HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-12-11; City Council; 16448; Zone Code AmendmentsAB# Gw
MTG. 1 sLi%\
DEPT. PLN $
CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
TITLE. --
REPEAL AND REENACTMENT OF THE PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, AMENDED CITY COUNCIL
POLICY 44 AND ADOPT COUNCIL POLICY 66 -
ZCA 01 -0lILCPA 01-01 CITYMGR w
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. NS-b\ d- APPROVING Zone Code Amend-
ment 01-01, ADOPT Resolution No. a00 \ - 353 APPROVING the Negative Declaration issued by
the Planning Director, Zone Code Amendment 01-01 and Local Cnastal Program Amendment 01-01, and
ADOPT Resolutions No. ac0 I - 35 q and aoo\-S APPROVING Amended City Council
Policy 44 and City Council Policy bb .
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On July 18, 2001, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended approval (5-1 Segall) of a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to repeal and reenact the City’s
Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) to I) Create a user-friendly document that provides clear and detailed development standards and procedures for the development of
small-lot, single-family and two-family\multiple-family ownership dwelling units; 2) Modify development
standards to ensure that homes are in better scale to lot sizes and 3) Modify residential development and
design standards to achieve the development of more livable neighborhoods.
The major revisions to the Planned Development Ordinance include the following:
1. User-friendlv tables: Detailed regulations are provided in tabular format for small lot single family, two-
family and multi-family dwelling units. 2. Homes in better scale to lot size: To ensure that homes are in better scale to lot sizes, the minimum
single-family lot size and required side yard setback have been increased and new lot coverage standards are recommended.
3. To create more livable neiqhborhoods: s streets and driveways have been narrowed and landscaped parkways are required;
. front-yard setbacks have been reduced, however, the distance from the house to the street
remains the same;
m front porches, courtyards or balconies are required on 50% of the units;
. garages are required to be recessed; . 15% of the units are required td be single story;
9 larger centralized common recreation areas are required and . larger private rear yards/patios/balconies are required.
Two companion actions are also being recommended along with the proposed Planned Development
Ordinance revisions; amended City Council Policy 44 (Neighborhoods Design Guidelines) and a new City
Council Policy for (Livable Neighborhoods). The first action includes a new City Council policy outlining the
City’s vision for Livable Neighborhoods and its intent to consider these principles in the review of proposed -esidential projects. The second action includes an amendment to City Council Policy 44, Small Lot
4rchitectural Guidelines (proposed name: Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines) to add several
orovisions addressing building mass and facade articulation and to apply these provisions to all new single-
family and two-family development proposals. Major features of the revised policy are provided below:
1. Aoolicabilitv. The revised Architectural Guidelines would no longer apply solely to small-lot planned developments but also to all proposed single-family homes, two-family homes, and residential
remodels. There currently are no architectural guidelines applicable to such homes, whether the
project is located in an inflll area or in an undeveloped area of town. Especially in the older parts of the
City, there have been complaints about the lack of compatibility demonstrated by new, larger two-story
homes being developed on inflll lots located in neighborhoods that are developed predominantly with smaller, single-story homes. The amended policy would provide such a tool by addressing building
mass and articulation for all new single-family and two-family homes. It will also ensure that older homes proposed for remodeling will be compatible with surrounding development, Staff believes that
implementation of these similar design guidelines, that formerly applied only to Planned
Developments, will provide the necessary building articulation to reduce the bulk and mass of all new
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 4 4 y 1 b !
and remodeled homes to a more acceptable scale. Projects of four or fewer units would have to
comply with only some of the guidelines. This recognizes the smaller scale of some projects, provides a high degree of architectural design freedom and yet ensures adequate building articulation and
design interest.
2. Sinale-storv Homes. A new provision has been added to require 15 percent of the homes in a
proposed project to be constructed as single-story structures. This standard is intended to provide an
overall reduction in project building mass through the use of a lower roof line on some of the units. Varying roof lines improves the streetscape by creating additional visual diversity. This issue becomes
even more important when homes are located along ridge-lines and visible from greater distances.
3. Porches. Open Courtvards. Balconies. Another new requirement is for 50 percent of the homes to
provide a minimum area of 60 square feet designed as a covered front porch, open courtyard or
balcony and located at the front of the dwelling. These features provide additional building
articulation, create a stronger relationship with the street and provide additional opportunities for
neighborhood interaction.
4. Three-car-in-a-row Garages. The total number of homes in a project that are permitted to have 3 car
garages has been reduced from 75% to 12.5%. Such garages are typically located adjacent to each
other and directly face the street. When used in this design, 3 car garages become the prominent feature on a home and on the street forming a physical barrier between residents and pedestrians.
The principles of livable neighborhoods place the livable space of the home as prominent to the street rather than the garage (car). This provision strengthens the appearance of the streetscape as well as
the character and identity of the neighborhood. Making the home prominent to the street is important to achieving a sense of place in a neighborhood.
5. De,sian Elements. The last major change to Policy 44 is that each dwelling unit must provide a variety
of design elements to add character and interest to the home. A list of sample elements is provided in
the policy but proposed design elements may vary depending upon the chosen architectural style of
the homes. The intent is to strengthen design quality and provide flexibility but to prevent the
construction of homes with flat, featureless elevations.
Since this zone code amendment would apply citywide, a companion amendment to-the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCPA 01-01) is also proposed so that the Planned Development Ordinance becomes effective within
the coastal zone.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
On July 18, 2001, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration and Addendum issued by the Planning Director on March 15,200O.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There will be a minimal fiscal impact resulting from the expenditures of staff time required to complete the processing of documents through the Coastal Commission.
EXHIBITS:
1.
2.
3. 4.
City Council Ordinance No. ws- (0 1 s (ZCAOI-01)
City Council Resolution No. 200 \ - 35 3 (Negative Declaration and Addendum/ZCA Ol-
Ol/LCPA 01-01))
City Council Resolution No. 200 \- 3s 4 (Amended City Council Policy 44)
City Council Resolution No. m \ - 3 SS (City Council Policy Neighborhood Architectural
Guidelines) 5. City Council Policy 44 - bold/strikeout
6. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4982,4958 and 4959 7. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 18, 2001 8. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated July 18, 2001.
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
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. NS-612
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT
FOR A COMPREHENSIVE AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE CHAPTER 21.45, TITLE 21, OF THE
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE
CASE NAME: AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE CASE NO: ZCA 01-01
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: That Title 2 1, Chapter 21.45 is amended to read as follows:
TITLE 21 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS
CHAPTER 21.45
21.45.010
21.45.020
21.45.030 21.45.040
21.45.050 21.45.060 21.45.070
21.45.080 21.45.090
21.45.100
21.45.110
21.45.120 21.45.130
21.45.140
21.45.150
21.45.160 21.45.170
Intent and Purpose
Applicability
Definitions
Permitted Zones and Uses
Application and Permit Procedures
General Development Standards Small-lot, Single-Family and Two-Family Dwelling Development Standards
Multiple-Dwelling Development Standards
Residential Additions and Accessory Uses Amendments to Permits
Conversion of Existing Buildings to Planned Developments Expiration, Extension, Revisions
Proposed Common Ownership Land or Improvements
Maintenance Failure to Maintain
Model Homes Restriction on Reapplication for a Planned Development Permit
21.45.010 Intent and Purpose The purpose of the Planned Development ordinance is to:
A. Recognize the need for a diversity of housing and product types;
B. Provide a method for clustered property development that recognizes that the impacts of
environmentally and topographically constrained land preclude the full development of a site as a
standard single-family subdivision; C. Establish a process to approve the following: separate ownership of dwelling units with
lots or exclusive use areas of less than 7,500 square feet in size, or as otherwise allowed by the
underlying zone; condominium ownership in multiple-unit buildings, and conversion of existing, residential
development to condominiums;
D. Allow the development of small-lot subdivisions in existing R-l neighborhoods when the
proposed site is contiguous to a higher intensity land use or an existing project of comparable or higher
density; E. Permit the development of small-lot subdivisions in multi-family zones as an alternative
product type to attached dwelling units, and;
F. Encourage and allow more creative and imaginative design by including relief from
compliance with standard residential zoning regulations. To offset this flexibility in development
standards, planned developments are required to incorporate amenities and features not normally
required of standard residential developments.
21.45.020 Applicability
A. A planned development permit is required for the development of single-family lots or
exclusive use areas of less than 7,500 square feet or as otherwise allowed by the underlying zone,
attached condominiums, and the conversion of existing residential development to condominiums. These
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
regulations do not apply to attached residential units proposed for inclusion as part of a commercial
development project.
B. Any application for a planned development permit that 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 the ordinance codified in this chapter.
C. Enlargement of buildings that are legally non-conforming is permitted provided that such
enlargement does not increase the floor space more than 40% of that existing prior to such enlargement
and that the new addition complies with the new setback and lot coverage requirements of this chapter.
D. If there is a conflict between the regulations of this chapter and any regulations approved as part of the City’s certified local coastal programs, a redevelopment master or specific plan, the
regulations of the local coastal program, or the master or specific plan shall prevail. E. A planned development permit shall apply to residential projects only. The City Council,
Planning Commission or Planning Director, as provided in this chapter may approve a permit for a
planned development in any residential zone or combination of zones subject to the requirements thereof
except as they may be modified in accord with this chapter. When approved, a planned development
permit shall become a part of the zoning regulations applicable to the subject property.
F. In granting a planned development permit, the Planning Commission or City Council may
modify the plan or impose such conditions as it deems necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. Any development standards of the underlying zone in which the property is situated,
including yards, parking, coverage, signs, fences and walls, may be modified by the Planning Commission or City Council as necessary to accomplish the purposes of this chapter.”
21.45030 Definitions Whenever the following terms are used in this chapter, they shall have the meaning established by this
section:
A. “Condominium project” means a common interest subdivision defined by Sections 1350-
1376 of the California Government Code. B. “Driveway (SF)” means an improved surface on private property intended for vehicular
access from a public/private street to open/enclosed parking for a detached single-family home.
C. “Driveway (Project)” means an improved surface on private property intended for shared
vehicular access from a public/private street to open/enclosed parking for two or more residential units.
D. “Duplex” means two homes on one lot attached by a common wall and under common
ownership. Duplex may be converted to individual ownership with approval of a planned development permit.
E. “Net pad area” means the building pad of a lot excluding all natural or manufactured
slopes greater than three feet in height except intervening manufactured slopes between split-level pads
on a single lot. F. “Planned development” means a form of development usually characterized by a unified site design for a number of housing units, clustering buildings, and providing common open space,
recreation and streets.
G. “Twin-home” means two homes attached by a common wall where each home and lot or exclusive use area has separate ownership.
21.45.040 Permitted Zones and Uses.
A. Permitted Zones, The Planning Director, Planning Commission or City Council may
approve a permit for a planned development in the R-l, R-2, R-3, RD-M, R-W and P-C residential zones
or combination of zones subject to the requirements of this chapter. When approved, a planned
development permit shall become the zoning regulations applicable to the subject property.
B. Permitted Uses. In addition to any principal use, accessory use, transitional use or
conditional use permitted in the underlying zone, planned developments that are proposed in the following residential zones may include the following residential uses listed in Table A, Permitted
Residential Uses below:
I//
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
5
1C
11
12
12
1L
15
1t
1:
11
l!
2(
2'
2:
2:
22
2:
21
2'
2:
Table A
Permitted Residential Uses
Zone Multiple Dwelling Two-Family Dwelling Single-family
Detached Dwelling
R-I N/A x (2) X (1)
R-2 x (2) X X
R-3 X X X
RD-M
X X X Accessory Uses (4)
X X X
P-c (3) X X X
(1) When the project site is contiguous to a higher intensity land use or an existing project of comparable or highel
(2) Only permitted when the proposed project site is contiguous to a lot or lots zoned R-3. R-T. R-P, GI, C-2, C-M or M,
density.
(3) Permitted uses shall be consistent with the master plan.
but in no case shall the project site consist of more than one lot nor be more than 90 feet in width, whichever is less.
(4) Refer to Table F for specific uses.
21.45.050 Application and Permit The application for a planned development permit shall be made in writing on the form provided
addressing all development standards and design requirements as contained in this chapter and shall be
by the Planning Department. The application shall include a site plan, building elevations and floor plans
accompanied by the required fee in an amount specified by City Council resolution. The application for i
planned development shall state whether the applicant intends to develop the project as a plannec
development or condominium project and the proposed method of land division (i.e.; postage stamp lots air-space condominiums).
procedures for Minor (4 or fewer dwelling units) and Major (5 or more dwelling units) permits.
A. Processina Procedures. Table B, Required Processing Procedures, identifies required
Table B
Required Processing Procedures
Topic Planning Director Decision-Making Body
Minor Major
DU); Council City (more than 50 or Official
Planning Commission (up to 50
DU)
Map Required
See Chapter 21.54 See Chapter 21.54, Section Appeals
Yes No Public Hearing Required
Chapter 21 54, Section See Title 20, Chapter 20.24. Section Public Notice Required
See Section 21.45.050(8) See Section 21.45.050(8) Required Findings
Major Subdivision Map (See Title Minor Subdivision Map (See Title 20,
Chapter 20.24) 20, Chapter 20.12)
20.24.115 21.54.060(1)
21.54.140
approve or conditionally approve a planned development permit only if it finds that both of the followin!
B. Reauired Findinas. The Planning Director, Planning COmmiSSiOn Or City Council sha'
facts exist. 1. The proposed project complies with all applicable development standards included withi1
this chapter. 2. The proposed project density, site design and architecture are compatible wit1
surrounding development
21.45.060 General Development Standards.
All planned developments shall comply with the general development standards specified in Table (
below. Specific standards applicable to small-lot, single-family/two-family dwelling and multiple-dwellin! condominium projects can be found in Tables D and E, respectively.
-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
Table C
Density
Arterial
Setbacks
Building
Setbacks
Permitted
Intrusions into Setbacks
Visitor
Parking/
General Development Standards Applicable to All Planned Developments
Per the underlying General Plan designation. When two or more general plan land use
designations exist within a planned development, the density may not be transferred from one general plan designation to another without a general plan amendment.
All dwelling units and accessory structures adjacent to any arterial road shown on the
Circulation Element of the General Plan shall maintain the-following minimum setbacks
from the right-of-way: Prime Arterial 50 Feet
Major Arterial 40 Feet Secondary Arterial 30 Feet
Carlsbad Boulevard 20 Feet
An average of 50% Of the required setback area that is located closest to the arterial shall be landscaped to enhance the streetscene and buffer homes from traffic on
adjacent arterials. Project perimeter walls shall not be located in the landscaped buffer. The landscaped buffer shall contain a minimum of one 24” box tree for every 30 lineal
feet of street frontage. This arterial landscape setback shall be commonly-owned and
maintained by the homeowners’ association.
All setbacks shall be measured from the property line, from the back of sidewalk or from the edge of the project driveway, whichever is closest to the structure.
Projecting architectural features, which do not increase the useable living area of a
dwelling unit, (including, but not limited to, cornices, eaves, bell courses, sills, buttresses and fireplaces) may intrude up to 2 feet into required building setbacks.
l 10 units or less: 1 space for each 2 units or fraction thereof
l 11 units or more: 5 spaces for the first 10 units, plus 1 space for each 4 units above
IO
l In cases where a fractional parking space is required, the required number of spaces
shall be rounded to the nearest highest whole number.
On
Private/Public
Streets
l Visitor parking may be provided: (1) along both sides of a minimum 34-foot wide
private/public street or (2) in perpendicular bays. When visitor parking is provided
on-street, not less than 24 lineal feet per space, exclusive of driveway entrances and
driveway aprons, shall be provided for each parking space, except where parallel
parking spaces are located immediately adjacent to driveway aprons, then 20 lineal
feet may be provided.
Driveways l Visitor parking must be provided in parking bays.
Private Minimum 34 feet wide (curb-to-curb) with parkways (minimum 5.5’ wide) and sidewalks
Streets (minimum 5’ wide) on b&h sides of the street. -
Public Streets Minimum 34 feet wide (curb-to-curb) with parkways (minimum 7’ wide) and sidewalks
(minimum 5’ wide) on both sides of the street.
Parkways Minimum 5.5 feet wide parkways are required along both sides of private streets. For
with Street small-lot, single-family and two-family projects, a minimum of one street tree (24 inch
Trees box) per lot is required to be planted in the parkway along all streets. For multi-family
projects, street trees shall be spaced no further apart than 30 feet on center within the
parkway. Tree species should be selected to create a unified image for the street,
provide an effective canopy, avoid sidewalk damage and minimize water consumption.
Driveway l Minimum 24 feet wide with no parking permitted in travel way. (Project) l Additional width may be required for maneuvering area in front of garages, carports
or uncovered parking spaces or to provide transition to a driveway approach.
l No more than 20 single-family/two-family dwelling units shall be located along a
single-entry driveway.
l Parkways/sidewalks may be required.
l Driveways in motor courts shall be constructed of concrete.
l All driveways/motor courts shall be accented with enhanced pavement treatment.
Dwelling Unit All dwelling units shall be set back a minimum 5 feet from open parking areas. Setback from
Ooen Parkina
-4-
1
;
3
4
4
t
5
8
!G
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Screening of
Parking
Areas -
Community
Recreational
Space
Recreation Area Parking
Lighting
Utilities
Recreational Vehicle
Storage
Storage
Space
qntennas
All open parking areas shall be screened from adjacent residences and public rights-of
way by either a view-obscuring wall or landscaping.
All projects of more than 10 dwelling units shall provide 200 square feet of centralized
community recreational space per unit. Projects with 25 or fewer units shall provide
passive &r active recreation facilities; projects with more than 25 units shall provide bott
passive ancJ active recreational facilities with a minimum of 75 percent of the arei
allocated for active facilities. Projects of more than 50 units shall provide recreatior facilities for a variety of age groups. Examples of recreation facilities include, but are no
limited to, the following:
Swimming pool with cabana, children’s playground equipment, spa, tennis court Active:
racquetball court, volleyball court, basketball court, recreation rooms OI
buildings, horseshoe pits, pitch and putt, grassy play areas a minimum of IOC feet by 100 feet and any other facility deemed by the Planning Director to satisfi
the intent of providing active recreational facilities. Passive: Benches, barbecues, community gardens, or grassy play areas with a slope o
less than 5%.
l Credit for indoor recreation facilities shall not exceed 25% of the required centralizec community recreation area.
l Required recreation areas shall not be located in any required front yard and may no1
include any driveways, parking areas, walkways, storage areas, or any slopes of 5%
or greater.
l For single-family or two-family projects of 50 units or more, at least 25 percent of the
common recreation space must be provided as pocket parks. Pocket park lots mud
have a minimum width of 50 feet and be located at strategic locations such as streei intersections (especially “T-intersections”) and where open space vistas may be
achieved.
1 space for each 15 residential lots or fraction thereof for lots located more than 1,000
feet from a centralized community recreation center lot.
Lighting adequate for pedestrian and vehicular safety shall be provided.
Separate utility systems shall be provided for each unit.
l Required for projects with 25 or more units
l 20 square feet per unit exclusive of area required for driveways and approaches
l Developments located within master plans or residential specific plans may have this
requirement met by the common RV storage area provided by the master plan or
residential specific plan.
l The storage of recreational vehicles shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and
on any public or private streets or any other area visible to the public. A provision containing this restriction shall be included in the covenants, conditions and
restrictions for the project. All RV storage areas shall be landscaped to screen vehicles to the maximum extent feasible.
480 cubic feet of separate storage space per unit. If all storage for each unit is located in
one area, the space may be reduced to 392 cubic feet. This space shall be separately
enclosed for each unit and be conveniently accessible to the outdoors. The space may
be designed as an enlargement of the required covered parking structure provided it
does not extend into the area of the required parking stall. This requirement is in addition
to closets and other indoor storage areas.
Each project shall have a master antenna and/or a cable television hookup. Antennas
are permitted subject to the provisions of Chapter 21.53 of this code and any applicable
federal regulations,
21.45.070 Small-lot, Single-family and Two-Family Dwelling Development Standards
A. In addition to the General Development Standards found in Table C, planned developments that include single-family or two-family dwelling product types shall comply with the
following development standards found in Table D, Small-Lot, Single-family and Two-Family Dwelling
Development Standards.
-5-
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
Table D
I Small-Lot. Single-Family and Two-Family Dwelling Development Standards I I
Standard Requirement
Livable Neighborhood Policy
Architectural Requirements
Minimum Lot Size or Exclusive Use
Area
Maximum Lot Coverage
Minimum Lot Width ‘I’
Maximum Building Height
Minimum Front Setback: . From a private or public street (‘I
. From a driveway (project)
Minimum Street Frontage
Must comply with City Council Policy 66, Principles for the
Development of Livable Neighborhoods
l Must comply with City Council Policy 44, Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines.
l Sir-role-family - 5,000 SF; except that lots sizes less than
5,000 SF to a minimum lot size of 3,500 SF may be used when the site has a general plan designation of
RMH or RH and when unique circumstances such as one of the following exists:
1) The project is for lower-income or seniors housing;
2) The site is located west of Interstate 5:
3) The dwelling units are designed with alley-loaded garages; or
4) The site is either located contiguous to a Circulation Element roadway or within 1200 feet of a commuter
rail/ transit center, commercial center or employment
center.
l Two-family - 3,750 SF when developed as a twin home;
7,500 SF when developed as a duplex.
l 2 story homes - Lots equal to or greater than 5,000 SF,
40% of the net pad area; lots less than 5,000 SF, 50%
of the net pad area . 1 story homes - 60% of the net pad area
l Porches with no livable space above the porch and Porte-cocheres no more than 20 feet in width and 6 feet
in depth are exempt from lot coverage requirements.
l Single-family on lots equal to or greater than 5,000 SF - 50 feet;
l Single-family on lots less than 5,000 - 40 feet, 35 feet
on cul-de-sac
l Two-family - 35 feet when developed as a twin home; 70 feet when developed as a duplex.
Maximum 30 feet and two stories if a minimum roof pitch of
3/l 2 is provided or 24 feet and two stories if less than a 3/l 2
roof pitch.
l Covered front porch - 8 feet
l Residence - 12 feet average (3), 10 feet minimum
l Side-entry garage - IO feet
l Direct entry garage - 20 feet
l Residence - 8 feet, fully landscaped
l Garage - 5 feet
l Garages facing directly onto a project driveway shall be
equipped with an automatic garage door opener.
On sharply curved streets or cul-de-sacs - 35 feet. This frontage may be reduced to a minimum of 25 feet if
adequate guest parking (that does not directly back onto the street) is provided near the end of the cul-de-sac in parking
bavs or another acceptable manner. Such lots must reach a
width of 35 feet at some point near the middle of the lot.
IO feet; 20 foot setback required for garages that face a
street side yard
Minimum Street Side-Yard Setback
-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
Standard
Minimum Side-Yard Setback
Requirement
. Two-story homes on lots with a minimum width of 60 feel and all one-story homes regardless of lot width shall have
a minimum side yard setback equal to 10% of the lo1
width on each side.
. All two-story homes on lots that are less than 60 feel
wide shall have a combined minimum sideyard setback
equal to 25% of the lot width with a minimum sideyard
setback of 5 feet
n Zero lot tine homes may reduce one side yard setback to
0 feet provided that the other sideyard setback is equal to
20% or 25% of the lot width as required herein
Min. Rear Yard Setback l 20% of lot width
. Garages located on the rear half of l 5 feet from rear property line
the lot l Any second story living space above a garage shall
observe a minimum IO foot setback from the rear property line.
Recreational Space l Projects of I-10 dwelling units - 25 feet x 25 feet of . Private Rear Yard useable rear yard with no slope gradient greater than 5
percent.
l Projects of more than 10 dwelling units - 18 feet x 18
feet of useable rear yard with no slope gradient greater
than 5 percent.
l Alley-loaded projects - 15 feet x 15 feet of useable side
yard with no slope gradient greater than 5 percent.
n Common recreation l Projects of more than IO dwelling units - See General
Standards, Table C
Tandem Visitor Parking Credit Credit for one 1 tandem visitor parking space in front of a garage may be given for:
l Existing two-family homes that are proposed to be
converted to condominiums provided that the garage is set back a minimum of 20 feet from the front property
line; and
Resident Parking
l Single-family or two-family homes lots with a driveway
that is equal to or greater than 40 feet in length.
