standards, within this section do not
apply to manufactured slopes which are not located along
perimeter property lines (including intervening manufactured
slopes between split level pads which are located on a single
lot).
D. Volume of Grading
1. The volume of earth moved for cuts and fills shall be minimized.
2. The relative acceptability of hillside grading volume shall be determined
by the following:
. Cubic Yards of Cut or Fill
Grading per Acre of Cut
and Fill Area (in acres)
Relative Sensitivity of
Hillside Grading Volume
1 0 -7,999 cubic yarddacre I Acceptable II
3. The methodology for detennining the volumes of both the cut and fill in
cubic yards shall be calculated as follows. A grading and preliminary
grading plan, shall be prepared and shall include: the cut or fill
volumes 6baU-b noted en-h for each particular cut or fill and fhe total
lo1 -9- H:WDMINSTAFNCAVCO4.AlT
volume of cut and fill for the project. j
~~MWFW& The larger volume of the total cut or total fill volumes
divided by the total graded area (in acres) 1
gd8.d) shall equal the volume of hillside grading for the project #Me
.. .
-.
4. Applications proposing grading volumes which are potentially acceptable
(eight thousand to ten thousand cubic yards/acre of cut or fill) shall, on the
preliminary grading plan, submit for review specific written findings
justifying the reasons for the amount of grading, subject to the approval of
the Planning Director and City Engineer.
5. Applications proposing grading volumes which are unacceptable (greater
than ten thousand cubic yarddacre of cut or fill) shall be allowed only if
they qualify as an exclusion or modification pursuant to Section
21.95.130 and 21.95.140 of this Chapter respectively. ww&w&Mb
31 6,. .
c.
E. Slope Height L.
1. Manufactured G&-e&U slopes shall not be greater than #4#y fody (40)
feet in height.
2. Slope Height Exclusions. See Section 21.95.130 of this Chapter.
F. Contour Grading.
1. AI1 manufactured slopes which are greater than twenty (20) feet in
height and two hundred (200) feet in length and which 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.
ha -1 0- H:\ADMIN\STAFNCAVCA9804.AlT
G. Screening Manufactured 6mde.d Slopes.
1. All manufactured manmade slopes shall be landscaped consistent with
the City's Landscape Manual.
H. Hillside and Hilltop Architecture.
1. Hillside and hilltop structures shall be consistent with the
architectural guidelines included within the City's Hillside
Development Guidelines. &
63 -1 1- H:\ADMIN!STAFNCAVCA9804.ATT
1.
I. Slope Edge Building Setbacks (pursuant to this Chapter) Vk#ww&h
rJnrl.
I. Slope edge building setbacks shall be sufficient to eliminate or
significantly reduce views of vertical building forms which would be
visually incompatible with hillside landforms. Notwithstanding the
building setback requirements of the underlying zone, all main and
accessory buildings that are developed on hilltops andor pads
created on downhill perimeter slopes of greater than fifteen (15) feet
in height, shall be setback 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. For all buildings
which are subject to this slope edge building setback standard, a
profile of the diagonal plane shall be submitted with all other
2. Building setbacks pursuant to this Chapter do not apply to:
a. Slopes which are less than 15 feet in height;
b. the intervening slopes of split-level pads which are located on
a single lot, but do apply to the edge of slope of the lowest
Pad;
-1 2-
c. downhill slopes which are located along the sideyards of
residential lots; and
d. substandard residential lots where the top/edge of slope
setback standards would preclude a reasonable use of the
Propew=
3. If a Downhill Perimeter Slope is regraded (filled) consistent with
Subsection 21.95.120(C) of this Chapter, and a vettical retaining
structure is used, then the required building setback shall be
measured from the edge of slope which existed prior to regrading
(fillmg).
4. Fencing proposed along a slope edge should be of an open design
which does not visually extend the height of the slope. Exceptions
to this provision may include, but are not limited to, noise
attenuation walls, privacy walls or security walls.
J. Roadway Design.
1. Hillside roadway design shall be consistent with the City’s Hillside
Development Guidelines Manual.
K. Hillside Drainage.
I. Hillside drainage shall be consistent with the City’s Hillside
Development Guidelines. S ..
21.95.130 EXCLUSIONS
A.
Standards of Section 21.95.120:
The following are excluded from the Hillside Development and Design
1. Hillside areas where a Circulation Element roadway or a collector
street must be located provided that the proposed alignment(s) are
-1 3- H:WDMINSTAFNCAKCA@604.AlT b5
environmentally preferred and comply with all other City standards.