Two car garage (minimum 20 feet x 20 feet)
-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
Standard
Garages
Requirement
l On a project basis, garages for single-family or two
family homes dwelling units shall be sited as follows: r4) a. For a project with 3 floor plans:
n A minimum of 33% of all units shall include garages that are recessed a minimum of 5 feet
behind the front house facade;
9 An additional 33% of all units shall include
garages that are located a minimum of 30 feet behind the front property line;
9 A maximum of 33% of all units may be side, loaded or project 6 feet forward of the fron
house facade provided that the garages do no exceed 50% of the total house frontage._
b. For a project with 4 or more floor plans:
. A minimum of 50% of all units shall include
garages that are recessed a minimum of 5 feet
behind the front house facade; . An additional 25% of all units shall include
garages that are located a minimum of 30 feet behind the front property line;
. A maximum of 25% of all units may be side-
loaded or project 6 feet forward of the front
house facade provided that the garages do not exceed 50% of the total house frontage.
c. No more than 20% of the total project units may
include three-in-a-row car garages that directly face
the street. Three-in-a-row garages that directly face
the street are defined as garages having space for
three cars whether constructed as 3 one-car
garages located adjacent to each other or constructed as a two-car garage separated from a
one-car garage with all garage doors directly parallel
to the street. The garages must have a plane
change of a minimum of 18 inches between the two- car and one-car garages. This configuration must
also break the roof plane with a design element
such as a gable or trellis.
Garages that are recessed 20 feet back from the forward-most plane of the house are exempt from
this provision. Such garages may occur only when they do not exceed 40% of the width of the home
along the street frontage.
In special circumstances, when lots less than 5,000
square feet in size are permitted in a planned
development, three-in-a-row car garages may not be
used. Tandem garages are exempt from this
requirement.
l 25% of all driveways for non-alley-loaded projects must
be designed as “Pasadena” driveways with grass or enhanced pavement in the middle . Driveways for side-loaded garages must incorporate
enhanced pavement to improve appearance.
(1) Lot width is measured 20’ behind the front property line.
-8-
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
(2) Setbacks are applicable to streets that include parkways and sidewalks along both sides. For existing streets without
parkways, the front setback shall be as follows: Front porch - 15’, Residence - 15’ (average), 10’ (minimum), Side-entry garage - lo’, Direct entry garage - 20’.
(3) The average front-yard setback is determined by adding together all of the unit front-yard setbacks (the setback for each unit should be measured from that element of each building, excluding projections, that is located closest to the front property line) and dividing that total by the total number of project units. (4) Garage standards do not apply to alley loaded projects.
21.45.080 Multiple-Dwelling Development Standards
A. In addition to the General Development Standards found in Table C, planner
developments that include multiple-dwelling units shall comply with the following development standard!
listed in Table E, Multiple-Dwelling Development Standards.
Mul
Standards Requirement
Livable Neighborhood Policy
Maximum Lot Coverage
Maximum Building Height
Minimum Building Setbacks ...
Must comply with City Council Policy 66, Principles for the
Development of Livable Neighborhoods
60% on a project basis
35 feet
. Private or public street (‘)
. Driveway (Project)
Architectural Design Elements
Table E ble-Dwellina Develooment Standards
l To front porch - 11 feet
l To residential structure- 15 foot average (2)
l To street side yard - IO feet
l To side entry garage - 10 feet
l To direct entry garage - 20 feet
l Residence - 8 feet, fully landscaped
l Garage - 5 feet
l Garages facing directly onto a driveway shall be equipped with
an automatic garage door opener.
l There shall be at least 3 separate building planes on all
building elevations. The minimum offset in planes shall be 18
inches and shall include but not be limited to building walls,
windows, and roofs.
l Building facades shall incorporate a minimum of four of the following types of design elements:
a. Covered front porches (may count toward meeting recreation
space requirements);
b. A variety of roof planes; c. Windows and doors recessed a minimum of 2 inches;
d. Paned windows and doors;
e. Exposed roof rafter tails;
f. Window and door lintels; g. Dormers; h. Accent and varied shape windows;
i. Exterior wood elements;
j. Raised stucco trim around windows and doors;
k. Accent materials such as brick, stone, shingles, wood or
siding, and; I. Knee braces
(1) Setbacks are applicable to streets that include parkways and sidewalks along both sides. For existing streets without parkways, the front setback shall be as follows: Front porch - 16 feet, residence - 20 foot minimum, side-entry garage - 10 feet, direct entry garage - 20 feet.
(2) The average front yard setback is determined by adding together all of the unit front yard setbacks (the setback for each unit should be
measured from that element of each building, excluding projections, that is located closest to the front property line) and dividing that total
by the total number of project units.
-9-
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
Standards
Minimum Building Separation
Resident Parking
Visitor Parking
Compact
Parking
Recreational Space:
l Private
m Common
Requirement 20 feet average with a minimum of 10 feet between structures. NC structures (i.e.; stairs, stairwells, balconies etc.) are permitted to encroach into this setback.
l One 12 feet x 20 feet car garage and I covered or uncovered
space per unit
l Studio units - 1.5 spaces; 1 covered per unit . 10 units or less: 1 space for each 2 dwelling units or fraction
thereof
l 11 units or more: 5 spaces for the first 10 units, plus 1 space
for each 4 dwelling units above 10
l Visitor parking spaces must be located no more than 150 ft. a!
measured in a logical walking path from the entrance of the uni
it could be considered to serve.
l Visitor parking must be provided in parking bays.
For projects of more than 25 units, up to 25 percent of visit0
parking may be provided as compact spaces (8 feet by 15 feet). Nc
overhang is permitted into any required setback area or ove sidewalks less than 6 feet wide.
. Projects of l-10 dwelling units - 15 ft. x 15 ft. patio B 120 sq.
ft. of balcony area.
l Projects of more than 10 dwelling units - 10 ft. x 10 ft. patioa
6 ft. x 10 ft. balcony
l Projects of more than 10 dwelling units - See General
Standards, Table C
21.45.090 Residential Additions and Accessory Uses
A. Residential Additions and Accessorv Uses. Table F includes a listing of Residential
Additions and Accessory Use Standards that are permitted based on the type of residential use, the type
of permit required and the required development standards.
Table F Is/Accessory Use Standar
Side Yard 1
Setback Rear Yard
Setback
Type of I--- Residential
Use
Single-family Attached/
(SF), Two- detached Patio
family (TF) Covers
SF
SF, TF
Res dential Additil
Type of Front Yard
Accessory Use Setback
Garages,
Workshops
Front yard
Arbors
20 feet
20 feet
5 feet
I
5 feet to 5 feet to
posts with posts with
a permitted a
2 foot permitted
overhang 2 foot
;
Require
Remarks d Permit
Open or lattice- Building
top patio covers
may be located
within the
required private
recreation space.
See (2) Residenti
al
Addition
Open trellises or Building
arbors not
greater in size
than 4 ft. x 6 ft. x lOftor4ft.xlO
ft. x the width of
the driveway if
used over a
driveway
-lO-
1
;
3
4
5 4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Type of Residential
Use
SF, TF
SF, TF
SF, TF
SF Second
Dwelling Units
SF Guest Houses
BF, TF
SF, TF
1) Maximum bu; 2) Minimum IO-,
Type of
Accessory Use
Tool Sheds,
Decks over 30
inches in height
Porte-cochere
Room
Additions,
Other Habitable
Structures
Pool, Spa
Satellite
Antenna
ng height is 14 feet u1 1 a 3:12 roof pitc
It separation requirec etween habitab
Front Yard
Setback
20 feet
Must observe
same setbacks as
home
Must comply with
all developme
nt Standards
of Section 21.45.070
Must comply with
all developme
nt standards
of Sections 21.10.015
and 21.45.070.
Must
comply with
all developme
nt standards
of Section
21.45.070
20 feet
NA
Side Yard Setback
5 feet
Must
observe
same
setbacks
as home
5 feet -
,001 ! feet -
;pa
\1A
Ir 10 feet with 8tructures. les
Rear Yard
Setback
5 feet
NA
5 feet -
3001
Z feet -
Spa
\1A
Equipment may
be placed in
required yards
subject to Building Code
requirements
NA
s than a 3:12 )f pitch.
Remarks
See (1)
See (VI (2)
See (2) (3)
See (2) (3)
Require d
Permit
Building
tesidenti II
Addition
lesidenti al
Addition
Second Dwelling
Unit
:esidenti al
Addition
Building
See
Bections Z1.53.1
10, 21.45.0 30
(3) Must be architecturally compatible with the existing structure.
B. Residential Addition Permit. Application for a Planned Development Residential-Addition
Permit (PDRAP) shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in this subsection.
1. Application Process. An application for a Planned-Development Residential-Addition Permit may be made by the owners of the property or an-authorized agent. The application for a
Residential Addition Permit shall be made in writing on the form provided by the Planning Department
-ll-
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
and shall be accompanied by the required fee. The application shall include amended exhibits, graphics,
statements or other information as specified by the Planning Director. 2. Noticing. Upon the acceptance of a complete application and payment of the
required fees, the Planning Director shall notify at least 15 days prior to a decision on an application by
mail or personal delivery, all property owners as shown on the latest equalized assessment role and
located within 100 feet from the property line of the subject property.
a. Written Objections. Any person so notified may file written objections or a written request to be heard within 10 days after the mailing or personal delivery of the notice. If a written
request to be heard is filed, the Planning Director shall schedule a hearing and provide written notice to the applicant and the person who requested the hearing at least five days prior to the hearing. The
hearing is not a public hearing and may be informal. b. Notice of Decision. Notice of the Planning Director’s decision on a Residential
Addition Permit shall be mailed to the applicant within five days of the date of the decision. The Planning Director may approve or conditionally approve the request if alJ of the required standards are met. If a
hearing is held, he shall render his decision within 10 days after the conclusion of the hearing. The letter
shall also be sent to any person who requested notice or appeared at the hearing.
C. Appeal. Any decision of the Planning Director pursuant to this section may be
appealed by any person to the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 21.54, Section
21.54.140 of this code.
21.45.100 Amendments to Permits. A. Amendments to a permit may be initiated by the property owner or an authorized agent or
by motion of the City Council, as follows:
1. Minor Amendment. A project revision may be considered and approved as a Minor Amendment only if all of the following findings are made: a. Density. The proposed revision does not increase the density (i.e. the addition of
units), decrease the density by more than IO%, or change the boundary of the subject property. b. Addition of New Land Use. The proposed revision does not involve the addition
of a new land use not shown on the original permit (e.g. adding a commercial use to a residential project,
replacing single-family units with attached residential units, vice versa for each example, etc)
c. Rearrangement of Land Uses. The proposed revision does not rearrange the
major land uses within the development (e.g., it does not exchange the locations of single-family units with attached units). d. Compliance with Standards. The proposed revision does not create changes of
greater than 10% provided that compliance will be maintained with the applicable development standards
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code as follows:
1) Per individual lot or structure basis: Yards, setbacks, coverage or height
(except that height reductions of more than 10% are permitted); 2) On an aggregate project basis: Parking, open space, recreation or
landscaping areas. e. Application Process. The application for a Minor Amendment shall be made in
writing on the form provided by the Planning Department and shall be accompanied by the required fee.
The application shall include amended exhibits, graphics, statements or other information as may be required to explain and justify the request.
f. Notice. If the Planning Director considers the amendment minor in nature the
Planning Director shall give written notice by mail or personal delivery to all property owners within 300
feet of the subject property, as shown on the latest equalized assessment role, at least 15 days prior to a
decision on an application. g. Appeal. Otherwise, Any decision of the Planning Director pursuant to this section
shall be processed, heard, and determined in accordance with Section 21.54.140 of this code. 2. Major Amendment. An application for a Major Amendment of a Planned
Development Permit shall be processed, heard and determined in the same manner as an application for a Planned Development Permit. When necessary, the amendment shall be accompanied by an
amendment to the corresponding parcel map or tentative map.
21.45.110 Conversion of Existing Buildings to Planned Developments
A. Applicability. Any application for a condominium conversion, shall not be subject to the amended provisions of this chapter but shall be processed and approved or disapproved pursuant to the
ordinance in effect at the time that the original project was approved or constructed.
B. Buildinq Plans and Gas/Electric Plan. An application for conversion of an existing structure to
-12-
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 planned development shall include building plans indicating how the building relates to present building
and zoning regulations and where modifications will be required. Also, the application shall include a
letter from San Diego Gas and Electric explaining that the plans to connect the gas and electric system to separate systems are acceptable.
C. Notice to Tenants. In addition to all other required findings for a subdivision, the City Council
shall find that:
1. First Notice. Each of the tenants of the proposed condominium or planned
development project has been or will be given 180 days written notice of intention to convert prior to
termination of tenancy due to the conversion or proposed conversion. The provisions of this subdivision
shall not alter or abridge the rights or obligations of the parties in performance of their covenants, including, but not limited to the provisions of services, payment of rent or the obligations imposed by
Section 1941, 1941 .I and 1941.2 of the Civil Code. 2. Right to Contract for Purchase. Each of the tenants of the proposed condominium or
planned development project has been or will be given notice of an exclusive right to contract for the
purchase of their respective units upon the same terms and conditions that such units will be initially
offered to the general public at terms more favorable to the tenant. The right shall run for a period of not
less than 90 days from the date of issuance of the subdivision public report pursuant to Section 11018.2
of the Business and Professions Code, unless the tenant gives prior written notice of his intention not to
exercise the right.
3. Relocation assistance. The subdivider shall provide relocation assistance equal to
one month’s rent to any residential tenant who relocated from the building to be converted after receipt from the subdivider of the notification required by this chapter, except when the tenant has given notice of
his intent to vacate prior to receipt of the notification from the subdivider. Relocation assistance shall be provided no later than 15 days following the subdivider’s receipt of notification from the tenant of the
tenant’s intent to vacate unless other arrangements are made in writing between the tenant and the
subdivider.
21.45.120 Expiration, Extension and Revisions
A. The expiration, extension or revision of a planned development of four or less lots or units
shall be governed by the provision of Section 20.24.160, 20.24.180 and 20.24.080 of this code.
The expiration, extension or revision of a planned development of five or more lots or units shall be
governed by the provisions of Sections 20.12.100, 20.12.110 and 20.12.120 of this code regarding the
expiration, extension or revision of a tentative map.
21.45.130 Proposed Common Ownership Land or Improvements
A. Where a planned development contains any land or improvement proposed to be held in common ownership, the applicant shall submit a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions
(CC&Rs) with the final map. Such declaration shall set forth provisions for maintenance of all common
areas, payment of taxes and all other privileges and responsibilities of the common ownership. The CC&Rs shall include provisions prohibiting the homeowners’ association from quitclaiming land in an
Association easement for ownership to private property owners thus allowing the homeowners to privatize
a common area for his/her own use. The CCXRS shall be reviewed by and subject to approval of the
Planning Director.
21.45.140 Maintenance
A. All private streets, walkways, parking areas, landscaped areas, storage areas, screening
sewers, drainage facilities, utilities, open space, recreation facilities and other improvements not
dedicated to public use shall be maintained by the property owners. Provisions acceptable to the
Planning Director shall be made for the preservation and maintenance of all such improvements prior to the issuance of building permits.
21.45.150 Failure to Maintain
A. Public Nuisance. All commonly-owned lots, improvements and facilities shall be preserved
and maintained in a safe condition and in a state of good repair. Any failure to so maintain is unlawful
and a public nuisance endangering the health, safety and general welfare of the public and a detriment to
the surrounding community.
B. Removal of Public Nuisance. In addition to any other remedy provided by law for the
abatement, removal and enjoinment of such public nuisance, the Public Works Director may, after giving
notice, cause the necessary work of maintenance or repair to be done. The costs thereof shall be
assessed against the owner or owners of the project. C. Notice of Maintenance Required. The notice shall be in writing and mailed to all persons
-13-
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
whose names appear on the last equalized assessment roll as owners of real property within the project
at the address shown on the assessment roll. Notice shall also be sent to any person known to the Public
Works Director to be responsible for the maintenance or repair of the common areas and facilities of the project under an indenture or agreement. The Public Works Director shall also cause at least one copy of
such notice to be posted in a conspicuous place on the premises. No assessment shall be held invalid
for failure to post or mail or correctly address any notice. D. Commence Work Within 30 Davs of Notice. The notice shall particularly specify the work
required to be done and shall state that if the work is not commenced within 30 days after receipt of such
notice and diligently and without interruption prosecuted to completion, the City shall cause such work to be done, in which case the cost and expense of such work, including incidental expenses incurred by the
City, will be assessed against the property or against each separate lot and become a lien upon such property. E. Expiration of Thirtv-Day Period. If upon the expiration of the thirty-day period provided for in
subsection (D), the work has not been done, or having been commenced, is not being performed with diligence, the Public Works Director shall proceed to do such work or cause such work to be done. Upon
completion of such work, the Public Works Director shall file a written report with the City Council setting forth the fact that the work has been completed and the cost thereof, together with a legal description of
the property against which the cost is to be assessed. The Public Works Director shall thereafter give
notice in writing to the owners of the project in the manner provided in subsection (C) of the hour and
place that the City Council will pass upon the Public Works Directors report and will hear any protests
against the assessments. Such notice shall also set forth the amount of the proposed assessment.
F. Hearing. Upon the date and hour set for the hearing, the City Council shall hear and consider the Public Works Director’s report and any protests before proceeding to confirm, modify or reject the
assessments. G. Confirmation of Assessment, A list of assessment as finally confirmed by the City Council shall be sent to the city treasurer for collection. If any assessment is not paid within 10 days after its confirmation by the City Council, the City Clerk shall cause to be filed in the office of the county recorder
of the county a notice of lien, in a form approved by the City Attorney.
H. Notice of Lien. From and after the date of recordation of such notice of lien, the amount of
the unpaid assessment shall be a lien on the property against which the assessment is made, and such
assessment shall bear interest at the maximum rate allowed by law until paid in full. The lien shall continue until the amount of the assessment and all interest thereon has been paid. The lien shall have
priority according to law.
21.45160 Model Homes A. Except for model homes, building permits for construction within the proposed planned
development shall not be issued until a final subdivision map has been recorded for the project. A
maximum of six model home units may be constructed prior to recordation of the final map, provided that adequate provision acceptable to the Planning Director and City Attorney are made guaranteeing removal
of such complex if the final map is not recorded.
21.45.170 Restriction on Reapplication for Planned Development Permit
A. No application for a Planned Development Permit on the same property or essentially the
same property for which a permit has been denied by the City Council shall be accepted within 12 months
of such denial. This provision may be waived by the affirmative vote of a majority of the City Council.
SECTION II: That the findings of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning
Resolution 4958 constitute the findings of the City Council.
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
newspaper of general circulation within fifteen days after its adoption.
Ill
Ill
-14-
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
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council helc
on the 4th day of DECEMBE$2001 ,andthereafter.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Carlsbad, held on the - day of -., 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-15-
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-353
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 REPEAL AND REENACT THE PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, TITLE 21, CHAPTER 21.45 OF THE
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE ,TO CREATE A USER-FRIENDLY
DOCUMENT AND TO MODIFY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS TO ACHIEVE MORE LIVABLE NEIGHBOR-
HOODS AND TO ENSURE THAT HOMES ARE IN BETTER SCALE TO LOT SIZES.
CASE NAME: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AMEND-
MENT
CASE NO.: ZCA Ol-011LCPA 01-01
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on July 18, 2001, hold a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Negative Declaration, Zone Code Amendment 01-01 and
Local Coastal Program Amendment 01-01 and adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4982,
4958 and 4959 recommending to the City Council that they be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 11 th day of DECEMBER 2001 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 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,
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does hereby resolve as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the findings of the Planning Commission in Resolutions No. 4982, 4958 and
4959 constitute the findings of the City Council in this matter.
3. That the Negative Declaration, Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment, ZCA 01-01 and LCPA 01-01 respectively, are approved as shown in Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 4982, 4958 and 4959 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference .
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 AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad
on the 11th day of DECEMBER 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Finnila, Nygaard, Hall
NOES: None
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Ma)or,
:;
(SEAL)
-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
RESOLUTION NO. 2oo1- 3 54
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL REVISING CITY COUNCIL
POLICY NO. 44 (SMALL LOT ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES) TO: 1) RENAME THE POLICY “NEIGHBORHOOD ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
GUIDELINES”, 2) MODIFY THE ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES TO ACHIEVE THE DEVELOPMENT OF MORE “LIVABLE NEIGHBOR-
HOODS” AND 3) TO APPLY THE REVISED POLICY TO ALL
PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY AND TWO-FAMILY HOMES AND
RESIDENTIAL REMODELS. CASE NAME: CITY COUNCIL POLICY NO. 44 AMENDMENT
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 11 th day of DECEMBER
2001, considered said Policy Revision; and
WHEREAS, the revised policy will ensure that a variety of architectural elements are
incorporated into all new and remodeled single-family homes and two-family dwellings so that they are a)
visually interesting, b) have sufficient building articulation to reduce their bulk and mass, c) are in scale to
their lot size and d) strongly contribute to the creation of livable neighborhoods; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That City Council Policy No. 44 is amended as shown on Ex. “44” attached hereto.
//I
/Ii
Ill
Ill
III
III
Ill
Ill
III
Ill
Ill
Ill
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 AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad
on the 11th dayof DECEMBER 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Finnila, Nygaard, Hall
NOES: None
CLAUDE A. LE
(SEAL)
-2-
CITY OF CARLSBAD ;Policy No. 44
Date Issued 12/11/01
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Effective Date Q/l II01
Cancellation Date
Superseded No. 44
Dated 1 O/l O/89
Dated 08126197
General Subject: NEIGHBORHOOD ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
GUIDELINES
Specific Subject: ESTABLISHMENT OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads, Employee
Bulletin Boards, Press, File.
PURPOSE AND INTENT:
The purpose and intent of the architectural guidelines is to ensure that a variety of architectural elements are
incorporated into single-family homes and two-family structures so that they: a) are visually interesting, b)
have sufficient building articulation to reduce their bulk and mass, c) are in scale to their lot size, and d)
strongly contribute to the creation of livable neighborhoods.
APPLICABILITY:
* Single-family home remodels that cumulatively increase the useable living area (floor area) more
than 40% shall comply with architectural guidelines 3, 7, 13 and 14.
* A new individual single-family home shall comply with architectural guidelines 4, 5, 7, 13, and 14
(regardless of stated percentages) and one architectural guideline from numbers 1 through 3.
* New single-family and two-family residential projects of 2-4 homes shall comply with architectural
guidelines 4, 5, 7, 13, and 14 (regardless of stated percentages) and one architectural guideline from
numbers 1 through 3.
* New single-family and two-family residential projects of 5 or more homes shall comply with all of the
architectural guidelines.
PROCEDURES:
1. Applicants for discretionary project applications or residential building permits shall design
projects/homes so that they comply with the guidelines. Each applicant shall provide documentation
demonstrating compliance with this policy concurrent with the submittal of development/building
permit applications, whichever occurs first. If an applicant wishes to propose an architectural style
that complies with the Purpose and Intent of this policy and yet cannot comply with the requirements
of the guidelines, the applicant may request deviations from any of the architectural guidelines to
achieve an architectural design or style of equally superior quality. All such requests shall be fully
justified specifying how the Purpose and Intent of this policy is being achieved.
7 -. Staff shall review projects/building permits for compliance with the guidelines and provide
recommendations to the decision-makers regarding:
a. Project compliance with the policy;
b. Whether or not any requested deviations are justified; and, c. Whether or not the purpose and intent of the policy would still be achieved if a deviation is
granted.
P
3. Decision-makers shall determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether the project complies with the
intent of the policy to create livable neighborhoods.
1. A minimum of 15% (see Note #I below) of the total number of homes shall be single-story structures,
Single-story is defined as a maximum plate-line of 15 feet and a maximum building height of 20 feet.
Lofts are permitted subject to CMC Section 21.04.330. As an alternative to encourage homes with
alley-loaded garages, a minimum of 20% of the homes shall be single-story for the front 20% of the
home (overall depth of house times 20%).
2. A maximum of 20% of the total number of homes are exempt from the requirement to have a single-
story building edge.
3. The remaining 65% of the total number of homes shall comply with one of the following guidelines:
. The home shall have a single-story building edge with a depth of not less than 8 feet and shall run
the length of the building along one side except for tower elements. The roof covering the single-
story element shall incorporate a separate roof plane and shall be substantially lower than the roof
for the two-story element. Porches and Porte-cochere elements shall qualify as a single-story
edge. Houses with courtyards that are a minimum of 15 feet wide located along the side of the
house and setback a minimum of 15 feet from the property line are not required to have a single-
story building edge.
n The home shall have a single-story building edge with a depth of not less than 5 feet and shall run
the length of the building along one side. The roof of the single-story element shall be
substantially lower than the roof for the two-story element of the building.
. The home shall have a single-story building edge with a depth of not less than 3 feet for 40% of
the perimeter of the building.
I. For at least 66% of the homes in a project, there shall be at least three separate building planes on
street side elevations of lots with 45 feet of street frontage or less and four separate building planes
on street side elevations of lots with a street frontage greater than 45 feet. Balconies and covered
porches qualify as a building plane.
The minimum offset in planes shall be 18 inches and shall include, but not be limited to, building walls, windows, porches and roofs. The minimum depth between the faces of the forward-most plane
and the rear plane on the front elevation shall be 10 feet. A plane must be a minimum of 30 sq. ft. to
receive credit under this section.
5. Rear elevations shall adhere to the same criteria outlined in Number 4 above for front elevations
except that the minimum depth between front and back planes on the rear elevation shall be 3 feet
Rear balconies qualify as a building plane.
i. For at least 66% of the homes in a project, one side .elevation shall have sufficient offsets or cutouts
so that the side yard setback averages a minimum of 8.5 feet.
r At least 66% of exterior openings (door/windows) on every home in the project shall be recessed or
projected a minimum of 2 inches and shall be constructed with wood, vinyl or colored aluminum
window frames (no mill finishes).
I. Fifty percent (50%) of the homes shall be designed with a covered front porch, open courtyard, or
balcony (each with a minimum area of 60 square feet) located at the front of the dwelling. The front
and sides of porches shall be open except for required and/or ornamental guardrails. A variety of roof elements shall be provided over porches. Porches may not be converted to living space.
9. Floor plans in a project shall exhibit a variety of roof ridges and roof heights within a neighborhood.
10. Seventy-five percent (75%) of the homes must have a front entry to the home that is clearly visible
from the street. Walkways from the front door to the street are encouraged.
11. For projects of 30 or more dwelling units, a minimum of 3 different floor plans shall be provided.
Each floor plan should have at least 3 different front elevations and 3 different exterior color
schemes.
12. Chimneys and chimney caps shall be in scale with the size of the home. No more than 2 chimneys
shall be allowed for homes on lots in planned developments having an area less than 7,500 square
feet.
13, In addition to the previous requirements, a minimum of 4 of the design elements, such as those listed
in Table “A” below, shall be incorporated into the front building facade(s) of the home.
14, If any elevation of the home is adjacent to and visible from a Circulation Element roadway, such
elevation is also required to include 4 design elements such as those listed in Table “A* below.
Table A
DESIGN ELEMENTS
l Knee braces l Varied window shapes
l Exposed roof rafter tails l Dormers
l Arched elements 0 Columns
l Window and door lintels l Exterior wood elements
l Towers l Accent materials such as brick, stone, shingles, wood or siding
Vote #7: Fractional units of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next whole number and located in a
nanner to achieve the best project design as determined by ‘the project planner. When a percentage of
Jnits is described in the guidelines, the intent is to have that percentage spread throughout the entire project.
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
RESOLUTION NO. 2o01-355
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING CITY COUNCIL
POLICY NO. 64 “PRINCIPLES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIVABLE
NEIGHBORHOODS”
CASE NAME: CITY COUNCIL POLICY NO. 66 “PRINCIPLES
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIVABLE NEIGHBOR-
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 11 t h day of DECEMBER
2001, considered said Policy; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad wishes to ensure that new development is designed with
a sense of identity and community where residents are encouraged to walk instead of using their cars;
where homes are in scale to the size of their lots; where streets are pedestrian-friendly with walkways to
common destinations such as schools, parks, stores, and transit; where houses are interesting to look at
with strong architectural elements; and where open spaces form focal points, gathering places, and
recreational spaces for a variety of age groups.
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad wishes to establish its intent to consider these principles
in the review of proposed residential development;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That City Council Policy No. 66 entitled “Principles for the Development of
Livable Neighborhoods” and attached hereto is hereby adopted.
ill
I//
I/!
Ill
I//
Ill
Ill
I/!
//I
1 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
2 on the 11th day of DECEMBER 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
3 AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Finnila, Nygaard, Ha
4 NOES: None
5
6
7 CLAUDE A. LE
8
9
10
11 .-~ LORfiAlNE M WOOD, City Clerk
- (SEAL)
12 /
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
1. Buildinq Facades, Front Entries, Porches
Facades create interest and character and should be varied and articulated to provide visual interest to
pedestrians. Clearly identifiable front doors and porches enhance the street scene and create
opportunities for greater social interaction within the neighborhood. Building entries and windows should
face the street. Front porches, bay windows, courtyards and balconies are encouraged.
2. Garaaes
Homes should be designed to feature the residence as the prominent part of the structure in relation to the
street. A variety of garage configurations should be used to improve the street scene. This may include
tandem garages, side-loaded garages, front-loaded garages, alley-loaded garages and .recessed garages.
3. Street Desiqn
An interconnected, modified (grid) street pattern should be incorporated into project designs when there
are no topographic or environmental constraints. Interconnected streets provide pedestrians and
automobiles many alternative routes to follow, disperse traffic and reduce the volume of cars on any one
street in the neighborhood. Streets should be designed to provide both vehicular and pedestrian
connectivity by minimizing the use of cul-de-sacs.
The street network should also be designed to create a safer, more comfortable pedestrian and bicycling
environment. Local residential streets should have travel and parking lanes, be sufficiently narrow to slow traffic, provide adequate access for emergency and service vehicles and emergency evacuation routes for
residents and include parkways with trees to form a pleasing canopy over the street. Local residential streets are the public open space in which children often play and around which neighborhoods interact.
Within this context, vehicular movement should be additionally influenced through the use of City-accepted designs for traffic calming measures.
4. Parkways
Street trees should be planted in the parkways along all streets. Tree species should be selected to create
a unified image for the street, provide an effective canopy, avoid sidewalk damage and minimize water
consumption. .
CITY OF CARLSBAD Page 1 of 2
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS
Policy No. 66 Date Issued 12/11/01
j Effective Date 12/11/01
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
Specific Subject: PRINCIPLES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
POLICY:
The City wishes to establish principles for the development of livable neighborhoods. Livable neighborhoods
have a sense of identity and community where residents are encouraged to walk instead of using their cars;
where homes are in scale to the size of their lots; where streets are pedestrian-friendly with walkways to
common destinations such as schools, parks, stores, and transit; where houses are interesting to look at with
strong architectural elements; and where open spaces form focal points, gathering places, and recreational
spaces for a variety of age groups.
47
CITY OF CARLSBAD Page 2 of 2
5. Pedestrian Walkwavs
Pedestrian walkways should be located along or visible from all streets. Walkways (sidewalks or trails)
should provide clear, comfortable and direct access to neighborhood schools, parks/plazas and transit
stops. Primary pedestrian routes should be bordered by residential fronts, parks or plazas. Where street
connections are not feasible (at the end of cul-de-sacs), pedestrian paths should also be provided.
6. Centralized Communitv Recreation Areas
Park or plazas, which serve as neighborhood meeting places and as recreational activity centers should
be incorporated into all planned unit developments. As frequently as possible, these parks/plazas should
be designed for both active and passive uses for residents of all ages and should be centrally-located
within the project. Parks and plazas should be not be sited on residual parcels, used as buffers from
surrounding developments or to separate buildings from streets.
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS
Policy No. 66
Date Issued I ?!I 1 /OI
hctive Date 12/11/01
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
Specific Subject: PRINCIPLES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
City Council Policy Bold/Strikeout
EXt-WT 5
CITY OF CARLSBAD
i
olicy No. 44
ate Issued 8/26/97
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT ffective Date 8126197
ancellation Date
uperseded No. 44
Dated 2001
General Subject: NEIGHBORHOOD ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
GUIDELINES
Specific Subject: ESTABLISHMENT OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads, Employee
Bulletin Boards, Press, File.
PURPOSE AND INTENT:
The purpose and intent of the architectural guidelines is to ensure that a variety of architectural elements are
incorporated into single-family homes and two-family structures so that they: a) are visually interesting, b)
have sufficient building articulation to reduce their bulk and mass, c) are in scale to their lot size, and d)
strongly contribute to the creation of livable neighborhoods.
APPLICABILIN:
The Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines apply to &It: a) new single-family, detached residential homes and two-family structures and b) single-family detached residential remodels that cumulatively
increase the useable living area (floor area) more than 40%.
= Projects of 5 or more homes shall comply with all of the architectural guidelines. * For projects of 4 or fewer homes, each home shall ee&&a+# comply reqardless of stated
percentaqes) with one architectural guideline from Numbers 1 through 3 and 4 of the following
architectural guidelines 4, 5, 7, +I 10, +I 13, and +§ 14 to meet the intent of providing project
diversity.
PROCEDURES:
1. Applicants for discretionary project applications or residential building permits shall design
projects/homes so that they comply with the guidelines. Each applicant shall provide documentation
demonstrating compliance with this policy concurrent with the submittal of development/building
permit applications, whichever occurs first. If an applicant wishes to propose an architectural style
that complies with the Purpose and Intent of this policy and yet cannot comply with the requirements
of the guidelines, the applicant may request deviations from any of the architectural guidelines to
achieve an architectural design or style of equally superior quality. All such requests shall be fully justified specifying how the Purpose and Intent of this policy is being achieved.
2. Staff shall review projects/building permits for compliance with the guidelines and provide
recommendations to the decision-makers regarding:
a. Project compliance with the policy;
b. Whether or not any requested deviations are justified; and,
c. Whether or not the purpose and intent of the policy would still be achieved if a deviation is
granted.
u
Decision-makers shall determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether the project complies with the
intent of the policy to create livable neighborhoods.
ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES:
4.
6.
7.
8.
A minimum of 15% (see Note #I below) of the total number of homes shall be single-story structures.
Single-story is defined as a maximum plate-line of 15 feet and a maximum building height of 20 feet.
Lofts are permitted subject to CMC Section 21.04.330. As an alternative to encourage homes with
alley-loaded garages, a minimum of 20% of the homes shall be single-story for the front 20% of the home (overall depth of house times 20%).
A maximum of 20% of the total number of homes are exempt from the requirement to have a single-
story building edge.
The remaining 65% of the total number of homes shall comply with one of the following guidelines:
n The home shall have a single-story building edge with a depth of not less than +6 8 feet and shall
run the length of the building along one side except for tower elements. The roof covering the
single-story element shall incorporate a separate roof plane and shall be substantially lower than
the roof for the two-story element. Porches and Porte-cochere elements shall qualify as a single-
story edge. Houses with courtyards that are a minimum of 15 feet wide located along the side of
the house and setback a minimum of 15 feet from the property line are not required to have a
single-story building edge.
n The home shall have a single-story building edge with a depth of not less than 5 feet and shall run
the length of the building along one side. The roof of the single-story element shall be
substantially lower than the roof for the two-story element of the building.
. The home shall have a single-story building edge with a depth of not less than 3 feet for 40% of
the perimeter of the building.
For at least 66% of the homes in a project, there shall be at least three separate building planes on
street side elevations of lots with 45 feet of street frontage or less and four separate building planes
on street side elevations of lots with a street frontage greater than 45 feet. Balconies and covered
porches qualify as a building plane.
The minimum offset in planes shall be 18 inches and shall include, but not be limited to, building
walls, windows, porches and roofs. The minimum depth between the faces of the forward-most plane
and the rear plane on the front elevation shall be 10 feet. A plane must be a minimum of 30 sq. ft. to
receive credit under this section.
Rear elevations shall adhere to the same criteria outlined in Number 4 above for front elevations
except that the minimum depth between front and back planes on the rear elevation shall be 3 feet
Rear balconies qualify as a building plane.
For at least 66% of the homes in a project, one side elevation shall have sufficient offsets or cutouts
so that the side yard setback averages a minimum of 8.5 feet.
At least 66% of exterior openings (door/windows) on every home in the project shall be recessed or
projected a minimum of 2 inches and shall be constructed with wood vinvl or colored aluminum
window frames (no mill finishes).
Fifty percent (50%) of the homes shall be designed with a covered front porch, open courtyard, or balcony
3-a
and sides of porches shall be open except for required and/or ornamental guardrails. A variety of
roof elements shall be provided over porches. Porches may not be converted to living space.
+& 9. Floor plans in a project shall exhibit a variety of roof ridges and roof heights within a neighborhood.
+k ‘l&Seventy-five percent (75%) of the homes must have a front entry to the home that is clearly visible
from the street. Walkways from the front door to the street are encouraged.
* KFor projects of 30 or more dwelling units, a minimum of 3 different floor plans shall be provided.
Each floor plan should have at least 3 different front elevations and 3 different exterior color
schemes.
*a Chimneys and chimney caps shall be in scale with the size of the home. No more than 2 chimneys
shall be allowed for homes on lots in planned developments having an area less than 7,500 square feet.
++&‘& In addition to the previous requirements, a minimum d 4 of the design elements, such as those listed
in Table “A” below, shall be incorporated into the front building fa@de(s) of the home.
+kl4- If any elevation of the home is adjacent to and visible from a Circulation Element roadway, such elevation is also required to include 4 design elements such as those listed in Table “A” below.
Table A
DESIGN ELEMENTS
l Knee braces
l Exposed roof rafter tails
l Arched elements
l Window and door lintels
l Towers
l Varied window shapes
l Dormers 0 Columns
l Exterior wood elements
l Accent materials such as brick, stone,
shingles, wood or siding
Note #7: Fractional units of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next whole number and located in a
manner to achieve the best project design as determined by the project planner. When a percentage of
units is described in the guidelines, the intent is to have that percentage spread throughout the entire project.
3P
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
EXHBIT 6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4982
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
ADDENDUM FOR A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT AND
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT FOR A
COMPREHENSIVE AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 2 1.45, TITLE 21,
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE.
CASENAME: AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOP-
MENT ORDINANCE
CASE NO.: ZCA Ol-Ol/LCPA 01-01
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of June 2001, on the
20th day of June 2001, and on the 18th day of July 2001 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 and addendum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
9 That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration
and addendum according to Exhibit “ND” dated March 15, 2001 and “PII”
dated March 6, 2001, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the
following findings:
Findiws:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration ZCA Ol-
Ol/LCPA 01-01 and addendum the environmental impacts therein identified for
this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL of the project; and
32
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
B.
C.
D.
The Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of July 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman, Nielsen, and Trigas
NOES: Chairperson Segall
ABSENT: Commissioner L’Heureux
ABSTAIN:
.~
CARLSBAD PLANkNG1::;ISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4982 -2-
City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: Citywide
Project Description: Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to-repeal
and reenact the City’s Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code) to: (1) create a user friendly document which provides clear and detailed
development standards and procedures for the development of small lot single family and
duplex\multiple family ownership dwelling units, (2) add\revise development standards (i.e.;
minimum lot size, lot coverage and setbacks) to ensure that dwelling units are in better scale and
proportion with residential lot sizes and (3) incorporate additional residential design standards
which will foster the development of more livable neighborhoods (which include homes that are
designed for their residents instead of their cars, pedestrian friendly streets and community
commons).
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, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. 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
(760) 602-46 11.
DATED: MARCH 15,200l
CASE NO: ZCA Ol-Ol/LCPA 01-01
CASE NAME: AMENDMENT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
PUBLISH DATE: MARCH 15,200l
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (780) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 - www.ci.car1sbad.ca.m
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: ZCA Ol-Ol/LCPA 01-01
DATE: March 6.2001
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME Amendment to Planned Unit Development Ordinance
2. APPLICANT: Citv of Carlsbad
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1635 Faraday ‘Ave., Carlsbad,
CA 92008 (760) 602-4611
4. DATE EL4 FORM PART I SUBMITTED: N/A
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program
Amendment to-repeal and reenact the City’s Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter
21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) to: (1) create a user friendly document which
provides clear and detailed development standards and procedures for the development of
small lot single family and duplex\multiple family ownership dwelling units, (2)
add\revise development standards (i.e.; minimum lot size, lot coverage and setbacks) to
ensure that dwelling units are in better scale and proportion with residential lot sizes and
(3) add\revise residential development and design standards to achieve the development
of more livable neighborhoods (which include homes that are designed for their residents
instead of their cars, pedestrian friendly streets and community commons).
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY 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.
cl Land Use and Planning
q Population and Housing
cl Geological Problems
0 Water
0 Air Quality
cl Transportation/Circulation Ll Public Services
q Biological Resources q Utilities & Service Systems
0 Energy & Mineral Resources El Aesthetics
cl Hazards cl Cultural Resources
cl Noise El Recreation Air Quality
q Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96 35
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
El
cl
Cl
cl
q
I find that - the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
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 MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
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. A(n) EIR is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
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 pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
I
:)l \ c.J
Planner Signature
3
c- $&l-c 1
L
Date
Planning Directox Sigkttke Date
2 & Rev. 03/28/96
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.
0 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.
l “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.
a “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 “EIA-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.
37 Rev. 03r28196
l 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.
l 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.
l 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 EIA-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.O3/28/96 38
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
4
b)
c)
4
4
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #l(s): Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses?
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community
Il. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official 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
4
b)
cl
d)
e)
CJ
g)
h)
0
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture?
Seismic ground shaking?
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
Landslides or mudflows
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or till? Subsidence of the land?
Expansive soils?
Unique geologic or physical features?
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
4
b)
cl
4
e)
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?
5
Potentially Significant impact
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
NO
Impact
-w
Ix1
lxl
lzl
Ix]
q 0 IXI
cl 0 IXI
El
cl cl III 0 0 0
III lxl
0 q III cl 0 0
0 III III 0 q 0
El
III
El
I7
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
0
Rev. 03128196
lxl
E3l
Ix1
El
El
39
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
f,
Ii9
h)
9
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direci 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?
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies?
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
4
b)
c>
4
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
4
b)
c)
4
e>
r)
g)
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
a)
b)
4
4
e)
VIII.
4
b)
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)?
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
6
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
cl
0
0 q
0
q 0
cl
III 0
0 0 0 III
cl
III
0 0
sl cl
cl cl
Less Than Significant
Impact
Rev. 03/28/96
NO
Impact
lxl
lzl
Ix]
Ix]
El
lxl
El
Ia
lxl
lxl
El
IXI
lxl
IXI
El
Ia
Ix1
IXI
lxl
lxl
lxl
lzl
a
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) 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?
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
4
b)
c>
4
e)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards?
Exposure of people to existing sources of potFntia1 health hazards?
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?
Xl. 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?
Xll.UTlLlTIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
4
b)
c)
d)
e)
0
g)
XIII.
4
b)
c)
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas?
Communications systems?
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
Sewer or septic tanks?)
Storm water drainage?
Solid waste disposal?
Local or regional water supplies?
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect?
Create light or glare?
.
7
Potentially Significant Impact
0
cl
q
q
0
q
0 0
q 0 El q 0
El q 17
0 q El cl
0 q 0
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
cl
Less Than Slgnificanr
Impact
cl
El
cl
.o
cl
cl
cl
cl
El
cl q El
cl q cl
0 cl cl III
0 q 0
0
q
17
cl
q
El
El El
q III 0 cl cl
III cl 0
cl cl cl 0
q q El
Rev. 03/28/96
NO Impact
Is1
lxl
Ix1
lxl
lxl
IXI
lzl
lzl
lxl
lxl
El
(XI
IXI
ix1
lxl
lxl
lzl
Ix)
Ix1
lxl
lxl
IXI
lxl
41
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XIV.
4
b)
cl
4
e>
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
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. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to 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? b) 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)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Potentially Less Than NO Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
q q q -El q q q lxl q q q lxl 0 q q Is1
q q q IXI
q -I q 151
q q q El
q
q
q
q
q
q
q IXI
q lxl
q lxl
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
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:
4 Earlier analyses 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
8 Rev. 03128196 w-
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.
Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This project (ZCA Ol-OlILCPA 01-01) entails the repeal and reenactment of the City’s
Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code). The
primary objectives of this zone code amendment are to: (A) create a user friendly -
document which provides clear and detailed development standards and procedures for
the development of small lot single family and duplex\multiple family ownership
dwelling units, (B) add\revise development standards (i.e.; minimum lot size, lot
coverage and setbacks) to ensure that dwelling units are in better scale and proportion
with residential lot sizes and (C) add\revise residential development and design
standards to achieve the development of more livable neighborhoods (which include
homes that are designed for their residents instead of their cars, pedestrian friendly
streets and community commons).
A. The format and regulations of the existing planned Development ordinance (which
was adopted in 1982 and last amended in 1994) are somewhat ambiguous, out of
date, and in need of revision. A number of amendments are proposed to create a
user-friendly document, which provides clear and detailed development standards
and procedures for the development of small lot single family and duplex\multiple
family ownership dwelling units as discussed below:
1. Modify the Purpose and Intent Section to clearly state the purpose of the Planned
Development Ordinance.
2. Limit permitted uses through PUD depending on the zone. In R-l zone restricts
permitted uses to single family detached; R-2 zones restricts to single family and
duplex.
3. Revise the Required Findings for the approval of a PUD.
4. The ordinance will be reformatted to incorporate three (4) user-friendly tables
including:
9 General Development Standards that are applicable to all PUD’s;
m Small-lot Single Family and Duplex Development Standards;
. Multi-family Development Standards; and
m Procedures and Development Standards for Residential Additions and
Accessory Uses.
5. Provide new administrative procedures for pro&sing residential additions (for
garages, workshops, room additions and guest houses) and minor PUD
amendments.
6. A number of sign related definitions have been added to clarify the Planned
Development ordinance and make it easier to understand. Definition additions
include. “Access Lane”, “Condominium Project”, “Driveway”, “Lot Coverage”,
“Net Pad Area”, “Planned Unit Development” and “Useable Rear-yard Area”.
These terms are distinguished in the proposed ordinance, and therefore require
definition.
B. The existing PUD ordinance allows for the development of substandard sized
(minimum 3,500 SF) single-family residential lots. As the price of residential land
within the City has continued to escalate, the development community has
10 Rev. 03128196
aggressively pursued the development of smaller residential lots, but not comparably
smaller sized dwelling units. This has resulted in the development of larger R-l -
7,500 sized houses on these small residential lots. This has become a citywide
concern in that overbuilt residential lots compromise community aesthetic values and
homeowner privacy. Accordingly, this PUD ordinance amendment includes a
number of revisions to development standards (i.e.; minimum lot size, lot coverage
and setbacks) to ensure that dwelling units are in better scale and proportion with -
residential lot sizes. These revisions include the following:
1. Increase minimum single-family lot size from 3,500 sq. ft. to 5,000 sq. f? and
7,500 sq. ft for duplexes.
2. Establish lot coverage standards of 40 percent for 2 story single family and
duplex units, 50 percent for one story single family and duplex units and 60
percent for multiple family units.
3. Increase the side-yard setback for single family and duplex structures from 5’
minimum to a combined side-yard setback of not less than 25% of the lot width
with a 5’ minimum.
4. Increase minimum building separation for multi-family structures from 20 feet to
30 feet.
C. This amendment includes the modification of residential development and design
standards to achieve the development of more “livable neighborhoods”. “Livable
neighborhoods” include the following characteristics:
a Livable neighborhoods include neighborhoods with homes that relate to the
street and are designed for the residents and not their cars. This can be
accomplished through reducing front yard setbacks and including front
porches in home design to bring homes closer to the street to foster contact
between neighbors. To reduce the dominance of garages there should be an
emphasis on side entry or recessed garages located toward the rear of the
lot. This will allow the active, visually interesting features of a house to
dominate the streetscape.
l Residential facades should be varied and articulated to provide visual
interest to pedestrians.
0 Streets should be designed to be ‘pedestrian friendly”. This can be
accomplished through: the design of narrow streets with sidewalks,
parkways, and street trees. Local streets should have travel and parking
lanes sufficiently narrow to slow traffic and allow trees to form a pleasing
canopy over the street, while providing adequate access for emergency and
service vehicles. Local streets are the public open space in which children
often play and around which neighborhoods interact. Within this context,
vehicular movement should be controlled through the use of traffic calming
techniques. When the traffic is slower, the streets are safer and more
inviting for the pedestrian to walk.
l An interconnected, modified (grid) street pattern should be incorporated
into project designs where feasible when there are no topographic or
1;/_( 11 Rev. 03/28/96
environmental constraints. Interconnected streets provide pedestrians and
automobiles many alternative routes to follow, disperse traffic and reduce
the volume of cars on any one street in the neighborhood. Streets should be
designed to provide both vehicular and pedestrian connectivity by
minimizing the use of cul-de-sacs when possible.
0 Centrally-located community commons- Parks/plazas, which serve as -
community “commons”, neighborhood meeting places and recreational
activity centers should be incorporated into all residential projects. These
parks/plazas should be designed for both active and passive uses, and
“contain recreation amenities for all age groups”
l Pedestrian and bicycle routes should be located along or visible from all
streets. They must provide clear, comfortable and direct access to
neighborhood schools, parks/plazas and transit stops.