2. Grading volumes, slope heights and graded areas which are directly
associated with Circulation Element roadways or collector streets,
provided that the proposed alignment(s) are environmentally
prefemd and comply with all other City standards.
3. Hillside areas that have unusual geotechnical or soil conditions that
necessitate corrective work that may require significant amounts of
grading.
21.95.140 MODIFICATIONS TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS
A. The decisionmaking body or official may approve a modification to the Hillside
Development and Design Standards of Section 21.95.120 if it finds that the
proposed development complies with the Purpose and Intent provisions of
Section 21.95.010 and makes one or more of the following findings: e
mc.rla.
I. The proposed modification will result in significantly more open space or
undisturbed area than would a strict adherence to the requirements of
Section 21.95.120.
2. 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 Section 21.95.120.
B. Any request for a modification to the development and design standards of this
Chapter shall be accompanied by two preliminary grading plans. One plan shall
illustrate how a site would be developed with a strict adherence to the
requirements of Section 21.95.120. The second set shall illustrate the extent
and type of the requested modification. This plan shall also be accompanied by
any other documentation needed by the decisionmaking body to determine that
the proposed modifications will result in a superior project with less adverse
environmental impacts.
-14- H:\ADMIN\STAFNCAVCAg604.ATT b 1
C. If a modification is gmbd proposed to allow grading in excess of ten thousand
cubic yards/acre of cut or fill, or a manufactured slope in excess of #My forty
(40) feet in height, the applicant shall submit both written and graphic exhibits
to justify the proposed grading to the satisfaction of the decisionmaking
body or official. In addition, a detailed mitigation and landscaping plan shall
be submitted as part of the application 1 . This
plan shall illustrate the mitigation measures and landscaping utilized to screen
the proposed grading.
D. Development on land designated for nonresidential development shall comply
with all requirements of this Chapter except Sections 21.95.720(0) and
27.95.72o(E). Any nonresidential project proposing grading in excess of ten
thousand cubic yards per acre or creating slopes in excess of #My forty (40)
feet in height shall provide both written and graphic exhibits to justify the
proposed grading to the satisfaction of the decisionmaking body. (&M826+
-1 5- H:\ADMINSTAFNCAVCO4.AST b 7
-1 6-
aJ E PI 0
I aJ > aJ
m aJ Q 0
c/)
-
L
Q)
X w VII 0
1 S QI E PI 0 - aJ > aJ
'CI aJ 1 1 0- E 5 p. m
E Q 0 - a >
n
W
a b.
a Q 0 -
W
u
L x w E
*d E" x ce c
d) E CL 0 1 '0 + a"
d)
m
0' 1
0
c
m 0 m
73
' f + -
c
x W
v
c)
(d Ip
Q) cn
bo C
c)
3
0- -
0-
Icz Lu
Q)
=bo kr v *- mm
I
I
I
m
m
\
\ &4
& \
\
\
\
74
c. i!J " " Q, a 0
O
- m
Y-
I-
I x W
- m .I v
(d a bo I
I
I
Q)
c/)
-E 0 L Y-
u ss 0 *- born Lu
Q)
75
EXHIBIT! 5
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: (I) 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.
r
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 distill 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 21.95.020 (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 21.95.01oO (PURPOSE AND INTENT) has been
modified to specify that the Ordinance is intended to "Preserve andlor 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 andlor 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.
77 MINUTES
rl r'
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(1) (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 topledge 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 f
fh
PLANNING COMMlSSlON 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 height1200 feet in length to greater than 20 feet
in height1200 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
/4
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
(1 985) 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 Qf 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 his 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.
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
21.42 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.
8/ MINUTES
r‘
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 . . .” 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.
84 MINUTES
f4
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
83 MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION January 7, 1998 Page IO
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 21 95040(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.”
A CTlO N : 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: 7-0
AYES:
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Noble, Heineman, Savary, Monroy, Welshons, Compas, and Nielsen
Techbilt
3575 Kenyon St.
San Diego, CA 921 10
Telephone (619) 223-1663
Mayor Lewis and Council Members
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
”, U Construction Corp.
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 80036
San Diego, CA 92138
FAX (619) 223-2865
February 10,1998
SUBJECT: ZCA 96-04LCPA 96-0 1 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,
Paulk.&hang, President
PKT:tt
71 06 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,
a2=-7&
Barbara E. Tice
February 15,1998
. Honorable Councilpersons:
1 . 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 firther gut it.
The developer’s interest in maximizing profits by building on steeper
slopes 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 souzce of those finds is
the development industry, and the finds 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, n
7304 Borla Place
Carlsbad, CA 92009