Planned Development standards revisions that are proposed to achieve the
development of livable neighborhoods include:
1. Reduce the private street curb-to-curb street width from 36 feet to 34 feet;
2. Reduce driveway width from 30 feet to 24 feet for multi-family attached
products;
3. Incorporate the use of parkways and street trees into project design;
4. Require at least 25 percent of the homes to be single-story structures;
5. Require front porches or front balconies on 25 percent of homes;
6. Require the incorporation of recessed and side-loaded garages into product
design;
7. Reduce the permitted number of three-in-a-row garages to 10% of project units;
8. Increase required front-yard setback for multi-family units from 5’ to 8’;
9. Increase recreation space from a total of 200 sq. ft. per unit to 400 sq. ft. of
common recreation space per unit plus a 400 square foot (20’ x 20’) private rear-
yard for single family and duplex units or a 6’ x 10’ balcony or a 10’ x 10’ patio
for multi-family units;
10. Require 48 SF of storage space/DU, exclusive of the required garage area (20’ x
20’ for a 2 car garage and 12’ x 20’ for a 1 car garage);
11. Require community recreation parking of 1 space\1 5 residential lots or dwelling
units that are located greater than 1000’ from a recreation center lot;
12. Reduce the number of required covered resident parking spaces from 2 to 1 for
multi-family residential dwelling units;
13. Require that only projects with more than 25 units must provide RV storage;
14. Redefines recreation types of uses and stipulates that only projects with more
than 25 units must provide active recreation facilities;
15. Give credit for one guest parking space in driveways over 40 feet long;
16. Reduce allowable percentage of compact parking spaces from 45 percent to 25
percent of total required and only allow in multi-family projects of greater than
25 units; 17. Require a commonly-owned and landscaped open space buffer along arterial
roadways;
18. Require that pocket parks must be provided in projects of 50 or more units. 25
percent of the total recreation area must be provided as pocket parks with
recreation amenities.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
19. Modifies present City Council Policy 44, Small Lot Architectural Guidelines, to
a) incorporate additional architectural design requirements to ensure design
quality in the architectural features of single - family homes, and b) to apply to
all single family zones for new projects of more than 4 units.
Staff has determined that this proposed Planned Development Ordinance amendment
could not have a significant impact on the environment and has therefore prepared a -
negative declaration. No mitigation measures are required. Specifically, the
environmental analysis performed by staff resulted in this determination for the
following reasons:
1. The amendment is not associated with any specific development project and does not
propose any development;
2. The amendment does not affect: any General Plan or zoning designation, allowable
densities or land uses, or any environmental plan;
3. The amendment does not directly or indirectly result in any significant physical,
biological, or human environmental impacts, and;
4. The amendment does not conflict with or affect any of the 15 environmental factors
( i.e., Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing) as listed in this
Environmental Impact Assessment Form and as discussed in the related section
below.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Non-Relevant Items
1. Land Use and Planning - The proposed Planned Development Ordinance
amendment will not conflict with the General Plan or zoning designations or any applicable environmental plans adopted by the City because it does not affect density or
allowed land uses. Consistent with the City’s R-l and R-2 residential zones, the revised
ordinance will restrict the permitted uses through PUD to detached single family in the
R-l zone and detached single family and duplex in the R-2 zone. For this same reason
the amendment will not be incompatible with existing or planned land uses in any area
and will not impact agricultural uses or established communities. The proposed
development and design standards revisions will promote the development of
user\pedestrian friendly, livable neighborhoods with homes that are in better proportion
to lot sizes.
2. Pouulation and Housing - Since this Planned Development Ordinance amendment does not propose any development or affect allowable land uses or densities,
the amendment will not affect any population projections, induce substantial growth, or
displace any existing housing.
3. Geologic Problems - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this
Planned Development Ordinance amendment, no changes in topography resulting in
unstable earth conditions, erosion of soils, ground shaking, landslides/mudflows,
alteration of deposition patterns, or other geologic problems will occur. Detailed analysis of site conditions and possible development impacts will be evaluated at the
time a project application is submitted. Therefore the proposed project will not result in
any potentially significant geological impacts. . s/7 13 Rev. 03/28/96
4. Water - The proposed Planned Development Ordinance amendment is not
specific to any site, but could apply citywide. No development is being proposed, and
no sites are being identified for specific uses through these amendments. Also, the
proposed amendments will not change any regulations, policies, standards, or guidelines
already in place which affect or address water conditions or the prevention/handling of
problems related to water bodies, absorption rates, hazards, discharge, turbidity, or the
availability of water. The ultimate placement of any future uses will be reviewed and -
considered at the time a development application is submitted, just as it is under the
current regulations. Detailed analysis of site conditions and possible development
impacts will be evaluated at the time a project application is submitted. Therefore, the
proposed project will not result in any potentially significant water impacts.
5. Air Oualitv - As no site-specific project nor changes to standards or policies
regarding air quality is proposed as part of this Planned Development Ordinance
amendment, there will be no impact to air quality.
6. TransnortationKirculation - Implementation of the proposed Planned
Development Ordinance amendment will not result in increased daily vehicle trips.
The reduction in street and driveway widths (from 36 ‘ to 34’ and from 30’ to 24’
respectively)) and will function to reduce vehicle speed, thus minimizing the potential
number and severity of traffic accidents while still providing adequate travel lane width
(minimum of 20’). Hazards or safety concerns will be minimized by slower vehicle
speeds that provide greater driver reaction time to recognize a problem and to either stop
or take evasive action. Less distance is required to stop a vehicle at slower speeds.
The revised parking standards will still require adequate on site resident parking (2
spaces/DU) and on or off street visitor parking to serve the neighborhood needs.
Additional guest parking (1 space/l5 residential lots or dwelling units that are located
greater than 1000’ from a recreation center lot will also be required. For private streets,
the parking lane width will be reduced from 8’ to 7’ leaving a minimum of 20’ for the
travel lanes. The proposed 7’ parking width is adequate to accommodate sub compact
cars as well as SUV’s.
The parkway width for private streets will be increased from four and a half feet to
seven feet and the sidewalk will be placed behind the parkway instead of adjacent to the
curb. Trees will be planted in the parkway instead of outside of the right of way. These
proposed changes decrease the amount of hard surface and increase the amount of
parkway planter within the right of way. It puts a greater distance between the pedestrian on the sidewalk and the streets travel lane. Moving the pedestrian away from the street is
safer than being adjacent to the street. It also gives the pedestrian more of a feeling of
walking with nature instead of walking in a street. By having the trees closer to the street
both the optical narrowing of the street and the shadows cast on the street by the trees
act to reduce the perceived street width, thus slowing traffic down. Reducing speed has
the direct benefit of reducing the severity of injuries of any people involved in a vehicle
related accident.
7. Biological Resources - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this
Planned Development Ordinance amendment, there will be no impact to biological resources. Although the proposed regulations discourage the use of cul-de-sac streets,
there are provisions included to permit this type of street when there are environmental
14 Rev. 03/28/96
features that need to be preserved. Any development application will be analyzed in
detail for potential impacts to biological resources.
8. Energy and Mineral Resources - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of
this Planned Development Ordinance amendment, there will be no impact to energy and
mineral resources.
9. Hazards - The proposed project is not specific to any site and could apply any
place within the City. However, no development is proposed‘through this project. In
addition, the project will not create any new uses (i.e., uses not currently allowed in the
City). Proposed policies and standards addressing narrower street widths and relocated
sidewalks are uses which typically do not present any risk of explosion, release of
hazardous substances, etc. However, any development proposed in the future will be
analyzed in detail for potential hazard impacts. Therefore, the proposed project does not
result in any potentially significant hazards impacts.
Street narrowing is not expected to interfere with either emergency response to a
neighborhood or the ability of residents to evacuate. The recommended modified street
grid design facilitates emergency evacuation by minimizing the use of single access
street design. Connectivity, a major feature of this street design, ensures residents will
have more than one vehicular route of escape during a major emergency event
10. Noise - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this Planned
Development Ordinance amendment, there will be no exposure to noise impacts and no
exposure to unacceptable levels of noise.
11. Public Services - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this Planned
Development Ordinance amendment, there will be no impacts to public services.
12. Utilities and Services Systems - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of
this Planned Development Ordinance amendment, there will be no impacts to utilities
and services systems. No development is proposed through this project. Under the
City’s adopted growth management regulations, all development in the City is required
to provide all necessary public facilities and services concurrent with development. This
requirement would not be altered by the proposed project. Underground utilities,
located in the parkway, are normally placed under the edge of the sidewalk. By
relocating the sidewalk away from the street, the utilities would likewise shift with and
stay under the sidewalk. This is done to protect the utilities from anyone digging in the
parkway. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in potentially significant
impacts to public utilities and services systems.
13. Aesthetics - The proposed Planned Development Ordinance amendment will
improve the aesthetics of residential neighborhoods by reducing the amount of asphalt
(through street narrowing), requiring parkways landscaped with trees, requiring that
dwelling units be in better scale and proportion with residential lot sizes (through adding
a larger minimum lot size, establishing lot coverage standards and increasing side yard
setbacks), requiring front porches or front balconies on 25 percent of homes, requiring
the incorporation of recessed and side-loaded garages into product design, reduce the
permitted number of three-in-a-row garages, increase the amount of private and common
recreation area per unit, reducing the number of required covered resident parking
spaces from 2 to 1 for multi-family residential dwelling units, requiring a commonly-
15 Rev. 03128196 49
owned and landscaped open space buffer along arterial roadways, requiring at least 25
percent of the homes to be single-story structures and incorporate additional
architectural design requirements to ensure design quality in the architectural features of
single - family homes.
14. Cultural Resources - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this
Planned Development Ordinance amendment, there will be no impacts to cultural -
resources. The proposed amendments are not specific to any site. They could apply any
place in the City. Any development application will be analyzed in detail for potential
impacts to cultural resources. However, the code amendments proposed currently (the
“project”) will not have any impact on cultural resources.
15. Recreational - The proposed amendment will not increase the demand for parks
or other recreational facilities and will not affect existing recreational opportunities
because the proposed amendment will not induce growth in the City and will not reduce
the number or amount of areas currently planned for recreational uses. The proposed
modification to require increased common recreation area per unit, will increase project
recreational opportunities.
16 Rev. 03/28/96
ADDENDUM TO THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ZCA Ol-Ol/LCPA 01-01
The project description has been revised to indicate that the proposed project will also include: 1)
a new City Council policy outlining the City’s vision for Livable Neighborhoods and its intent to
consider these principles in the review of proposed residential projects, and 2) an amendment to
City Council Policy 44, Small Lot Architectural Guidelines (proposed name: Neighborhood
Architectural Design Guidelines) to add several new/modified architectural guidelines
addressing building mass and facade articulation and to apply these provisions to all new single-
family and two-family development proposals. The purpose of this addendum is to document
this change in project description, and to clarify that this change, which establishes principles
and architectural guidelines for the development of livable neighborhoods, will not result in any
significant environmental impacts or necessitate any revision to the findings of the project
negative declaration.
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. 4958
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT FOR A
COMPREHENSIVE AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 21.45, TITLE 21,
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE
CASE NAME: AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE
CASE NO: ZCA 01-01
WHEREAS, the Planning Director has prepared a proposed Zone Code
Amendment pursuant to Section 21.52.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to comprehensively
amend the Planned Development Ordinance, Title 21, Chapter 21.45 to: 1) modify
residential development and design standards to achieve the development of more livable
neighborhoods; 2) modify development standards to ensure that homes are in better scale
to lot sizes; and, 3) create a user-friendly document that provides clear and detailed
development standards and procedures for the development of small-lot, single-family and
two-family/multiple-family ownership dwelling units.; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is set forth in the draft City Council
Ordinance, Exhibit “X” dated, June 20, 2001, and attached hereto AMENDMENT TO
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE - ZCA 01-01; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of June, 2001, on the
20th day of June 2001, and on the 18th day of July 2001 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; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows: a
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) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of AMENDMENT TO PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE - ZCA 01-01, based on the following
I findings:
Findinps:
1. That the proposed Zone Code Amendment ZCA 01-01 is consistent with the General
Plan in that it directly implements goals, objectives and implementing programs
related to enhancing the appearance and diversity of small-lot, single-family and
two-family/multiple-family ownership neighborhoods.
2. That the proposed ZCA reflects sound principles of good planning in that development
standards are proposed to create neighborhood environments where neighborhoods
are designed with a focus on residents instead of the automobile by providing:
homes that exhibit visual diversity, pedestrian-scale and prominence to the street;
pedestrian friendly, tree-lined streets; walkways to common destinations such as
schools, parks and stores; and centrally-located neighborhood gathering places.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 18th day of July 2001, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman, Nielsen, and Trigas
NOES: Chairperson Segall
ABSENT:- Commissioner L’Heureux
ABSTAIN:
Qsii! Qi
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. IWLZIULLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4958 -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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4959
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO ALL SIX SEGMENTS OF
THE CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO ADOPT
A COMPREHENSIVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AS AN IMPLEMENTING
ORDINANCE FOR CARSLBAD’S LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM. CASE NAME: AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOP-
MENT ORDINANCE
CASE NO: LCPA 01-01
WHEREAS, the City is comprehensively amending Chapter 21.45 of Title 21
(Zoning Ordinance) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to: 1) Modify residential
development and design standards to achieve the development of more livable
neighborhoods; 2) Modify development standards to ensure that homes are in better scale
to lot sizes; and, 3) Create a user-friendly document that provides clear and detailed
development standards and procedures for the development of small-lot, single-family and
two-family/multiple-family ownership dwelling units; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance for the
City’s Local Coastal Program; and
WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program, and
the Zoning Ordinance be in conformance and therefore amendments to the implementing
ordinance also require an amendment to the Local Coastal Program to ensure consistency
between the two documents; and
WHEREAS, a verified application for an amendment to the Local Coastal
Program has been filed with the Planning Department; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal
Program Amendment as shown on Exhibit “X” attached to Resolution No. 4958 and
incorporated herein, as provided in Public Resources Code Section 30574 and Article 15 of
v
1 Subchapter 8, Chapter 2, Division 5.5 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations of the
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
California Coastal Commission Administrative Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of June 2001, on the
20th day of June 2001, and on the 18th day of July 2001 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 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) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) At the end of the State-mandated six-week review period, starting on March 15,
2001 and ending on April 26, 2001, 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 AMENDMENT TO PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE - LCPA 01-01 based on the following
findings, and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment meets the requirements of, and is
in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and all applicable policies
of the Mello I, Mello II, Agua Hedionda, Redevelopment, East Batiquitos and West
Batiquitos segments of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, in that the proposed
Planned Development Ordinance revisions will enhance the aesthetic environment
and visual beauty of the coastal zone by promoting the development of liveable
residential neighborhoods that include narrow, pedestrian friendly tree-lined streets
that slow neighborhood traffic, and an improved streetscene, by reducing the bulk
and mass of structures and the dominance of garage doors, and requiring front
porches and enhanced front facade articulation for residences.
I’ Il. PC REso !\Jo. 4959
-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
2.
3.
4.
The proposed ordinance amendment will not impact coastal resources in that the
proposed standards would only apply to single-family and two-family/multiple-
family ownership homes which would be located on the developable (unconstrained)
area of any property within the coastal zone. Such proposed projects would not be
approved for development within coastal wetlands, or upon coastal slopes with
gradients equal to or greater than 25% inclination with or without native
vegetation.
The proposed ordinance revisions will not damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone in
that the proposed standards will not change the status of existing regulations in
relation to impacting any public ocean views. All future development projects
located within the Coastal Zone will be individually reviewed, through a Coastal
Development Permit, for impacts to coastal resources, including public views of the
ocean.
That the proposed amendment to the segments of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program is
required to bring it into consistency with the proposed zone code amendment ZCA 01-01,
the companion document to this Local Coastal Plan Amendment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting to the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 18th day of July 2001, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman, Nielsen, and Trigas
NOES: Chairperson Segall
ABSENT: Commissioner L’Heureux
ABSTAIN:
P
CARLSBAD PLANNING C:EISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOtiMItiER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4959 -3- 34
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 0 2
July 18,200l 1
Application complete date: N/A
P.C. AGENDA OF: p~;~;z~~xz; i:::;;l Landers and Chris 1
SUBJECT: ZCA Ol-OULCPA 01-01 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE - A Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to
repeal and reenact the City’s Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code) to: 1) create a user-friendly document that provides clear and
detailed development standards and procedures for the development of small-lot. single-
family and two-family/multiple-family ownership dwelling units; 2) modify residential
development and design standards to achieve the development of more livable
neighborhoods; and, 3) modify development standards to ensure that homes are in better
scale to lot sizes.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4982
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration and addendum issued by the Planning
Director and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4958 and 4959 RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL of ZCA 0 1- 0 1 and LCPA 0 1-O 1 based on the findings contained therein.
II. BACKGROUND
This item was scheduled for June 20,2001, and was continued to July 18,200l.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4982
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4958
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4959
4. Staff Report dated June 6,200l with attachments
EXHBIT 7
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION@
Item No. 0 6
Application complete date: N/A
P.C. AGENDA OF: June 6,200l Project Planner: Adrienne Landers and Chris DeCerbo
Project Engineer: N/A
SUBJECT: ZCA Ol-Ol/LCPA 01-01 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE - A Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to
repeal and reenact the City’s Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code) to: 1) create a user-friendly document that provides clear and
detailed development standards and procedures for the development of small-lot, single-
family and two-family/multiple-family ownership dwelling units; 2) modify residential
development and design standards to achieve the development of more livable
neighborhoods; and, 3) modify development standards to ensure that homes are in better
scale to lot sizes.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4982
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration and addendum issued by the Planning
Director and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4958 and 4959 RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL of ZCA 0 1 - 0 1 and LCPA 01-O 1 based on the findings contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The proposed project entails the repeal and reenactment of the City’s Planned Development Ordinance
(Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code). The primary objectives of this zone code amendment
are to:
1) Create a user-friendly document that provides clear and detailed development standards and
procedures for the development of small-lot, single-family and two-family/multiple-family
ownership dwelling units;
2) Modify residential development and design standards to achieve the development of more
livable neighborhoods; and,
3) Modify development standards to ensure that homes are in better scale to lot sizes.
Two companion actions are also being submitted along with the proposed ordinance revisions. The first
action includes a new City Council policy outlining the City’s vision for Livable Neighborhoods and its
intent to consider these prmciples in the review of proposed projects. The second action includes an
amendment to City Council Policy 44, Small Lot Architectural Guidelines (proposed name:
Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines) to add several provisions addressing building mass and
facade articulation and to apply these provisions to all new single-family and two-family development
proposals. These last two policies are subject to review and action by the City Council and are provided
to the Planning Commission as information. The proposed development standards and Neighborhood
Architectural Design Guidelines are in compliance with all City regulations and fully implement the goals
of the General Plan.
ZCA Ol-Ol/LCPA 01-01 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
June 6,200l
Page 2
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Over the past two years, staff has been engaged in an effort to modify existing standards and develop new
standards and guidelines to address several areas of concern expressed by the community. These areas of
concern include: an overall design trend for new homes to look similar and neighborhoods to lack
character; the construction of large homes on small lots both in new subdivisions and in intill areas;
speeding cars in new subdivisions; and the provision of two points of evacuation from residential
neighborhoods. To address these issues, City staff in the Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments
have been preparing a number of revisions to City policies, procedures and standards. These include:
-
T-
T--
T-
4.
5.
6.
-
Proposed Action Decisioknaking Bodies
A new City Council policy on Livable Neighborhoods outlining the City’s
vision for residential neighborhoods.
Revisions to City Council Policy 44 (Small Lot Architectural Guidelines, now called Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines) to address
architectural concerns related to new single-family and two-family
development projects (standard and infill);
Revisions to the Planned Development Ordinance to address development standards such as lot size, setbacks, lot coverage, private streets,
recreational open space, etc.
Revisions to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan
to add new goals and objectives addressing Livable Neighborhoods, Livable Streets and emergency egress;
Revisions to ,public residential street standards to narrow street widths, to
provide parkways, trees, traffic calming measures, connected streets and
off-set driveways. Language is included to address emergency egress from
residential neighborhoods to limit the number of units on cul-de-sacs and
to require residential fire sprinklers and fire resistant construction when
necessary.
City Council
City Council
Planning Commission City Council
Planning Commission
City Council
City Council
Vision statements in master plans to create unique neighborhoods 1 Master plan review by
addressing Livable Neighborhoods and Livable Streets concepts. 1 Planning Commission and
This project, (ZCA Ol-OVLCPA Ol-Ol), includes items 1, 2 and 3 above to achieve the development of
more “livable neighborhoods” and home sizes that are in better scale to lot sizes.
Concurrently, revisions to the City’s public, residential streets (items 4, and 5) are also being prepared to
address the issues of speeding cars and emergency egress from residential neighborhoods: These subjects
will be brought forward as proposed amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the
General Plan as goals, objectives and implementing policies and programs. The intent of these
amendments is to provide a clearer vision of these concepts in the City’s primary land use document.
Although last amended in 1994, language in the existing Planned Development (PD) ordinance is often
ambiguous and frequently does not clearly distinguish between regulations applicable to single-family
detached units and regulations applicable to multi-family attached units. Over the years staff has
developed a number of Administrative Policies to clarify this issue as well as other ambiguous topics such
as the provision of recreation facilities, building separation, driveways, etc. found in the ordinance. As
one of the project objectives, this amendment is proposed to create a user-friendly document providing
clear and detailed development standards and procedures for the development of small-lot, single-family
and two-family/multiple family ownership dwelling units.
When the existing Planned Development Ordinance was adopted in 1982, the primary objective at that
time was to encourage clustered development-of both detached and attached ownership housing-for 57
ZCA Ol-OULCPA 01-01 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
June 6,200l
Page 3
the primary purpose of enabling the preservation of environmentally constrained land and the sensitive
development of the City’s hillside topography. Over the past 20 years, the PD ordinance has enabled the
development of many clustered, higher density housing projects through the less restrictive development
standards of this ordinance. Compared to the R-l zone, the PD standards allow for lots less than 7,500
square feet in size, reduced building setbacks and narrower private streets. Since its adoption, the PD
Ordinance has become the preferred development tool for residential developers within the City.
Approximately 90 percent of all residential development within the City is processed pursuant to the PD
Ordinance as the primary mechanism to achieve higher density housing. However, since adoption of the
PD Ordinance, other City ordinances and plans have been adopted such as the Hillside Ordinance, the
Growth Management Plan and the Habitat Management Plan, which more clearly and directly accomplish
the citywide goals of sensitive hillside development and environmental preservation.
Now, clustered development is seldom proposed to preserve hillsides or environmental constraints
because those areas are already designated for preservation. Instead, the PD ordinance is predominantly
used to maximize residential density on remaining unconstrained land. This has resulted in a cityscape
that is comprised of mass-graded building pads developed with independently designed residential
subdivisions that are rimmed by project walls or fences and either surrounded by natural open space or
located adjacent to other independently designed (and walled) residential subdivisions. The net effect is
that there is little interconnectivity between each neighborhood. Because many of the new neighborhoods
are physically separated from one another (by walls or open space), the character and “livability” of each
neighborhood becomes that much more important.
“Livable neighborhoods” are defined as neighborhoods that are designed to encourage social interaction
between residents within the neighborhood. Such neighborhoods are designed with a focus on residents
instead of the automobile by providing: pedestrian-friendly, tree-lined streets; walkways to common
destinations such as schools, parks and stores; homes that exhibit visual diversity, pedestrian scale and
prominence to the street with direct access to centrally-located neighborhood gathering places. Over the
last few years, many of the new neighborhoods appear to have been designed without a concern for
livability. Approximately one-third of the City’s residentially designated land remains to be developed.
With this in mind, staff is recommending that the PD Ordinance be revised to improve the appearance and
livability of the remaining, future residential subdivisions.
The City’s Zoning Ordinance also functions as the implementing zoning for Carlsbad’s Local Coastal
Program (LCP). Accordingly, a Local Coastal Program Amendment is being processed to adopt the
proposed amended zone code as part of the City’s LCP.
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation for approval of this Zone Code Amendment/Local Coastal Program Amendment
was developed by analyzing its achievement of the overall City Council project objectives and its
compliance/consistency with the Carlsbad General Plan and applicable Local Coastal Program policies.
A. Project Objectives
As mentioned earlier, there are three primary project objectives: 1) a user-friendly document; 2)
development standards and design guidelines to create more livable neighborhoods; and 3) regulations to
address house size and mass. Included below is a discussion and analysis of the specific Planned
Development Ordinance revisions associated with each of these objectives. Reference can be made to
Table X for a detailed review of all text revisions. As compared to the existing planned development
regulations, the new regulations propose the changes discussed below.
ZCA Ol-Ol/LCPA 01-01 -AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELUPMENT ORDINANCE
June 6, ‘2001
1. User-Friendly Document
The format and regulations of the existing Planned Development Ordinance are somewhat ambiguous,
out-of-date, and in need of revision. A number of amendments are proposed to create a user-friendly
document that provides clear and detailed development standards and procedures for the development of
small-lot, single-family and two-family/multiple family ownership dwelling units.
Put-nose and Intent - The Purpose and Intent section has been revised to distil1 existing, overlapping
objectives into six more focused and clear objectives. These include:
l Recognition of the need for a diversity of housing product types;
l Acknowledgment that preserving environmentally or topographically constrained land
precludes achievement of a full density yield and justifies clustered housing;
l Establishment of a process to allow the development of single family lots smaller than 7,500
square feet or as otherwise allowed by the underlying zone;
l Development of small-lot subdivisions in existing R-l neighborhoods when the project is
compatible with adjacent land uses;
l Development of small-lot subdivisions in multi-family zones (R-3, RD-M) as an alternative
product type to attached dwelling units; and,
l Recognition that additional community amenities and features should be provided in
exchange for relief from compliance with standard, residential zoning regulations.
These revisions provide a clearer distinction for use of the Planned Development Ordinance versus
standard zoning and more directly relate to the development standards and required findings found later in
the ordinance.
Tabular Format - The ordinance has been reformatted to incorporate six new tables (Tables “A” -
“E”), which are discussed below. The tabular format will be considerably more user-friendly than
the existing, predominantly text format.
l Table A - Permitted Residential Uses specifies the types of residential structures (i.e.;
single-family, two-family or multi-family) that are permitted within each residential zone
through a Planned Development permit. This new section stipulates that single-family lots
smaller than 7,500 sq. ft. are only permitted in an R-l zone when the project site is
contiguous to a higher intensity land use or an existing project of comparable or higher
density. This provision was incorporated to ensure that new, infill development is compatible
with surrounding R-l zoned neighborhoods. Consistent with the existing R-l and R-2 zones,
this section also: a) prohibits multi-family uses (3+ family dwellings) in the R-l zone; and, b)
only allows two-family in the R-l zone and multi-family uses in the R-2 zone when the
project site consists of no more than one lot nor is more than 90 feet in width, whichever is
less and is contiguous to a lot or lots with a higher intensity zone (i.e.; R-3, R-T, R-P, C-l, C-
2, C-M or M).
l Table B - Processing Procedures simply places existing language into a tabular format.
Minor projects of four or fewer units are still reviewed by the Planning Director; projects of
more than four units are still acted on by the Planning Commission; and projects of more than 50 units still have the City Council as the final decision-making body.
Approval of a PD requires specific findings to be made. The number of required findings has
been reduced from nine to two. The new findings require project conformance with all of the
develoF;ment standards of the ordinance as well as compatibility with surrounding uses. This
reduction in the number of required findings was possible because: a) as discussed earlier, the
ZCA Ol-OULCPA 01-01 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
June 6,200l
existing findings relating to environmentally sensitive design are no longer applicable; and, b)
the existing findings relating to project design are no longer necessary in that new
development and design standards that promote the development of livable neighborhoods
have been incorporated into the ordinance.
l Table C - General Development Standards - provides general development standards that
apply to &l planned developments. These general standards address: building setbacks from
arterial streets, permitted architectural intrusions into setbacks, visitor parking,
street/driveway design standards, landscaped parkways, screening of open parking, common
recreational open space and parking, and RV storage.
l Table D - Small-lot Single-Family and Two-family Development Standards - includes
development standards that apply & to small-lot, single-family and two-family dwelling
units.
l Table E - Multi-family Development Standards - includes development standards that
apply on& to multi-family dwelling units.
l Table F - Procedures and Development Standards for Residential Additions and
Accessory Uses - includes administrative procedures for processing residential additions
(garages, workshops, room additions, and guest houses).
Minor PD Amendments - The existing PD ordinance authorizes the Planning Commission to review
and approve minor PD amendments without the necessity of a public hearing, whereas, major PD
amendments require full public hearings. As currently defined, a minor amendment may not change
the density of a project or boundaries of a property, add a new land use or rearrange land uses within
the development, or change approved yards, building coverage, building height, open space or
landscaping more than 10%. This section has been amended to: 1) clarify the existing criteria for
determining whether a project revision qualifies as a “minor” or “major” PD amendment; and, 2)
establishes a new public notice requirement for minor PD amendments.
Staff is also recommending that the decision-making authority for a minor PD amendment be
delegated from the Planning Commission to the Planning Director. This recommendation is based
upon the fact that most other City development permits that are proposed for minor revision (and are substantially the same as the approved project) are administratively reviewed and approved by the
Planning Director. Any proposed permit amendment that does not satisfy the minor PD amendment
criteria will be processed as a major amendment before the Planning Commission.
New Definitions have been added for clarification and understanding. These include: condominium
project, driveway (single-family and project), duplex, net pad area, planned development and
twinhome. These terms are distinguished in the proposed ordinance and, therefore, require definition.
The proposed tabular format will be more user-friendly than the existing document by providing clear
direction on what standards apply to different types of development, how these projects are processed and
what the decision-making body is for each type of project. All Administrative Policies applicable to
planned developments have been reviewed and included in the proposed ordinance. This will provide
clarity for applicants who presently have no access to the policies and may not lmow they even exist.
ZCA Ol-Ol/LCPA 01-01 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
June 6,200l
Page 6
2. Development Standards and Guidelines to Create More Livable Neighborhoods
2a. Development Standards
Through revisions to the proposed Planned Development Ordinance, the City is taking a more proactive
approach to residential design and the development of “Livable Neighborhoods”. Generally speaking,
livable neighborhoods are those that have homes and streets that are in scale to each other and the size of
the lots, those that have streets with parkways and trees, and those that have opportunities for
neighborhood gathering areas. A comparison of proposed revisions in relation to existing standards has
been provided on the following Table X, Standards Comparisons, along with justifications for the
proposed changes.
Standard 1 Existing
Table X
Standards Comparison
ProDosed Justification
Street n 30 fi; 2 lanes, no n 34 feet, parking Existing street widths are proposed to be narrowed to a
Width, parking, 12 on both sides width of 34 feet (curb-to-curb) to slow traffic, to increase
Parkways, units or less n 4.5 feet wide pedestrian safety and to create a more visually-pleasing
Trees . 32 ft; 2 lanes parkways with environment for residents. The 34-foot-wide travel lane
parking on one trees also accommodates emergency service providers and
side service vehicles such as trash trucks. Proposed
. 36 ft; 2 lanes of improvements include a 20 foot travel lane, two 7 foot
parking parking lanes, two 6 inch curbs, two 4.5 foot landscaped 8 No parkways parkways, two 5 foot sidewalks and two 6 inch utility and access easements (Attachment 6). Staff is proposing to provide these street features within the same space that developers already are required to designate for street
improvements. The net effect of this redesign is that land currently designated as front yard setback is relocated as landscaped parkways to improve the streetscape while maintaining the same distance from the house to the curb.
Existing 30 foot (no parking permitted) and 32 foot wide
(parking permitted on one side) streets are proposed to be eliminated because residents park on both sides of the
streets regardless of regulations, thus creating travel lanes that are too narrow and cannot accommodate emergency
vehicles. The proposed private street width is consistent with the public residential street widths proposed as part of
the Livable Streets program concurrently being proposed through the City Council.
Trees will be selected from the City-approved tree list and
planted with root-guards to prevent lifting of sidewalks.
Parkway maintenance will be provided by the appropriate HOAs.
ZCA Ol-Ol/LCPA 01-01 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
June 6,200l
Standard Existing Proposed Justification
Front . Single-familv n Single- As discussed above, streets are one of the major
Yard from a street: 20 familv/two- components in a Livable Neighborhood because they have
Setback ft. with 15 ft. familv/ such a major influence on motorists, residents and the
average; 10 ft. . multi-family overall streetscape. To achieve the proposed street design
for side-loaded from a street: within the same designated space, the front yard setbacks
garages; n 12 ft. average, along both sides of a street are proposed to be reduced by 10 ft. three feet. This reduces the front yard setback from an
. Multi-far& minimum average of 15 feet to an average of 12 feet. The net tradeoff from a street: 20 . Front porches is that an average of three feet of the front lawn has been
ft. - 8 ft. relocated as a tree-lined parkway. This relocation softens
. Front-loaded the streetscape, contributes to slowing traffic and creates a
garages - 20 ft. more inviting pedestrian environment. However, the
. Side-loaded distance from the house to the curb has actually increased
garages - 10 ft. by one foot (from 20.5 feet to 21.5 feet). Front porches are allowed to encroach a maximum of 4 feet into the average
= Single-familv/ . Single- 12 foot front yard setback because front porches are integral
multi-family familv/two- components of livable neighborhoods. from a nroiect family/
driveway: 5 ft. multi-family from a uroiect
driveway:
. Residence - 8
ft.
n Garage - 5 ft.
Front None 50% of single- See discussion under 2b, page 13.
Porches, family and two-
Open family homes must
Court- provide
yards,
Balconies
ZCA Ol-OULCPA 01-01 - AMENDMENT TO PLAN-NED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
June 6,200l
Standard I Enistim I Prnnnsed 1 Justifiratinn _ _-__-__ - --__ __- -_- --_- -- --_--- - __---
Distance 9 Distance . This provision This provision has rarely been effective in increasing the
Between between single- has been deleted. distance between residential structures (as discussed below)
Single- story residential Instead, distance and has always been confusing because: 1) it does not story and structures: Not between address two-story to two-story homes; 2) it creates greater
Two-story less than 10 structures has distance between homes in PDs than homes in R-l
Residential feet; been addressed developments on larger lots; and 3) it is difficult to
Structures = When more than by lot coverage calculate because of the cofision over what is meant by
10 residential and increased “10 homes in a row.” structures in a side yard setback
row, the requirements. Although originally intended to address the intensity of distance Additional development by requiring a greater separation (more than
between two design guidelines 10 feet) between residential structures, this provision has and three story further reduce instead manifested itself as a “drop-a-lot” or as a lot without
residential building mass a house on the 10th lot. Specifically, rather than increasing
structures shall and provide the distance between residential structures, most developers
not be less than fagade opted to design residential projects so that 10 structures in a 20 feet and the articulation. row do not occur, thereby not requiring an increased
distance separation between residential structures. This design was between two- most frequently accomplished by locating small open space
story and one- lots as necessary throughout the project.
story shall not
be less than 15 New development standards are proposed which require
feet. greater side yard setbacks (for single family and two-family
structures). These new development standards in
association with other new building mass and bulk regulations and architectural guidelines will adequately
address the issue of building intensity.
Although the “drop-a-lot” are no longer needed to address
building mass, they have nevertheless become a valued
feature in existing neighborhoods in that they provide visual
relief and opportunities for recreation. With the proposed
amendment, staff has retained the concept of pocket parks
(in the recreation requirements) and allows these areas to be
counted toward the 300 sq. ft per unit recreation requirement. Although the development community may
believe there is a cost to them for the 300 sq. ft. per unit recreation space, this is offset by the fact that no longer must drop-a-lots be provided.
Distance
Between
Multi-
family Structures
20 feet 20 feet Although existing development standards require 20 feet
between structures, this space is frequently occupied by
stairwells and visually appears much narrower. To address
this, the ordinance has been amended to specify that no structures (i.e.; stairwells or balconies) are permitted within
this 20 foot separation area.
ZCA Ol-OULCPA 01-01 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
June 6,200l
Pane 9
Standard Existing Proposed Justification
Garages . 20 ft. setback . 20 ft. setback for See discussion under 2b, page 13. (Single- for front-loaded front-loaded
family and wages Two- n 10 ft. for side- ’ 10 ft. for side-
family) loaded garages loaded garages
n Architectural . On a project
Guidelines basis, 50% of
allow 75% of project garages
units to be must be recessed
three-in-a-row aminimumof5
car garages feet behind the front facade of
the residence, g&j 25% of
project garages
must be located
on the rear half
of the lot or
alley-loaded a&
a maximum of
25% of project
garages may be side or front-
loaded provided
that the garages
do not exceed 50% of the total
house frontage.
. Front-loaded
garages may project up to 6
feet forward of
the house.
. 12.5% of the
front-loaded garages may be
provided as three-m-a-row
car garages that
directly face the
street.
Single- None 15% of total See discussion under 2b, page 12. story Units number of single-
family and two- family homes
ZCA Ol-Ol/LCPA 01-01 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
June 6,200l
Pane 10
Standard Existing Proposed Justification
Recreation n 200 sq. ft. per . Common Area: Current regulations do not recognize the different sizes of
Area unit more than 10 projects in relation to recreation requirements. It is more
. Must be homes - 300 sq. difficult for smaller projects to provide common area and common active ft. per unit doing so requires the establishment of an HOA, often for no
and passive . Requires other reason than to ensure maintenance of these common
. 15’ x 15’ rear recreation areas recreation areas. The proposed requirements recognize this
yard counts to be centrally issue and do nc~ require common recreation space for toward 200 sq. located and projects with less than 11 homes. However, staff believes
ft. designed for that such recreational space is still important, so for single- . 6’ x 10’ balcony active and family and two-family projects of fewer than 11 units the
counts toward passive uses for a rear yard requirement has been increased to a 25’ x 25’ 200 sq. ft. variety of age area. For multi-family projects, the patio/balcony has also
. 10’ x 10’ patio groups been comparably increased. This provides more space for counts toward . lparking the homeowner, may eliminate the need for an HOA and 200 sq .ft. space/l5 lots or will eliminate useless recreation space that is never used
homes located because it is too small in the first place. more than 1000’
from a recreation Present regulations for planned developments with small lot lots do not provide adequate common recreation area for
residents and tend to address only the recreation needs of the healthy young adult. This issue is addressed with
. Private Area:- proposed requirements to increase private recreation space Single (yard, patio or balcony) and common active recreation
FamiWTwo- space. Recreation facilities will be provided for a variety of
family: age groups in easily accessible centralized areas. This will
. 1 - 10 homes - provide greater accessibility and use of recreation areas
25 ft. x 25 ft. instead of the frequent practice of locating recreation lots in
rear yard non-centralized or residual portions of sites. Such central . More than 10 gathering areas are consistent with the principles of Livable
homes - 20 ft. Neighborhoods to encourage interaction among residents.
x 20 ft. rear New requirements also update the list of recreational types
yard of uses/facilities and provide greater flexibility. The need 9 Private area: - to have some parking available at recreation areas is also
Multi-familv recognized by the new requirements.
. I- lohomes-
15 ft. x 15 ft.
patio or 120
sq. ft. of
balcony area
. Morethan 10
homes - 10 ft. x 10 ft. patio or
6 ft. x 10 ft.
balcony . Lots 7.500 sa. ft. in size and . Lots 7,500 sa. ft.
greater are in size and exempt from greater are
recreation space exempt from
requirements. recreation space
requirements.
ZCA Ol-Ol/LCPA 01-01 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
June 6,200l
Page 11
Standard Existing Proposed Justification
Resident n Multi-family - 2 . Multi-family - 1 New standards still ensure that each unit has a garage but
Parking covered per unit car garage and 1 allow the second parking space to be either open parking or
covered or a carport. This provides more open space and site design
uncovered space opportunities. Developers are not precluded from providing
per unit two-car garages.
Visitor . No change to . No change to Existing parking requirements remain the same. A new Parking number of number of spaces standard to encourage recessed garages recognizes that
spaces . Single-familv - driveways for recessed garages provide adequate space for
Credit for 1 guest guest parking. This saves space on the overall site design
parking space for other uses. when driveways
are over 40 feet
long
. 45 % can be m 25 % can be The reduction in the number of compact stalls permitted compact compact and are recognizes the larger size of modem cars and that compact
only allowed in parking should only be allowed when more parking spaces
multi-family are available in a lot.
projects of 25
units or more
RV 20 sq. ft. for each For projects of 25 RV parking for small sites is difficult to design and provide Parking home over 10 units or more: 20 due to the low number of RV spaces required. The
units sq. ft. for each unit. requirement increases HOA fees significantly because there are not enough homeowners to share the costs. Present
regulations allow only one homeowner to enjoy the space while the remaining homeowners receive no benefit.
Proposed regulations remain the same as existing for
projects of 25 units or more but recognize the inherent difficulties of providing RV parking for small projects.
Driveways 30 ft. . 24 ft. A reduced driveway width (from 30’ to 24’) reduces the
n No more than 20 amount of hardscape in a project without compromising the
single family/ ability for vehicles to efficiently circulate. The proposed
two-family 24’ wide driveway standard is. consistent with the City’s
homes may be existing driveway standard for apartment projects. This
located along a revision recognizes that driveways for multi-family condos driveway. and a limited number (20 maximum number) single
family/two-family units function the same as driveways for apartments. The 24 ft. width has been approved previously
a number of times as master plan amendments for condominium projects and functions without complaints or
problems. Language allows increased driveway width if
determined to be necessary.
Arterial
Setbacks
n Secondary - 30
ft.
. Major - 40 ft.
n Prime - 40 ft.
= 50% of setback New language clarifies the fact that a landscaped buffer is
closest to required along major roadways providing a visual as well as
arterial must be spatial buffer. The difficulty in providing such setbacks
landscaped along Carlsbad Blvd. is recognized and variance requests . Setback also become unnecessary.
applies to accessory
structures
. Homes on Carlsbad Blvd.
have a 20 foot
setback.
ZCA Ol-OliLCPA 01-01 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
June 6,200l
2b. Architectural Design Guidelines
Two companion policies accompany the proposed ZCAKCPA. As City Council policies they are subject
to action by the City Council and provided to the Planning Commission as information. The first policy,
Principles for the Development of Livable Neighborhoods, addresses concepts that the City believes are
major components of livable neighborhoods. They are intended to assist developers, staff and the
community in understanding the concepts of a livable neighborhood and what the City is striving to
achieve through implementation of the design guidelines found in City Council Policy 44.
The second policy is an amendment modifying City Council Policy 44, Small Lot Architectural
Guidelines, to achieve the development of more “livable neighborhoods” by strengthening existing design
policies addressing building mass and articulation. This policy is proposed to be renamed Neighborhood
Architectural Design Guidelines. Both policies are attached as Attachments 4 and 5. Major features of the
revised policy are provided below.
Apnlicabilitv. The major change regarding applicability of the revised Council Policy is that
these standards would no longer apply solely to Planned Developments but also to all proposed
single-family homes, two-family homes, and residential remodels (that propose to increase the
floor area of the home by more than 40 percent). The amended policy will be applicable whether
the project is located in an infill area or in an undeveloped area of town. The purpose is to
ensure that all new and remodeled (more than 40 percent) single-family and two-family homes
have sufficient building articulation to reduce their bulk and mass. Additionally, the new
guidelines are intended to ensure that homes are in scale to the size of their lots and relate well to
the street and surrounding homes.
In the older parts of the City, there have often been complaints about the lack of compatibility
demonstrated by new, larger two-story homes being developed on infill lots located in
neighborhoods that are developed predominantly with smaller, single-story homes. In these
circumstances as well as with all new R-l subdivisions, there are no architectural standards that
staff can use to address building mass and articulation. The amended policy would provide such
a tool by addressing building mass and articulation for all new single-family homes and two-
family homes. It will also ensure that older homes proposed for remodeling will be compatible
with surrounding development. Staff believes that implementation of similar design guidelines,
that formerly applied only to PDs, will provide the necessary building articulation to reduce the
bulk and mass of all new and remodeled homes to a more acceptable scale.
Projects of four or fewer units would have to comply with only some of the guidelines. This
recognizes the smaller scale of some projects, provides a high degree of architectural design freedom and yet ensures adequate building articulation and design interest. Recognizing that
many older homes are likely to remodel, when applications are received to remodel homes by
increasing the useable living space by more than 40 percent, property owners would be required
to comply with the same guidelines established for projects of less than five units. This provision
attempts to create equal treatment for all homeowners and establish compatibility between
existing infill homes, new infill homes and homes that remodel in infill areas.
Single-storv Homes. A new provision has been added to require 15 percent of the proposed
homes to be constructed as single-story structures. This standard is intended to provide an overall
project reduction in building mass through the use of a lower roof line on some of the units. Varying roof lines improve the streetscape by creating additional visual diversity. This issue
becomes even more important when homes are located along ridge-lines and visible from greater distances.
ZCA Ol-Ol/LCPA 01-01 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELUPMENT ORDINANCE
June 6,200l
Paae 13
Porches, Open Courtvards, Balconies. Another new requirement is for 50 percent of the homes
to provide a minimum area of 60 square feet designed as a front porch, open courtyard or balcony
and located at the front of the dwelling. These features provide additional building articulation,
create a stronger relationship with the street and provide additional opportunities for
neighborhood interaction.
Three-car-in-a-row Garages. Existing requirements of Policy 44 allow 75 percent of the total
number of homes to have three-car garages. Such garages are defined as garages having space for
three cars, whether constructed as 3 one-car garages or a two-car garage separated slightly from a
one-car garage, all located adjacent to each (or almost adjacent to each other) and directly facing
the street. When used in this design, three-car garages become the prominent feature on a home
and on the street forming a physical barrier between residents and pedestrians. The principles of
livable neighborhoods place the livable space of the home as prominent to the street rather than the
car. This provision also strengthens the appearance of the streetscape as well as the character and
identity of the neighborhood. Making the home prominent to the street is important to achieving a
sense of place in a neighborhood.
Design Elements. The last major change to Policy 44 is that each dwelling unit must provide a
variety of design elements to add character and interest to the home. A list of sample elements is
provided in the policy but proposed design elements may vary depending upon the chosen
architectural style of the homes. The intent is to strengthen design quality and provide flexibility
but to prevent the construction of flat, featureless boxes.
3. House Size in Relation to Lot Size
The existing PD ordinance allows for the development of residential lots with a minimum lot size of 3,500
square feet as compared to the minimum of 7,500 square feet required in an R-l zoned neighborhood. As the price of residential land within the City has continued to escalate, the development community has
aggressively pursued the development of smaller residential lots; however, the size of the homes has not
been proportionately reduced in size. This has resulted in the development of larger homes (typically, the same size as those found on R-1-7,500 square-foot lots) on smaller 3,500-5,000 square-foot residential
lots. This has become a citywide concern in that overbuilt residential lots compromise community
aesthetic values and homeowner privacy.
To address this issue, Planning Department staff reviewed bulk and mass regulations from other local
jurisdictions in the San Diego and h-vine area in addition to visiting new developments in these
communities for the specific purpose of identifying those development standards that could best address
the issue of overbuilt residential lots. Based upon this research, staff is recommending a number of
revisions to PD Ordinance development standards (i.e.; a new lot coverage standard and increased minimum lot size, lot width, and side yard setbacks) to ensure that dwelling units are in better scale and
proportion with residential lot sizes, as discussed below.
Lot Coverage. Traditionally, regulations addressing the bulk and mass of residential units
include building setbacks, building height and lot coverage. The existing PD Ordinance does
include building height and setback regulations but does not include a lot coverage standard. This
has resulted in the development of very large homes that are built to the required minimum
setbacks and maximum building height yet, nevertheless, appear out of scale in a neighborhood
setting.
Lot coverage is a bulk and mass standard that is defined as the total ground area of a lot that is
covered by a building or structure. For example, the R-l zone allows a lot coverage of 40 percent. This means that 40 percent (3,000 sq. ft.) of a 7,500 sq. ft. lot may be covered by the dwelling
70
ZCA Ol-Ol/LCPA 01-01 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
June 6,200l
unit and accessory structures. In comparison, lot coverage for many of the City’s existing small-
lot, single-family subdivisions is between 50-60 percent. Accordingly, the PD ordinance is
proposed for revision to establish a new lot coverage standard of 40 percent for two-story homes,
50 percent for one-story homes, 50 percent for two-story homes on lots less than 5,000 sq. ft., and
60 percent for multiple family units. The proposed 40 percent coverage standard for two-story
homes is comparable with the general lot coverage standard of the R-l zone and the 50 percent
one-story home lot coverage standard provides an incentive to developers to build one-story
homes. The proposed 60 percent coverage standard for multiple family units is consistent with
the lot coverage standard of the R-3 and RD-M zones.
Lot Size. As discussed above, the existing PD ordinance allows for the development of
minimum 3,500 SF residential lots as compared to the minimum 7,500 SF lots required in an R-l
zoned neighborhood. Historically, small 3,500 SF single-family lot projects have been proposed
on higher density designated properties (RMH or RI-I) as an alternative to developing the property
with a more clustered, attached (condominium) project. This has frequently resulted in the
development of small lot single-family projects that appear to be too intensely developed and
frequently not in character with surrounding neighborhoods. Accordingly, the PD Ordinance is
proposed for revision to increase the minimum, single-family lot size from 3,500 sq. ft. to 5,000
sq. ft. unless unique circumstances exist.
The proposed ordinance includes a provision that recognizes the fact that at higher density
locations (RMH and RH) and under unique circumstances, lot sizes smaller than the 5,000 sq. ft.
down to a minimum of 3,500 sq. ft. may be appropriate. Unique circumstances could include,
for example, developments proposed near the beach (where lots sizes are typically smaller),
affordable housing projects, seniors housing, or when the site is located within 1,200 feet of a
transit, employment, or commercial center.
Side Yard Setback/Building Separation. Existing standards require a minimum 5 foot side
yard setback for single-family units and a minimum building separation of 20 feet between multi-
family structures. The proposed amendment includes revisions to: 1) increase the side yard
setback for single family and two-family structures from a minimum of 5 feet to a combined side-
yard setback of not less than 25 percent of the lot width (with a minimum of 5 feet); and, 2)
prohibit structural encroachment (i.e.; stairs and balconies) within the 20 foot separation between
multi-family structures.
The net effect of these revisions is that there will be more separation between residential units.
For example, as shown in Table Y, page 15, Side Yard Setbacks Comparison, the existing,
minimum side yard setback standard for small-lot, single-family lots (irrespective of lot width) is
5 feet per side yard. In comparison, the revised standard would require a combined side yard
setback of 12.5 feet (50 feet x 25 percent) for a 50 foot wide lot. This means that the combined
12.5 foot total side yard setback can be proposed in a variety of combinations including 6 feet / 6.5 feet or 5.5 feet / 7 feet, as long as no side yard setback is less than 5 feet. When used in
conjunction with the reduced lot coverage standard and increased building articulation, the resultant effect will be a further reduction in building mass. See Table X, page 8 for discussion
related to distance between structures.
ZCA Ol-Ol/LCPA 01-01 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
June 6,200l
Page 15
Table Y
Side Yard Setback Comparison
Lot Existing Minimum Side Proposed Combined
Width Yard Setbacks Side Yard Setbacks
(25 Percent of Lot Width)*
50 ft. 5 ft. 12.5 ft.
55ft. 5 ft. 13.75 ft.
60 ft. 5 ft. 15 ft.
*Minimum of 5 feet
B. General Plan
The General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements include a number of community and neighborhood
design objectives and policies. The proposed Planned Development Ordinance amendment and associated
City Council Policies on Livable Neighborhoods and Architectural Design are consistent with applicable
objectives and policies of the General Plan as discussed below:
Table Z
General Plan Compliance
ELEMENT GOAL, OBJECTIVE ORDINANCE CONSISTENCY OR POLICY
Land Use Policy C. 11 - Residential l The Livable Neighborhood Policy requires that all development should provide residential projects include walkways to common
pedestrian and bicycle linkages to destinations such as neighborhood schools, nearby community centers, parks, parks/plazas and transit stops. schools
Land Use
Land Use
l Projects are required to include centrally located neighborhood meeting places/recreational activity
centers.
Policy C.6 - Building architecture Revised PD standards/ Neighborhood Architectural should enhance the character of Design Guidelines will require the development of
each neighborhood architecturally interesting homes that are in scale to lot sizes and strengthen the feeling of community in the
neighborhood. Policy C.7 (Overall Land Use l Revised development standards (i.e.; minimum lot
Pattern) - Buildings should be in size, lot coverage and setbacks) will ensure that harmony (size, height, and location) dwelling units are in better scale and proportion with with surrounding neighborhoods. surrounding neighborhoods.
l Small lot subdivisions in R-l neighborhoods are only
allowed when the proposed site is contiguous to a
higher intensity land use or an existing project of comparable. or higher density;
Circulation
Element
On and off-site circulation design .
should be efficient and promote Revised development standards will narrow streets,
traffic safety. thereby slowing traffic and increasing pedestrian and
traffic safety.
Objective B.2 (Streets and Traffic Revised development and design standards will narrow
Control) - Streets should be streets and require parkways and street trees. These
designed to be aesthetically revisions will provide a more pedestrian-friendly and
pleasing. aesthetically-pleasing streetscape.
C. Local Coastal Program
The City’s Planned Development Ordinance is one of the implementing ordinances for the Carlsbad Local
ZCA Ol-Ol/LCPA 01-01 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELUPMENT ORDINANCE
June 6,200l
Pane 16
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. The LCP amendment will add
the amended version of the Planned Development Ordinance 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.
The proposed Planned Development Ordinance amendment is consistent with applicable coastal policies
of Carlsbad’s Local Coastal Program because the proposed Planned Development ordinance revisions will not adversely impact coastal resources, obstruct coastal views or otherwise damage the visual beauty of
the coastal zone.
Coastal resources (i.e.; wetlands, or coastal slopes with gradients equal to or greater than 25% inclination
with or without native vegetation) will not be affected by the revised residential development and design
standards. These revised standards will result in the development of more “livable residential
neighborhoods” on the developable (unconstrained) areas of a property. All projects processed pursuant
to these revised standards shall be required to comply with all applicable provisions and policies of the
certified local coastal program and shall not result in significant adverse impacts to coastal resources.
In addition, the proposed development standards revisions (i.e.; increasing residential lot size and side
yard setbacks, requiring a percentage of one-story homes and establishing a lot coverage standard) should
enhance coastal views by reducing house size and mass.
Lastly, the proposed “livable neighborhood” design standards will enhance the aesthetic environment and
visual beauty of the coastal zone by creating narrower, pedestrian-friendly, tree-lined streets that slow
neighborhood traffic, and an improved streetscape, by reducing the dominance of garage doors, requiring
front porches, and enhanced front facade articulation for residences.
V. ENVIRONMENTALREVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that this Zone Code Amendment/Local Coastal Program
Amendment (ZCA Ol-Ol/LCPA 01-01) to the City’s Planned Development Ordinance (Carlsbad
Municipal Code, Chapter 21.45) will not have a significant impact on the environment and therefore
issued a Negative Declaration on March 15, 2001. The environmental analysis (EIA Part II) concluded
that this ZCWLCPA will not result in any physical, biological or human environmental impacts. The
amended planned development and design standards exceed the existing standards, with respect to
environmental protection, in that they promote the development of more livable neighborhoods where
visually interesting homes are prominent to the street and in better scale to lot sizes and narrower streets
(with landscaped parkways) are safer and pedestrian friendly. Therefore, no significant environmental
impacts are anticipated to occur. All future development projects processed pursuant to this amended
Planned Development Ordinance shall be subject to site specific environmental review. There were no
letters of comment received during the public review period for this Negative Declaration. An addendum
to the Negative Declaration has been prepared to indicate that that the proposed project will also include:
1) a new City Council policy outlining the City’s vision for Livable Neighborhoods and its intent to
consider these principles in the review of proposed residential projects, and 2) an amendment to City Council Policy 44, Small Lot Architectural Guidelines (proposed name: Neighborhood Architectural
Design Guidelines) to add several provisions addressing building mass and facade articulation and to apply these provisions to all new single-family and two-family development proposals.
73
ZCA Ol-OULCPA 01-01 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
June 6,200l
Paae 17
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4982 (Neg. Dec.)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4958 (ZCA)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4959 (LCPA)
4. City Council Policy on Livable Neighborhoods, dated June 6,200l
5. City Council Policy on Neighborhood Architectural Guidelines, dated June 6,200 1
6. Private Streets, dated June 6, 2001
AL:cs:mh
Attachment 6
June6,2001
T-
ih .
Planning Commission Minutes July 18,200l EXHIBIT 8 Page 10
2. ZCA Ol-Ol/LCPA 01-01 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE - A Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment
to repeal and reenact the City’s Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code) to: 1) create a user-friendly document that provides
clear and detailed development standards and procedures for the development of
small-lot, single-family and two-family/multiple-family ownership dwelling units; 2)
modify residential development and design standards to achieve the development of
more livable neighborhoods; and, 3) modify development standards to ensure that
homes are in better scale to lot sizes.
Ms. Landers stated Item No. 2 is an Amendment to the Planned Development Ordinance and
focuses on creating more Livable Neighborhoods. She stated they will be discussing the ZCA
and LCPA to amend the Planned Development Ordinance as well as two City Council Policies.
Staff will be asking the Planning Commission to make a recommendation by Resolution on the
ZCA and the LCPA and by minute motion on the City Council Policies.
She stated that on June 13, 2001 the Planning Commission heard a comprehensive
presentation on the Proposed Amendment and she would like to present a brief overview of the
main issues and how the proposed revisions address the concerns that will be discussed
momentarily. She stated that staff has met with the Development Community a number of times
to discuss the proposed recommendations, of which she stated she will be presenting those
concerns to the Planning Commission as well as staffs response.
Ms. Landers stated that the main reason why they are here this evening is to address large
homes on small lots or small net building pads. She shared that overbuilt lots compromise
community values related to aesthetics, open space and individual privacy and often such
homes lack building articulation, take up all the usable space on the lot and are dominated by
the presence of three car garages and do not contribute to a sense of character or
neighborhood and do not relate well to the street or the pedestrian. She stated that homes like
these have become a City Council concern and a community concern. She said that what they
are finding is that existing development standards have resulted in over-sized homes on small
lots and that the present standards do not create Livable Neighborhoods that have a unique
sense of character.
Ms. Landers further stated that as a consequence, the City Council directed staff to modify
existing standards to address the large houses on the small lots, to improve the appearance of
homes and to improve the appearance of the street scene as well as the function of the streets. She pointed out that in Item No. 1 they just previously discussed Livable Streets so she would
not be discussing that in this item.
She stated that staff believes that these objectives can best be achieved through an integrated
approach and they are proposing to do this by generally increasing the minimum lot size, by
creating homes with smaller building footprints and reducing lot coverage based on net pad
area, by creating more open space around the home through increased side yard setbacks and
increased private recreation space. She shared that staff is also proposing to address the issue
by continued use of the small architectural guidelines. She stated that she has underlined these
two items because these are two of the items that staff has not yet reached agreement on with
the development community.
Ms. Landers stated that staff is also addressing this issue by making homes more prominent on
the streets than the garages with the 34 foot wide streets, just discussed, and also including
Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 11
parkways with trees. She stated that staff believes all these issues are related and they address the issue of the large homes on the small lots.
Ms. Landers went to the first method of looking at a lot size and stated that staff is
recommending the issue of large homes on small lots be initially addressed by increasing the
minimum lot size from 3,500 to 5,000 square feet. She stated that the present minimum lot size
is 3,500 square feet but staff is raising that to 5,000 square feet unless there are unique
circumstances where 3,500 square foot lots might be appropriate. This would include areas of
higher density, areas along the beach, areas for affordable housing, near a transit center, a
commercial center or an employment center area.
Ms. Landers went on to lot coverage and stated that coming up with a standard of 40% lot
coverage for two-story homes on lots of 5,000 square feet or more, which is similar to what the City has in the R-l Zone today, incrementally helps to address the issue of large homes. She
stated that staff is also recommending a 50% coverage for two-story homes on lots of less than
5,000 square feet and 50% coverage for one-story homes. This is an incentive to develop and
construct one-story homes and it recognizes that it is a little bit more difficult to get the adequate
building square footage that you are looking for with a one-story home.
Commissioner Compas asked if Ms. Landers stated that these figures are maximums?
Ms. Landers stated that yes these figures are maximums because what staff is saying is that higher lot coverage equates to a more urban city and so they are really looking at these as
maximum percentages. She went on to say that she took most of the Commissioners out on a
field trip and brought pictures showing a 40% coverage. Some of the pictures shown appear to
be larger homes, because lot coverage is based on the total lot area rather than the net pad
area. The overall coverage is based on a much larger lot size (in a zone that does not have any
of the PD Ordinance applicable to it) than you would find in a typical small lot development. She showed some other slides of homes in Planned Developments on lots of about 6,000 square
feet which is close to being the net pad area.
Commissioner Baker asked if Ms. Landers could explain further about lot coverage if some
square footage of lots are straight up or down a hill,
Ms. Landers stated that in a 40% lot coverage in an R-l Zone, staff includes the entire square
footage of the lot. If it is an R-l 7,500 square foot lot, that means the lot coverage is based on
7,500 square feet. She pointed out that the first example she just showed is based on this calculation. She stated that the other three examples are also based upon that calculation,
however, they are all constructed on flat pads, so they may have a small intervening slope, but
they do not have any of the slope that you might find on the first pad.
Ms. Landers stated that what staff is proposing in the City’s Ordinance is that the lot coverage
be based on the net pad area which would eliminate some of the potential to include more
square footage. She provided examples on a slide of lot coverages of 60% on 3,500 square foot
lots and 50% on a 4,000 foot lot. She stated that these are all on flat pads.
She pointed out that one of the other methods they are suggesting to address the issue of large
houses on small lots is to basically create a little bit more separation between the units, a little
bit more open space by increasing the side yard setback slightly. She stated that the existing
standard in the R-l Zone requires 10% of the lot width on each side yard setback for a total of
Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 12
20%, for example a 50 foot lot width you have five foot side yards on each side. She stated that the PD Ordinance has a minimum five foot requirement.
Ms. Landers stated that staff is proposing that in the PD Ordinance the City increase that 20%
basically to 25% which means on a 50 foot wide lot a 6.25 foot side yard setback or a total
addition of 2.5 feet over the present requirements. She stated that the Commission would be
adding 1.25 feet on each side of the structure which is a very small incremental amount. She
stated that the development community has not reached agreement with staff on this particular
topic, and they contend that it restricts their development potential too much, but staff believes it
addresses the City Council concern of a large house on a small lot. The only way you can do
that is to make the house a little bit smaller and create a little bit more open space around the house.
Ms. Landers showed more slides with examples of the side yard separation. She explained an
important distinction that the side yards are often a function of the topography that exists on the
side. She stated that sometimes the homes look like they are much further apart because they
may have a slope which cannot be built on and must maintain a certain distance back from the
slope. To keep the building back from the top of the slope naturally widens the distance
between structures. She showed more slides of smaller slopes and then areas where it is flat,
which makes it look like a much smaller area between homes. She shared that when homes are
built to their maximum footprint it results in a minimum side yard setback of five feet and ten feet
between structures.
She stated that the proposed Ordinance will be more effective in creating a little bit more
incremental separation between structures. She pointed out that the present regulation
addresses one to two-story structures, two to three-story structures but it does not address two
to two-story structures which is seen much of the time, resulting in what is called “drop-a-lot” -
which means every tenth lot does not have a house on it and is an open space lot. She further
explained to compensate for requiring increased side yard setbacks, staff has dropped that
requirement. She stated that the integrated approach of single story structures, making the
house a little bit smaller, increasing the size of the lot and creating more separation between
structures eliminates the necessity for the “drop-a-lot”.
Ms. Landers went on to share another issue which is the location of garages. She shared that
staff is proposing to recess some of the garages at least five feet behind the front facade of the
home, locate some of them on the rear half of the lot or have alley-loaded garages and then
side or front load the garage if they do not exceed 50% of the house frontage so that the garage
is not prominent on the street. She stated that staff has determined the percentages based on
the number of floor plans in the project, which is included in the errata sheet, and arrived at
through a discussion with the development community. She stated that they also allow a certain
percentage of the garages to be front loaded and be constructed as three-in-a-row car garages.
She said they are not prohibiting three car garages, but they are saying it would be preferable to
have them as tandem loaded or side loaded. Ms. Landers stated that if the driveway exceeds 40
feet that staff would grant them a guest parking credit for that type of garage, because they want
to provide incentives for recessed garages.
She went on to state that recreation is a real important feature to be included in a community
which creates more open space around the home and also provides a place for residents to
relax or play in private. She stated that staff believes the current standards do not provide
enough private or common recreation area and it also does not recognize the different sizes of
projects in relation to recreation requirements. She stated that it is difficult for units of 10 or less
Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 13
to provide the common recreation area, so staff is eliminating the common open space
requirement for small projects and increasing the size of the rear yard from 15 feet by 15 feet to
25 feet by 25 feet, which still provides adequate recreation space. She said for units of 11 or
more, the rear yards have increased from 15 feet by 15 feet to 18 feet by 18 feet, which
provides a little bit more space and the development community has agreed to that as well.
Chairperson Segall asked if 18 feet by 18 feet means contiguous, because if there is a certain
area in the back and some area on the side because the developer has a notch in the property
and you have some open space or recreation area in the front?
Ms. Landers stated that staff is not saying that, but they are saying 18 feet by 18 feet literally
square.
Commissioner Compas asked if it includes slopes?
Ms. Landers replied that it does not include slopes and it is anything less than 5% slope. She
went on to say that they also have a requirement for common recreation which has been slightly
increased for projects of eleven units or more in that they must provide common recreation
facilities for a variety of age groups, which has been increased from 100 to 200 square feet per
unit. Basically that is a IO foot by 10 foot area which will provide more of an opportunity for
active recreation. She stated that these recreation areas also must be centrally located.
Ms. Landers stated that for projects of 50 or more units, 25% of the recreation space must be
provided as pocket parks which does not need to be provided as a drop-a-lot. She mentioned
that staff did have a number of workshops with the development community starting in February
of 2000 and recently in March and June of 2001 they met again. Copies of the Ordinance were
given to them. Some sent letters, which the Commission has, and there is no need to respond
to those tonight as staff has gone over them with the developers.
Ms. Landers began to go over some issues in the letters with the Commission, one of which is
the 15% requirement for single-story structures. The developers believe that particularly on
small lots they cannot get adequate square footage to make their units marketable. She stated
that staff has considered that particular item approximately three different times now which has
come up from the very beginning of their discussions which they had come down from 25% to
15%. She stated that they did try to address the developers concerns on small lots, particularly
the 3,500 square foot lots. She stated that staff recommends that if they propose alley-loaded
products, a minimum of 20% of the homes shall be single-story for the front 20% of the home.
The rear 80% of the home could be two-story which gives them a little more square footage towards the rear part of the structure, stepping it back from the street some.
Chairperson Segall stated he did not understand.
Ms. Landers replied that there is one-story along the street and two-story toward the back of the
house along the alley.
Chairperson Segall asked if that would be called a modified one-story?
Ms. Landers replied that it would be called a dominant single story.
Chairperson Segall asked if she was saying they could have 15% that are one-story or 20% of the one-story dominant?
74
Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 14
Ms. Landers replied yes, for an alley-loaded project. She stated that you cannot achieve a
single story product on a smaller lot of 50 feet wide. She said the possibility always exists to
make the lot a bit wider and achieve that square footage which would give the developer less
lots. She stated that staff felt this was an important issue in addressing City Council concerns
and thus staff decided to not reduce that percentage any further.
She stated that the 25% side yard setback was also retained. She stated that 20% of the lot
width for one or two-story homes on lots 60 feet or wider is more similar to the R-l Zone.
Commissioner Nielsen shared he was confused about allowing 20% of alley-loaded to be two-
story. He asked if they were saying 20% of the 15% or 20% of the development?
Mr. DeCerbo commented that if you do an alley-loaded type of house product, instead of having
to do a one-story structure, the alternative would be to do the front 20% of the house as one-
story and then the rear 80% can go up to two-stories.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if you have to have a single-story or if that takes the place of it, in
other words, you don’t have to have any single story but you have to have 20% of the alley-
loaded homes to be a modified two-story.
Mr. DeCerbo replied that no, they do not have to have a single story in that case.
Commissioner Trigas confirmed that 80% of the house could be two-story, not 20% of the house
and the front part is the one-story.
Chairperson Segall stated that he thought they were using the wrong terms in that they were
talking about 20% of units in the development, not 20% of the house.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that it was worded rather poorly but that this was a request of the
development community as an alternative. He stated staff agreed as they saw models of it and
pictures and staff said it qualifies and looks very much like a single story structure.
Commissioner Trigas asked if a developer had 15% of them to be alley-loaded then they could
have this type of unit to take the place of a single story?
Ms. Landers said to consider that a developer has his entire project as alley-loaded, you would
have this type of structure, a single story dominant, which is a single story at the front part of the
home and two-story at the rear part of the home.
Commissioner Trigas stated that it looks like a two-story and it clearly is a two-story, which is
80% of the house being two-story.
Chairperson Segall asked how that addresses the single story nature? He stated that staff is looking at it purely as aesthetics vs. diversity of housing.
Ms. Landers stated that on a small lot size there is going to be a more intense development,
most likely in an RDM Zone, which means multiple density and multiple units, which tend to
have apartment projects. She stated that this is an alternative product type to an attached
product of maybe six- or eight-plex, or an alternative product type to multi-family attached units
Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 15
which may be a balance of achieving higher density to not having a single story product instead
in its place.
Commissioner Trigas clarified that it would not be acceptable for non-alley-loaded
developments.
Ms. Landers stated if the developer chooses to not do an alley-loaded product then you must
provide 15% single story. She stated that the Commission may hear the other side of this
discussion later from the development community.
Ms. Landers went on to the issue of 60% lot coverage which the development community has
raised a number of times. She believes they do not have concerns any longer. She stated that
staff is retaining the 50% for one-story homes, and on lots less than 5,000 square feet they
could have 50% for two-story. She stated that the development community also wanted to retain
the 15 foot by 15 foot rear yards and staff is suggesting to increase that to 18 feet by 18 feet,
and to all 15 feet by 15 feet side yards for alley-loaded projects, realizing that you cannot put the
18 feet by 18 feet rear yard when you have the garage on the alley.
Chairperson Segall stated he was confused and asked why did the development community
want that.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that they did not want the 20 foot by 20 foot which staff originally proposed.
He stated the existing standard is a 15 foot by 15 foot rear yard and staff proposed to make it 20
foot by 20 foot. The developer indicated that that would be very problematic for them so staff
has agreed to reduce it down to 18 feet by 18 feet. He stated that staff believes they will still be able to achieve more than what they get today in terms of rear yards.
Chairperson Segall asked if saying “we believe we will be able to” means that staff has some
question that they might not be able to?
Mr. DeCerbo replied no, but that the City will be better off than they are today with respect to
getting bigger rear yards. Staff thinks this is important with respect to an overhaul of the
Planned Development Ordinance with respect to the Council’s comments to staff and
community concerns.
Chairperson Segall asked again if they wanted 15 feet, staff wanted 20 feet and staff
compromised at 18 feet?
Mr. DeCerbo replied “correct.”
Commissioner Nielsen asked on the first item if that means to retain 50% for one-story homes
and lots less than 5,000 square feet? He asked if there was no incentive for a developer to get
away from 3,500 square foot lots?
Mr. DeCerbo stated that developers would only be able to do 3,500 square foot lots in very
limited circumstances which are included in the Ordinance, and there would be in situations that
are unique, such as sites which have a higher density general plan designation and the
developer is doing an Affordable Housing, Senior Project or an alley-loaded project. This
provision accommodates the developer’s needs. He stated that the minimum lot size is 5,000
square feet as a recommendation.
Planning Commission Minutes July 18,200l Page 16
Commissioner Nielsen asked if that statement is superceded somewhere else?
Ms. Landers stated that in the Code under minimum lot size, that the minimum lot size is 5,000
square feet but that under special circumstances they can go down to 3,500 square feet. She
stated that they are not encouraging that but are recognizing that there may be a desire for
higher density in some situations.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if that would be a variance condition? He also asked who would
make the final decision on it?
Ms. Landers stated that it would not but that it would basically allow a lot of flexibility so the
development community can come and propose to staff for consideration of their special
circumstances that warrant higher density. She stated that staff would make a recommendation
to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission or City Council would decide.
With regard to common open space, Mr. DeCerbo stated that staff was originally recommending
to start with 400 square feet per unit but in their negotiations subsequent to their original draft
Ordinance coming out, staff agreed to go down to 300 square feet (the existing standard is 100
feet of common recreation area per unit) and basically ended up negotiating down to 200
square feet which is twice as much as the current Ordinance requires for common recreation on
a unit basis. This shows staffs efforts to negotiate with the development community which staff
is always willing to do.
Ms. Landers went on to state that the other issue the developers had concern with was porte-
cocheres and porches being included as lot coverage. Staff did propose that originally and after
discussions with them, staff agreed to no longer count that toward lot coverage. She presented some pictures that depict one of the proposals that the development community will be making
to the Commission tonight. She stated that the pictures depict the single story dominant
structure which are perhaps similar to what staff was talking about for the alley-loaded products
which has additional square footage at the rear of the structure, some of which are single story
perpendicular to the street and others are parallel to the street, the difference being in the
ridgeline.
Ms. Landers shared a comparison of what would happen on a 5,000 square foot lot with the
existing and proposed standards. She stated that with a one-story home on a 5,000 square foot
lot you would have a potential (given all the setback, recreation requirements, etc. excluding the
garage) of a square footage of about 2,350 and the two-story would be about 4,400 square feet
with a lot coverage of about 55%.
She stated that with the proposal, a one-story home at a 50% coverage would be about 2,100
square feet and the two-story would be about 3,100 square feet with a 40% lot coverage
excluding the square footage that you would typically find for a garage, which is about 400
square feet.
Chairperson Segall asked how they arrive at those numbers?
Ms. Landers responded that they basically drew a site plan, laid out all of the setbacks and the
recreation space on that site plan, calculated what was left as the maximum building footprint,
deducted the square footage for the garage and that gave you a one-story structure. She further
stated that for the two-story structure they built over the garage and subtracted 25% for the
Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 17
small lot architectural guidelines which basically articulates the second floor of the structure and
deletes about 25% of the square footage.
Chairperson Segall stated that at the last meeting on Poinsettia Properties there was a question about making those units one-story rather than two and the applicant was asked what would
happen if you make the one-story instead of two-story, what square footage would you have?
He stated he believed the response was about 1,000 to 1 ,I 00 square feet. Unfortunately that is
not in the minutes so he stated he does not remember the response. He stated that that was
roughly half of the size of the property and it would make sense if you had a two-story and
lopped it in half that you would have half of the footage. He asked if staff was saying that this
house would be 4,000 square feet and now it is 2,000 square feet?
Mr. DeCerbo pointed out to him that if he looked at the proposed one-story on a 5,000 square
foot lot, and applying the 50% lot coverage, which would be 2,500 square feet for a one-story
house and under the proposed where it says 2,100 square feet, we took out the 400 square foot
garage. He stated if it were smaller lots then the number would go down. 50% of a 3,500
square foot lot would be proportionately less.
Ms. Landers stated that she does not have that particular layout but that she does have a
number of overheads that give some examples of footprints along with the building square
footage, the lot size and the lot coverage.
Chairperson Segall stated that maybe they can get to that but asked if the development
community has reviewed this and if they are in agreement with these numbers?
Ms. Landers stated that she did not know if they were in agreement with them or not, but that it
is pretty easy to calculate the setbacks on a lot and then calculate the maximum building
footprint on that.
Mr. DeCerbo added that staffs objective was to shrink the houses so they are proportional to
the lot sizes. He pointed out that the existing standards for an R-l lot is 40%. He stated that if it
were to be proportional if your lot was shrunk in half and say it is still 40% and it would fit on the
lot and it would look like it is in scale to the lot. What staff is doing is saying, is that a two-story
home should be at 40%, same as the R-l, and on top of that we negotiated and listened to the
development community who said on one-story we just cannot live with that square footage for
marketing reasons. He stated whether they agreed with that or not, staff was sympathetic and
would go to 50%, which is above what you can do in an R-l Zone. He stated that this achieves Council’s objective and what staff is recommending is that things be made in proportion so that
we do not have oversized homes on smaller lots.
Commissioner Trigas asked if garages are going to be excluded in all of the formulas and are
they included in the lot coverage here? She asked if they did include the garage regarding the
40 and 50%? She also asked if the 5,000 square foot was the net pad?
Ms. Landers replied that they are typically excluded in square footage (when buying a house they are typically not included in the square footage) but are included in the lot coverage. She
replied that the 5,000 square feet in the proposed Ordinance is based on the net pad.
Mr. DeCerbo pointed out that they were giving living area without considering the garage just as
an example.
Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 18
Mr. Wayne stated that staff took a 5,000 square foot lot, take 50%, which is 2,500 square feet
and subtract 400 square feet for the garage which leaves 2,100 square feet. He stated that the
garage is in there for coverage and excluded in the livable square feet.
Chairperson Segall stated that he has questions but agreed to take a 10 minute break.
RECESS
Chairperson Segall called a Recess at 7:42 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Chairperson Segall called the Meeting back to order at 752 p.m. with six Commissioners present,
Commissioner L’Heureux absent.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Chairperson Segall asked regarding the parkways with trees went from the 4.5 to 5.5, please
explain.
Ms. Landers stated that was a mathematical mistake.
Chairperson Segall stated that driveways and motor courts should be in concrete, looking at
some of the additions, on page 5 under Driveway on the redline strikeout version, the bold
strikeout Ordinance version.
Ms. Landers responded that driveways in the motor courts should be constructed of concrete
vs. a driveway itself, so that basically the area within the motor court would be concrete for
aesthetics.
Chairperson Segall pointed to page 6, Minimum Lot Sizes, talking about the RMH and the RH
but there is no RM, and is that missing intentionally?
Ms. Landers responded that yes it is missing intentionally because the RMH and the RH are
areas where you would expect to find a higher density and that staff wanted a citizen to be able
to look at the General Plan Map and be able to expect a higher density and know that the
product type that came in next to him would be a higher density project rather than the
expectation that it might be a single family detached.
Chairperson Segall asked when staff is talking about alley-loaded you literally are talking about
an alley that goes between the houses.
Ms. Landers stated that is correct vs. the motor court which may have four to six units around
the court in a U-shape.
Chairperson Segall stated that the question he has may be on the errata sheet because it is
changed now. He stated that on the garages, being confused by the slide since it did not have
numbers, if you have three floor plans (a third of each type), the first is garages that are
recessed a minimum of five feet behind the front house facade-what is the purpose of setting it behind that far?
Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 19
Ms. Landers stated that the purpose is to make the house more prominent to the street rather
than the garage.
Chairperson Segall went on to the second set of floor plans which would have to be alley-loaded
or located a minimum of 30 feet, presuming the 30 feet means it is the Pasadena driveway and
they are going to go all the way in the back?
Ms. Landers stated that it does not necessarily have to mean a Pasadena driveway, but it
means it is recessed behind the front of the house or it is alley-loaded or it is located a minimum
of 30 feet behind the front property line.
Chairperson Segall clarified that it is right behind the front of the house rather than from the lot
line so that makes it a long driveway and then he stated that the other third are side loaded
basically.
Ms. Landers responded that a third is side loaded or project six feet forward at the front house
facade.
Chairperson Segall stated that when it comes six feet front you’re going five feet back.
Ms. Landers disagreed and stated that the intent is to make the garage less prominent on the
street than it is now and to also allow flexibility so that a developer can provide a variety of
garage types and locations. She clarified that l/3 is recessed five feet behind the front facade,
l/3 either alley-loaded or located to the rear portion of the lot and then l/3 side loaded or project
forward as often we see them project forward now and staff wanted to allow for the opportunity
for that to still occur for variety.
Chairperson Segall pointed out that one of the problems that he saw on the side loaded garages
on the tour provided by staff, is that they are not usable because they are too close to the front
of the house, make it almost impossible to use a portion of the garage especially if it is a single loaded. He asked if there was any way of addressing that so that we do not put in unusable side
loaded garages?
Ms. Landers stated that she believed it would be possible if the Commission wished. Staff could
add a phrase that the side loaded garage could project forward of the house a certain amount
so that it might make it a little bit more usable. She stated that staff would have to think about
the correct language a little bit to come up with something.
Chairperson Segall asked if Ms. Landers could make a note of that?
Ms. Landers agreed.
Mr. Wayne stated that he was not understanding that because there are a number of side
loaded garages in Chairperson Segall’s community and actually houses that have nothing but
side loaded and as long as you have a large enough backup space, those are totally usable.
Chairperson Segall stated that they saw some where you could literally scrape the side of your car to get in.
Ms. Landers stated that it might be better that it is something that they call to staffs attention
and try to ensure that that does not happen again, rather than placing it actually in the Code.
Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 20
Chairperson Segall stated that he would rather do it that way. He said that he was questioning
something on these garages, the first being when they require a third of these house to have
these long driveways, it seems to him that you are using up a lot of usable yard space, so what
we are doing is telling the community that they have to have 15 by 15 square feet or 18 by 18
square feet in the back but they also have to have a long driveway which now is a requirement,
but they are not going to be able to count that and there is no recreation that can occur, but it is
this long piece of concrete and now we have this storm water recovery act issues where what
they were trying to do is get rid of concrete and now we are proposing more of it. We are also
doing that on these alley garages. He asked if staff could address these issues?
Ms. Landers stated that what they have actually done is provide for a variety of options of which
the garage at the rear half of the lot is just one option so it would not be on every home.
Chairperson Segall replied that on this one a third of them would have to either be located to the
rear portion of the lot which would create a lot of concrete etc.
Ms. Landers stated that it perhaps creates more concrete and might be offset by the fact that
the garage is located to the rear portion of the lot. She stated that staff has also allowed the
house to come forward on the lot a little bit and the porch to encroach to the front yard so that
they have opportunity for more recreation space. She stated what her intent here is again that
they want to address large house on the small lot, provide building articulation and to move the
garage off the street. She said that to do all of those things they are going to have to accept
some tradeoffs and it is staffs recommendation that they do provide these methods to address
building articulation and to improve the street scene by removing the garage from the front of
the home.
Chairperson Segall asked how do we address storm water run off issues or are those not issues
from the City’s perspective?
Ms. Landers stated that that is going to be addressed and as it is now it is not going to change
significantly by the proposed recommendations at all.
Chairperson Segall asked if anyone has talked to the Police Department about safety issues
with these alley-loaded garages and is that a concern for the City?
Ms. Landers stated that she does not believe that it is a wncern anymore than any other
development would be. She stated that staff has not specifically talked to them but they do have
alley-loaded products everywhere and basically at Harbor Pointe along the east side of l-5 just
north of Poinsettia is basically an alley-loaded project. She said there are alley-loaded projects
in the northeast quadrant of the City. She stated that she does not know that the crime is any
higher in those areas than it would be in any other part of the City.
Commissioner Nielsen referred to the bullet point where it says, “25 percent of all driveways
must be designed as Pasadena driveways...” He asked if that one third is alley-loaded how do
they do the Pasadena?
Ms. Landers stated that if you are going to have a driveway on an alley-loaded project it is going
to be so short that it does not make sense to have a Pasadena driveway off of an alley, that no one is going to see it.
Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 21
Commissioner Nielsen stated that the point was that it says 25% of driveways must be
designated.. . .
Ms. Landers stated that they could say “25% of all driveways for non-alley-loaded projects.. .‘I
Chairperson Segall stated that the numbers are not adding up and then confirmed that 33% can
have these long driveways and out of that staff is requiring 25% of the 33% to have Pasadena
driveways? He also asked if they were talking about Pasadena just for these long strips
because the community he is in, they put Pasadena strips and everyone took them out
immediately because they are not functional.
Ms. Landers stated that was correct regarding the 33% and 25%. She further stated that Pasadena driveways with grass or enhanced pavement in the middle, the intent is to break up
the appearance of the driveway. She said that in some of the new subdivisions in La Costa
Valley she saw a number of those that people have actually come in and put enhanced pavement across the front, down the middle, they put designs in because the homeowners
themselves rewgnize that the flat concrete detracts from the appearance of the house so they
are enhancing the driveway itself.
Commissioner Trigas asked to go back to “less than 5,000 square foot” on page 6, Minimum Lot
Size. She stated that all of the allowable uses for under 5,000 have to be one of the items
mentioned here, in other words it has to be RMH or RH and one, two, three, four?
Ms. Landers disagreed and stated that it says when unique circumstances such as one of the
following exist.
Commissioner Trigas stated then if it is anyone of the following or they are going to allow for
other things too, in other words it can be other things other than what is listed?
Ms. Landers stated that is correct.
Commissioner Heineman stated that with considerable experience in a planned unit
development one concern is the requirement for 200 square feet of active recreation space per
unit, which is about 3/4 of an acre which is a lot of land for a 100 PUD project. He stated that it
is an awfully lot of space to put aside for recreation and it is enormously more than any of the
planned developments that we have had come through here which we approved in the past
year or so. He stated secondly that it is his experience regarding pocket parks, when he was on the Parks and Recreation Commission that these were considered completely useless and the
Parks and Recreation Commission no longer considers them recreation at all and yet he stated
that staff is recommending them here. He asked why that is?
Ms. Landers stated that they are not public pocket parks as the Parks and Recreation
Commission deleted them. She stated that because those are public parks, they are available to
anyone in the community to use. She stated that these are much smaller, typically the size of a
residential lot. She stated that you basically do away with the drop-a-lots and call them pocket parks as they are basically the same thing, the size of one lot.
Mr. DeCerbo responded on the 200 square feet per unit saying that staff has talked to the
development community and on average if you have a recreation area that includes a pool and a Jacuzzi they are roughly around 10,000 square feet, which is the minimum size for these. He
stated that if you look at them on a unit or lot basis, if you had a 50 unit project, you would have
Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 22
10,000 square feet which equates to two residential lots at 5,000 square feet to put a recreation
area. This does not seem out of scale or proportion in terms of what the need is. The residential
lots are reduced by quite a bit of area, (going from 7,500 square feet, permission to go down to
5,000 square feet); the developer gaining 2,500 square feet additional area per residential lot. In
effect, the net gain from two 2,500 square foot residential lots results in an additional 5,000
square foot residential lot.
Mr. Nielsen asked what the reaction has been of the development community to this
requirement in view of the fact they have not been putting any in the projects that came before
this. He asked if they are going to fall over themselves to do this?
Ms. Landers stated that the development community has agreed to this and what they did
dispute was staffs initial requirement for a 20 foot by 20 foot rear yard, and staff went to 18 feet
by 18 feet. The development community would still like staff to go down to 15 feet by 15 feet
which currently exists, though they can live with the 18 feet by 18 feet.
She further stated that she has to keep bringing the Commission back to the point that the real
issue is the large houses on small lots. She stated that staff has spent a lot of time analyzing
ways to do this and the only way is to make the house smaller and increase the open space,
which is to push the box in a little bit. She said if they continue to push the box out, the City is
going to be right where they are now.
Ms. Landers stated that the City’s direction and analysis has led the City to the decision to
increase setbacks, increase the recreation area slightly, decrease the size of the house slightly
to achieve our goal which is staffs best professional recommendation which she believes it is
pretty consistent with what other cities are doing that are taking a more proactive approach to
creating Livable Neighborhoods.
She stated that staff believes that recreation space is very important and that the City is not
getting common recreation space in the City’s new neighborhoods. She mentioned that she was
driving by Park- side where she took a number of the Commissioners last week. She stated
there is no common recreation space in that neighborhood but there are two very high walls
which two girls were climbing and walking along the tops. She stated that this is what happens
when you do not have active recreational space.
Mr. Nielsen stated that this was exactly his point and was wondering if staff has talked to the
development community about it because it is quite a change, seeing there is an awful lot of
them without any recreation space at all.
Ms. Landers stated that the development community seems to have reached agreement on a
common recreation space.
Commissioner Baker asked if drop-a-lots serve that recreational function right now and are we
grouping all the drop-a-lots together in one place rather than having them every ten units?
Ms. Landers stated that on page seven, under Community Recreation Space, the very last
bullet point says for single family or two-family projects of 50 units or more at least 25% of the
Common Recreation Space must be provided as pocket parks, must have a minimum width of
50 feet (a typical lot width) and located at strategic locations” which the idea was maybe at the
end of a “T” intersection so that it might also provide a vista point and it breaks up the street
scene some and does provide recreation amenities for the people that live in the planned
Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 23
development. She stated that they feel it is really important and stated that as Mr. DeCerbo
said, if you are going to get more units you are going to have higher density. One of the things
that is important is that you provide recreational amenities and better architecture which is stated in the intent and purpose of the PD Ordinance at the very beginning.
Commissioner Baker referred to the bottom of page 6 of the Ordinance, regarding maximum building
height and asked if it is different than how it currently exists or is it the same? She suggested that one
way to discourage the appearance of big houses on small lots is that they all were not 30 feet high?
Ms. Landers stated that is a possibility, but is a very, very large issue to tackle as it took a long
time for staff to discuss the building height issue a few years ago. She stated that she thinks
homes are typically built at 28 feet high vs. 30 feet.
Commissioner Baker stated that she brought this up because when driving through many of
those neighborhoods that Ms. Landers showed, the reason they loom over the street is that they
are all so tall for two-story houses and if they were not so tall they would not have the
appearance of looming over the street scene.
Ms. Landers stated that is one of the reasons for what they call the Neighborhood Guidelines.
She stated that previously the small Architectural Guidelines is to reduce the mass on the
second floor so that you do have that building articulation. She stated that what you are seeing
on some of these homes is the large mass on the second floor for it is not so much the mass on
the ground floor, but the mass on the second floor is what takes up that space between
buildings and that was the way staff decided to address that issue is to reduce that mass on the second floor with the single story requirement and also with the building articulation and the
guidelines.
Commissioner Baker stated she understands that you would not need to do some of the single
story articulation if they were not so high in the first place.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that part of it is that houses are built today with volume or tall ceilings -
which is a desirable marketing trend. He went on to say that if you consider a home with 10 foot
plates per floor and put a pitched roof on, which is aesthetically desirable, (we have a minimum
of 3:12) it is going to get you right up to that 28 feet. He stated that with respect to controlling
mass and volume on a residential lot there are the choices of building height, setbacks and lot
coverage. He stated staff was not going to address building height as there is a need to build
houses to the height that they are built.
Commissioner Baker asked to forget about the Ordinance for right now as they also have the
Policy 44 guidelines. She asked if building height could be included on the list of architectural
features as a compromise to encourage lower buildings than what are currently being built?
Ms. Landers stated that a few years ago when they did address building height for the Zone
Code Amendment, previously the building height was 35 feet and at that time it was reduced to
30 feet which seems to be a height that developers are telling staff they need to achieve to get
more pitch in some of the roofs, to achieve a better design rather than having flatter, shorter
buildings. She stated that she would go back to reducing the mass on the second floor rather
than addressing the building height itself.
Mr. Wayne pointed out that several years ago when staff addressed the building height issue on
a sloping lot you could actually almost build up to 55 feet and the measurement was to the
Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 24
center of a pitched roof. Now what staff has done is to make the building height very, very
restrictive in this City because it is essentially measured inside the skin of the structure to every
point above it. He stated that staff met with the development community many times and what
Mr. DeCerbo stated about the 10 foot plates is absolutely correct. To make the roof even
smaller you would get down to the minimum pitch which is 3:12 for drainage and the roof starts
to appear flatter and flatter which is not desirable as well because it is more mass above. He
stated that these houses would look unattractive as short squat houses. He stated that the 28 to
30 foot pitched roof is about as low as it can go.
Chairperson Segall asked Commissioner Baker if she was on the Commission when they did
the Zone 20 development where they had 18 houses on each side and the wncern was all
these houses looked the same. The applicant agreed to having some single story and different
sizes on the two-story, which is the point you may be making is that they do not all have to be
the same size, having diversity which allows a change in street scene.
Commissioner Baker pointed out what she was getting to, since the Ordinance is written in
stone and the Policy does not necessarily have to happen, she asked why not include building
height in that list of design elements?
Mr. Wayne stated he understands now and you can require area-varied building heights primarily in two-story homes.
Commissioner Baker stated what she is trying to get away from is when you drive down a
neighborhood is you either feel like you are in a tunnel or the floor of a canyon because they are
all 30 feet and on the front of a street and the building height could be a design element that
could be incorporated.
Ms. Landers stated that it would be appropriate to add to Council Policy 44 if the Commission
decides to incorporate a general statement which may be the new number 9 which says, “Floor
plans in a project should exhibit a variety of roof ridges within a neighborhood,” and you could
also add a variety of roof heights within a neighborhood.
Chairperson Segall pointed out that in terms of the whole concept of Livable Communities and
having the front of the house oriented to the street people like to have a barrier between the
street, the front of the house and their living area, which they have seen in houses because that
is where the garages are and you have to walk all the way up to the front of the house. He
stated what they are trying to do is to orient the house to the front, bring it a little closer to the
street and have everyone friendly, because if they are going to be out there, everyone is going
to mingle and all the problems of the world will go away, but the concern is, is that what people
really want is that we as a City are forcing people to be friendly and come out to the front when
they wme home from work and want their space and to get away? He pointed out that in his
community there are a lot of times when he wants to be behind the scene and a lot of times he
will be in the garage doing something and close the garage because if he does not people are
too friendly and he does not get anything done. He stated that that is an issue and asked if the developer should decide if that is the kind of community or have some more ability to design
something that people want or do we know for a fact that people are looking for this kind of
property and that this is more desirable, not from the developer’s standpoint, not from the City’s
standpoint, but from the people who are buying these houses?
Ms. Landers stated that staffs research has shown that yes, it is a very desirable element for
this type of neighborhood, and is something that is very marketable and very desirable. She
Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 25
stated that they did try to acknowledge that there are people who are unfriendly and they do
prefer their privacy and so staff accommodated that by increasing the rear yard so people who
wanted to spend time in the rear yard could do so. Staff also provided the opportunity for people
who wanted to spend time in the front yard that they could do so, that they do not have to go to
their backyard. Right now for the most part they have to go to their backyard.
Ms. Landers stated that what staff tried to do in this Ordinance is to allow for the opportunity for
both scenarios to occur. She stated that they did suggest some front porches and have
increased private rear yards and nobody is forced to go to either one, but the opportunity exists
for both to occur and for both to be utilized.
Chairperson Segall stated that at the same time they are not giving any credit to side yard
development where someone may come up with a side yard for either recreation or living.
Ms. Landers stated she believes that they did to some extent and that concern might be raised
by some of the development communities saying that a driveway should be counted as
recreation space, which actually did come up in our discussions. Staff replied that it really is not a recreation space and will be used to park a car and maybe a recreation space should be
grass in the backyard or some type of pavement treatment or something. She stated that staff
did say for an alley-loaded project, when it is more difficult to provide that rear yard that staff
would give the developer credit for a 15 foot by 15 foot usable side yard as long as there is no
slope greater than 5%.
Ms. Landers stated that staff did not accommodate every possible scenario. She stated that
staff based their decision and analysis on a lot of different cities and staff stands on their
recommendation.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that it brings to mind Sunnycreek, that is currently being built,
where they did the “Z” lots. He asked if they would be legal under this and reproduce that “Z” lot
again?
Mr. Wayne stated that some of the units could not for some of the units provide their entire 15
feet by 15 feet in the side yard and it is a zero lot line project. He asked if staff is saying they
can accommodate zero lot line projects?
Ms. Landers stated that staff is saying they can accommodate zero lot line projects and you
have to move your side yard to the other side and it is in fact your side yard, it is not your rear
yard and you still provide a rear yard. She point out that they come back to the issue of pushing
the box out again and she stated that staff is trying to push the box in and keep it smaller. She
pointed out that there is a tension existing that if you do not count a side yard for recreation,
then you push the building out again and staff is trying to push it in and is using all these
methods to push it in and articulate it.
Ms. Landers showed some overlays and pointed out that the overlays are projects which are currently under review and staff did not do calculations on these nor were they created for
examples of this project. She pointed out that there are various 4,000 square foot lot size and
various house square footages that are proposed along with the porch and the garage square
footage. She pointed out that the porch was not included in the lot coverage but the garage and
the house were. She stated that it ends up with a lot coverage of 38%, 37% and 43%. She
pointed out that these are serving as examples for the Commission to point out that the
Planning Commission Minutes July 18,200l Page 26
development community can build a decent size house and you can accommodate a decent size square footage without going up to 60% or 50%.
Chairperson Segall asked if these are one-story units?
Ms. Landers stated she was not sure but that perhaps the first one is from the footprint and
square footage. She went on to share more overlays pointing out that a decent square footage
can be achieved on these lots.
Don White, William-Hesinholtch and Associates Architects, 17875 Von Karman, Irvine,
California stated they had an opportunity to meet with staff and go over a lot of these issues and it was very helpful to determine what was going on. He pointed out that the City of Carlsbad has
a lot of restrictions compared to other cities so he does his designs in layers. He suggested that the City allow for what he calls a single story dominant house which has a small portion on the
second floor that is in the attic space with possible dormer windows out and windows at the side
of the house. He gave an example of a 5,000 square foot house and the lot coverage is 50% for
a single story you get about 2,080 square feet of house. He stated that many communities and
buyers want to have a single story house, but the problem is usually the market is about 2,500
to 2,600 square feet for that kind of lot size.
Mr. White stated that in some other cities where they have worked they have done this to keep
a single story appearance on the house, but get the square footage up. He stated that they have
to steepen the pitch and create a more cottage look to the house so they can fit the second
story rooms underneath the roof and in doing it, it actually ends up being a single story house in
appearance but it allows the house to be larger and more market rate square footage. He
recommended that the City have this as some sort of incentive in the Ordinance. Mr. White
stated that associated with the above he thought the height limit needs to be allowed to go a
little higher with that type of house just because you are trying to tuck it underneath that attic..
Chairperson Segall asked how much higher?
Mr. White replied that the one he did on a 40 foot wide house in another jurisdiction was about
26 feet high at the ridge because they had a steeper pitched roof of about 12:12. He went on to
say that he thinks setting height limits from an architectures standpoint sometimes you get low
pitched roofs. He stated that as an architect he likes to provide variety in the house designs and
change the roof pitch with the style of architecture and he thinks the height should be adjusted
for the pitch of the roof or for the styles.
Mr. White went on to say that when staff confines the side yard setbacks for 25% of the lot width
he recommended adding with an averaging of 25% so that they can create some articulation
which they can use to create courtyards or neat interesting spaces as you come around into the
side of the house or any spaces that are off the side of the house. He restated that he highly
recommends adding “or averaging it 25% of the lot width.”
Jerry Livingston, Building Industry Associates, 6336 Greenwell Drive, Suite A, San Diego, CA
92122. He pointed out that the process has been problematic for them in the sense that until the last couple of workshops the previous ones were “what if’ workshops (though valuable and able
to make suggestions) whereas the last couple they actually had the Ordinance in hand to talk
about and look at how it might apply to a project or impact the projects being proposed. He stated that staff did make some suggested changes and they appreciate that but are not
necessarily supporting. They appreciate the reductions and square footage on the common
Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 27
open spaces etc. though as developers they screamed about that. He pointed out that they
appreciated the deduction of 18 feet by 18 feet for the rear yard, but suggested at least one side
being 18 feet with a square footage of 324 which is still the total square footage of 18 feet by 18
feet but allows their architects again some opportunity to do some design work with the house
rather than just always have a big square located somewhere on the property which would be
the same thing with the 15 foot by 15 foot on the side yard.
Mr. Livingston stated that a 15% number when dealing with three houses in a project, and
generally most of his project he said have three units, which means either 33% or 15% of one
kind and increased numbers on the other. He stated that he suspects that what the City will get
is that every chance there is an opportunity to do the alley-loaded that is what you will get and
most people will try to avoid the 15% because about 2,500 square foot seems to be the
marketable number and 2,100 or 1,900 square feet or similar make it very difficult in this market
to sell a one story house.
Commissioner Baker asked if the lot could be make larger to get the square footage the
developer needs?
Mr. Livingston replied that part of the reason for reducing the lots is to address open space
which a lot of his projects requires as much as 66% to 75% of the entire project be given away
in open space. The goal is to be able to reduce the square footage of the lots in order to still
have saleable lots and to cover the whole cost of the project. He stated that you cannot have both large amounts of open space given away and have large lots which is one of the reasons
that the PD Ordinance might have originally been created which certainly helps developers.
Mr. Livingston stated that they had asked for a continuance partly to discuss those more with
Gary or Mike; an opportunity to talk to the senior decision makers in the department. He stated
that they consider those extremely important to the industry and pointed out that the BIA
represents more than just the developers or builders who are working here today. The BIA is the
one who is going to have to be here five to tens years from now and so they are representing
people who do not exist in this community today but who might be buying land tomorrow, next
week, next month, two or three years from now and he stated that they believe this Ordinance
might be the last significant change through built out of this community. He further stated he
would like to see those changes make it possible for BIA to supple some of the things the City is
asking for which he does not believe the City is going to get from this Ordinance in this current
format.
Chairperson Segall asked if Mr. Livingston had more time, what would he do?
Mr. Livingston stated that he would like to have a chance to at least convince the Planning
Commission which may be in a workshop setting and he stated he could bring some architects
in and give the Commission a better show of what is meant for instance on the single story
dominant or some of the resulting design problems that they have seen in other communities
with some of these very same Ordinance requirements. He also stated that they would like to
see if they could find a way to meet some of those flexibility requirements and design they want while still providing the amount of space that is being asked for, such as personal recreation
space as well as to allow his architects hopefully to convince the senior staff and the Commission that some of the ideas we have will meet your demands while still being able to
address his concerns.
Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 28
Chairperson Segall stated for the record that Mr. Livingston sent a letter of which the
Commission has a copy.
Commissioner Baker pointed out to Mr. Livingston that he mentioned the square footage
minimum he felt was marketable and asked him to repeat that.
Mr. Livingston stated in this market it seems to be around 2,500 square feet.
Commissioner Compas asked if Mr. Livingston had any estimate, if the Commission passed this
Ordinance, as to what it would do to the cost of a home and if he has a feel for how much
percentage wise?
Mr. Livingston stated that an example would be doing 15% of those one-stories and in doing
them as 15% we design four homes for a project we would normally design three on. He stated
they would have to sell those as loss-leaders like in a grocery store on a product and you
spread that cost over the other homes. He stated that his expectation is to see home prices go
up in such communities where they have tried to meet a design requirement where they do not have an ability to market it.
Mr. Livingston stated that it is a tough guess in this market to give an estimate how much it
would increase in cost, but he stated that when you layer these on, a loss of a few lots here and
there by increasing the open space, you could probably see a significant 3 or 4% increase in the
cost over and above that, maybe even more, depending on the individual project.
Chairperson Segall asked regarding one-story homes if under this Ordinance, can the developer
do a one-story home that is a marketable home and what size home would you have based on
the Ordinance if you were taking it? He asked if some of the lots could be widened and is there
a formula to know what that means.
Mr. Livingston replied that he does not think they could develop a one-story home that is
marketable. He said they would have about a 1,900 square foot home based on the Ordinance.
If you have a two-car garage and maybe 2,100 square feet if you are stretching everything to
the limit. He stated that if they did widen some of the lots they would lose lots. He said the
formula depends on the development, how many units you have, how many lots you are
widening and what percentage of land you are taking out of each of those individual lots.
Commissioner Trigas asked if there is not a market for smaller single story homes such as
retired people or people who would like a single story for various reasons? She asked for
example a couple who wants to retire and wants to get to a smaller unit who are upper-middle income would not want to buy home like that?
Mr. Livingston stated there is a market for them, but not a market for them at the price the
developer would have to sell them for with the square footage they have. He gave the example
of the 2,100 or 1,900 square foot house at the expected market price for that would probably be
on the means of somebody who wants that one-story.
Mr. Livingston stated that 95% of the community in the County of San Diego right now cannot
buy a median priced house in Carlsbad. He stated that unless there is somebody who has a lot
of equity who just wants that house, he stated he thinks the Commission is stretching it.
Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 29
Commissioner Nielsen asked if Mr. Livingston’s marketing is based on the square footage of the
home and do you charge more for a 4,000 than a 3,000, so therefore a 2,000 square foot would
not be marketable in your standards as you are building 20% to 25% less building.
Mr. Livingston replied that under the amount that it costs to develop that, “yes,” because you are
talking about land costs, fees are at about $100,000 before you ever even lay down the cement.
He stated that the cost of the building itself is the lowest cost of the entire cost of the house. He
stated that the Commission is actually getting him out of his field and he would be glad to have
an architect or a home builder who can put that together for the Commission if they wish to do that.
Mr. Nielsen stated that Mr. Livingston could talk to the Commission’s attorney, Ms. Mobaldi, and
maybe she could explain it to the Commission.
Mark Rohrlick, Vice President of Lennar Communities, 5780 Fleet Street, Carlsbad stated he is
also a resident of Carlsbad. He complimented staff and the City of Carlsbad for taking the
pioneering road to bring Livable Communities and some of the new urbanism principles to
Carlsbad, which is not an easy task. He stated that the Planned Development Ordinance and
the Hillside Development Ordinance are two of the most utilized Ordinances when planners
develop projects in the City and are referred to frequently.
Mr. Rohrlick recommended what Jerry (Livingston) said earlier and that is asking for enough time to have staff test product to see if on a 4,500 or 5,000 square foot home site with hillside
restrictions and environmental setbacks and cul-de-sac issues, whether this is going to work. He
said if it does not work, then we have made a big mistake. He stated that the first time for an
Ordinance to come up with a major revision after 15 years it warrants more time, more
discussion and if necessary a workshop with the Planning Commission to describe the issues.
Mr. Rohrlick showed an exhibit which is an example of what limiting the single story to a lower
height. He stated that in the guidelines it discusses a height requirement of 20 feet, which
presents more mass. He shared that what some of the new designs are heading for is what Don
was depicting earlier by putting your roof mass and planting your second story living space
under the roof providing a little more interest, harkens to the 40s and 50s and brings more of the
intimate street scenes forward. He stated that this type of plan cannot be built and he stated that
he was not sure if that is really what the Commission wants to do because it is going back to a
different kind of a box. He encouraged the Commission to test products like this and testing the
side yard average setback to allow for private spaces in the side yard courts by averaging the
setback instead of requiring a mandate of 25% combined. He said if the Commission does that
they are going to encourage straight walls and they will be further apart. He stated he had
others but wanted to demonstrate that they are not ready and the Commission is not ready to
endorse this.
Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Rohrlick why he could not build that example he showed as a
second story house?
Mr. Rohrlick stated that it could be done, but he asked if the City is trying to mandate single
story homes or is it really a question of massing? He stated if it is a question of massing, this is
an example where they can meet the market demand, build the 2,500 square foot home but he
stated they could tuck it under an element that provides for a single story feel and that he thinks
that is the real issue if he understands it right.
Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 30
Commissioner Baker asked what if it is more than just a question of massing but also to provide
a variety of product type for those individuals who want to have a one-story house?
Mr. Rohrlick replied that if the market demands and the builders see that the market wants a
certain single story home they will build it as he explained, he is not trying to put himself out of
the market and he knows there is a demand for a certain amount of single story homes, but
some of the lot sizes and the home site sizes when they get too small, then if there is a mandate
for 15% of those to be single story, they really are not a very marketable home.
Commissioner Baker asked if the projects Mr. Rohrlick has worked on had built single story
homes did they not sell?
Mr. Rohrlick replied that they sold. He stated that there is a market for single story homes, but it is not to say that somebody else did not pay for that single story home in the neighborhood for
they had to adjust prices many times. The Commission is being asked that they consider the
difference in the home site size and the requirement for single story homes. He suggested that
the Commission look at requiring the single story home percentage of 15% on larger home sites
and then you will get that. He stated that the City will get it anyway because most builders will
want to build single story homes.
Chairperson Segall seeing no one else wishing to speak closed public testimony.
Ms. Landers stated that most of the issues that were raised by the speakers relate to the two
issues that staff brought up earlier, which was the single story percentage requirement of 15%
and the side yard separation. She restated the fact that staff actually spent two years reviewing
this and it was not something that came up recently, for they spent a lot of time analyzing this
and went to Ordinances throughout the state and other states trying to select the best of those.
She went on to address the issue of large houses on small lots, stating that staff believes
strongly that you have to reduce the building mass to address the issue; make it smaller and
increase the open space. She stated that staff presented ways to move the building mass, the
box in, and the speakers from the developers community are suggesting ways to move the
building mass out again to where it is today. She stated that today’s standards do not address
the issue and there is nothing in the Ordinance, either today’s Ordinance or the proposed
Ordinance, that says when building homes they cannot be articulated, that you can not articulate the side elevation. She stated that it neither says that coming up with a 25%
requirement that you are going to force the developer to build to the setback line. She said that
you can still articulate that facade and still provide it.
Ms. Landers pointed out that if you look at the requirement for rear yards, the suggestion was
made rather than have 18 feet by 18 feet to have 18 foot one dimension with a square footage
requirement of 320 square feet. She showed a slide of what the City has today, a 15 foot by 15
foot rear yard. She gave an example of 225 square feet and 350 square feet of available
recreation space in your rear yard, a total of 575 square feet. She pointed out that what was proposed today was 18 feet in one direction with a total of 324 which is actually less recreation
space than you have today.
Ms. Landers further stated that the 18 foot by 18 foot is being proposed, by building to the
potential rear yard setback of 10 feet and you end up with 644 square feet of potential rear yard
and private recreation space. She added that one of the other alternatives that was heard is the
15 feet in one direction, but what staff has to consider is the worst case basis and staff believes
Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 31
that the only way they will get increased rear yard is to wme up with a dimension of 18 feet by
18 feet.
Mr. DeCerbo added that if you consider your two-car garage is 20 feet by 20 feet and you park
automobiles in it and a community is not just the home, it is what else is in the community or
what else is on the lot which is the private open space and staff does think that there is merit in
suggesting that you should at least be able to provide a comparable amount of open space for
private recreational use. He stated that this is a minimal request.
Commissioner Heineman stated that though it was mentioned by one of the speakers, he did
not recall any 20 foot height limit in our Ordinance.
Ms. Landers confirmed that the 20 foot height limit is not mentioned in the Ordinance but she
thinks there is a reference to a plate line.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that it is in the Architectural Guideline, where it says, “A minimum of 15% of
the homes shall be single story structures. Single story is defined as the maximum plate line of
15 feet and a maximum building height of 20 feet.”
Commissioner Baker asked to follow up on that question too and asked if the City allows lofts in
single stories?
Mr. Wayne stated it was a complicated definition and they would have to look it up and they will.
He stated that this all is not new as staff has been talking to the developers for a long time and it
was brought before himself and the Planning Director. He said they tested, looked at and talked
about them and one of the things they are mindful of is the goals. He stated also that they have
pending right now a request by the Planning Commission to go to the City Council and talk to
them about these lofts. He stated that the Commission has made themselves very clear that they have problems with lofts, especially lofts that provide this huge amount of living space
which is why staff has shied away from this single story dominant because it looks like, it acts
like a two-story house. Mr. Wayne stated that if they are counted as a single story, then is really
a two-story house? In the other case, a two-story house really is a three-story house. He said if
we are trying to get to a real single story house, staff was trying to honor that. He said if it is the
Commission’s desire to go with the single family dominant, then staff will take that forward. He
stated that staff was trying to honor what they thought was Commission’s direction.
Chairperson Segall stated that staff proposed a single story dominant with alley-load at 20% or
staff is confusing the Commission.
Mr. Wayne disagreed and stated it is still a two-story house for it is an incentive to try to provide more of the alley-loaded projects.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that this is in their proposal, which is a negotiated item at the request of the
development community to incorporate that as an alternative, other wise staff would not have.
Mr. Wayne stated that Item No. 6 on the Architectural Guidelines requires the articulation on at
least one side, on two-thirds of the houses and it is ridiculous to say that staff did not consider this and staff is going to force all of these houses to be flat sided for this is not true. He stated
that staff has given it a lot of consideration and have thought through and are giving the
Commission staffs best recommendation today and recommend possibly some slight
modifications. He stated that he has had discussions with the Planning Director and he is not
97
Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 32
sure what a continuance and further discussions would do as staff understands the
development community’s issues and staff has tested them and is bringing forward
recommendations today.
Chairperson Segall stated that one of the things he has asked for on this is to see the layout - a
design. He stated that he has repeatedly asked to be shown how the one-story will fit with these guidelines and the backyard and everything else. He stated that staff has not shown the
Commission a one-story and that is not exactly what he is looking for. He stated he wants to see
what the yard looks like with all these put together.
Mr. DeCerbo asked if the Commission would know if it works or not by looking at something?
Chairperson Segall replied that if staff designed it and if you put the community together with
your guidelines with an architect putting it together and if it works, then it works and you show it
to us.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that it does work as they have spent two years looking at it and there are so
many possible scenarios that we cannot show you a specific case and prove to you that it works. He shared that as soon as staff shows the Commission one scenario that you are going
to say, “yes but this other thing doesn’t work.” He stated that there are many scenarios.”
Ms. Landers stated that there is one thing that staff tried to do. She said that they took the
footprint and took the setbacks. She said what staff attempted to do was take the Commission
out into the field and show you projects that have a certain lot coverage that have the single
story dominant that the development community is proposing and to let the Commission decide
for themselves whether or not they think that building height is the same as a two-story or the
same as a single story. She stated that from staffs perspective they believe it is a two-story
house and it can be called a single story dominant but you look at them you can see that they
are basically the same as a two-story height, over and over again. She stated that there is a
dramatic difference when you put a single story dominant house next to a single story house. She said that staff is concerned about the consistent height of the ridgeline and what they tried
to show the Commission when they went on the field trip was, what does it look like when these
homes are actually built when they are constructed because, looking at a graphic does not
really show you anything, it does not have any real meaning to you and that is what staff tried to
provide hopefully.
Commissioner Trigas pointed out what threw her in calling the alley exception a single story
dominant. She felt that would be a little bit hypocritical and so she wanted to say a modified two-
story. She stated that she does not like using the term single story dominant because it gives
more recognition to the single story aspect of it but she totally agrees that this is a two-story
house. She felt, therefore, her problem was almost reversed, she would like them to be called
modified two-story or something else.
Ms. Landers pointed out that staff would not call them single story dominant, but staff would call
them a two-story home. She stated that this term just came up in the last couple of months
when the development community brought forward the comments that they were not getting
enough square footage. She stated that to her it is a two-story home and she apologized for that confusion.
Ms. Landers stated that staff has never used that wording in any of our Ordinance or the
Guidelines at all. She stated that it is a two-story home. She pointed out that they could say
Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 33
when staff does an alley-loaded project staff rewgnizes that there is no garage on the street so
that alone tends to make the street seem more friendly as there is not that dead space on the
street - but it is tucked away. As an incentive staff agreed to do a two-story home, but staff still
had concerns and said we do not want to do it because it presents a walled affect so as a
compromise the staff and the development community basically negotiated that the front part of
the home, 20% of the front part of the home, would be single story with the two-story at the rear
and that was a compromise to encourage alley-loaded homes.
Commissioner Trigas stated that was fine just as long as that is not used because then what we
have done is give credibility to the definition and she stated she has a problem with that
definition.
Commissioner Baker mentioned a question that one of the speakers had about has this been
tested when you take into account the open space requirements, the hillside, all the different
things; has staff looked at what we are going to have when all the pieces of the puzzle are on
the table?
Ms. Landers stated that is what staff tried to do with their site plans for they took the rear yard
out, they took the side yards out and they created the front yard.
Commissioner Baker stated that was not her question and restated it when you are looking at a
piece of land and it is a project with other constraints on it such as environmental constraints,
open space constraints etc., has staff considered how these new regulations are going to affect the finished product?
Ms. Landers stated that one of the reasons why staff developed the PD Ordinance the way they
did (it is actually included in the intent and purpose which was discussed in the first
presentation) we are no longer seeing sites that have severe hillside constraints or topographic
constraints as those were already calculated in the Master Site Plan, those were left out and
what you see left are graded pads which are being developed today. She shared an example of
when you go to Ranch0 Carrillo, what you see are graded pads and you do not see a hillside
that needs to be preserved on this particular pad, that has already been preserved. She stated
that the way we treat what is left, that flat piece of ground typically or the terrace pads, is what
staff used for the Ordinance.
Commissioner Baker stated that is still not her question.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that the environmental constraints are deducted out before you even look at
the PD Ordinance, thus the developer is left with a net acreage that they can grade and
develop. He explained that the developer can buy property and they know they have to give half
of it away for habitat and they are aware that the Hillside Ordinance has the instructions and
rules of how it is to be graded. Mr. DeCerbo pointed out that the developer will have his net 10
acres left and decides how is he going to divide up the property to put the number of units that
he wants.
He explained that the City will see potentially fewer and smaller units, more wmmon open
space, narrower streets with parkways and architecture that is more pedestrian friendly. Mr.
DeCerbo stated that the net effect is going to be a margin which he thought Mr. Livingston
verified by talking about a 3 to 4% change in cost of production based upon this Ordinance.
Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 34
Commissioner Baker replied 4% would be 1.2 which would be about one to two houses in a 30
house development. She stated that is what she is wanting to know-what our net loss or net
gain is going to be? She then confirmed that the City would be getting rid of the drop-a-lots.
Chairperson Segall pointed out that Mr. Wayne stated he had some slight changes.
Mr. Wayne drew the Commission’s attention to the bold/strikeout Ordinance on page 5.
Mr. DeCerbo pointed out that there are four modifications and pointed to the bold strikeout
Ordinance on page 5 under the topic Community Recreational Space, the second bullet point at
the end of it says, “or any slopes of 15% or greater” staff would like to change that to 5% or
greater.
Chairperson Segall asked where that change came from?
Mr. DeCerbo stated it came from the discussions when the question was asked about the 15%
grade.
Mr. Wayne stated that today 15% and steeper defines a hillside and at 15% it is a fairly steep
area and actually there is a number of references there, of which he pointed out, to also
eliminate the one if front of the previously mentioned where it says passive.
Chairperson Segall asked since we are making changes should the Commission and staff go
back to the development community if they are ok with this?
Ms. Landers stated that this is staffs recommendation.
Mr. DeCerbo drew their attention to the errata sheet on the actual page two under Garages, which is courtesy of the Chairperson’s questions regarding the percentages that had to be
included as recessed vs. alley-loaded. He stated that before a project with three floor plans it
should say after that first bullet, “a minimum of 33% of all units...” instead of just 33%. He
continued with the second bullet should say “an additional.. .‘I and the third bullet should say, “a
maximum.. .I’.
Ms. Landers stated that was an over site and pointed out that those were deleted accidentally
when it was brought down.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that the same revisions would go for Sub B, for projects of four or more
floor plans where it says a minimum of 50% and an additional 25% and a maximum 25%, the
same revisions as the Sub A. He pointed out on page 3 of the errata sheet, under the first bullet
at the bottom of the page it should read, “25% of all driveways for non-alley-loaded projects...”
that it was talked about making that change.
Ms. Landers pointed out the sixth line from the top under Garages, it starts out, “one car garage
with all garage.. .” and it should be “ . ..with all garage doors directly parallel to the street” which
is just a point of clarification and you would be adding the word doors.
Mr. DeCerbo pointed out on the Council Policy 44, the third page on item 9 it was talked about
adding roof heights, so it would state, “floor plans in a project shall exhibit a variety of roof
ridges.. .” add roof heights.”
Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 35
Chairperson Segall stated that on the first page under Applicability you need to strike Item 15
because it was renumbered and there is no 15.
Ms. Landers stated that on the first page of the City Council Policy now that the third page has
been renumbered, those numbers also have to be modified, so under the second bullet point
under Applicability the numbers are 4, 5, 7, 10, 13 and 14. She stated that number 11 has now
become number 10 and number 14 is now number 13 and number 15 is now number 14.
Chairperson Segall stated that he has questions on Policy 44 and he has not asked that and they are already in a motion so is it a separate item?
Ms. Landers stated that it is a separate item and was not sure if Chairperson Segall wanted to
discuss it separately or not.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Compas stated that the staff has done a very good job of following the directions
of the City Council to make these changes to the Planned Development Ordinance in their two
years of study and meetings with various people in trying to incorporate as much of the building
community’s ideas as they could. He stated that he thinks there will probably always be some
questions, but he stated that he is pleased with what they have done and since this was done at
the request of the City Council if they are not happy with it, the building people can come and
talk to them and see if they can persuade them to make changes. He stated he is satisfied with
the way it is and he is going to support it.
Commissioner Heineman stated that he would have to agree to a large extent with
Commissioner Compas as it seems to him that the concerns of the development community,
although these are very important to them, in light of such a major revision they are remarkedly
minor and he therefore would certainly support it.
Commissioner Baker stated she would be supporting the Planned Unit Development Ordinance
and also it seems like one of the issues with the development community is really in City
Council Policy No. 44 and that is the single story issue which is not actually in the Planned Unit
Development Ordinance, so that issue is perhaps better taken up with the City Council since
they are the authors of Council Policy 44 rather than the Planning Commission. She stated that
she thinks that single story houses are important not only from a street scene point of view, but
also from a variety of housing stock available to many people who would prefer to live in a
single story house rather than a big two-story house.
Mr. Nielsen stated that he would have supported this six years ago when it came on as he has been advocating it for that period and has voted against projects because of density, so
obviously, as he stated, he supports it.
Commissioner Trigas stated that she definitely supports it and wanted to compliment the staff
on doing a wonderful job and really going beyond probably what she herself would have gone
as far as the compromises, so she complimented them on that. She stated she thinks they did
very well on working with the development community. She stated that she also agrees that the
little she knows about the market in real estate and what is out there, it is usually supply and
demand that determines price and she really finds it hard pressed that somebody would say that
they are not going to be able to make a profit on a single story house in Carlsbad considering
how many products the City has of that nature out there. She stated that she thought it would be
Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 36
a premium and in fact she thought per square footage they will probably get a much higher price
for that per square footage than they would on a two-story house. She stated that the concept
that Council as well as the Planning Commission is having not seen this huge mass on small
lots and she thinks that staff has really resolved it in a very just way and that the development
community will profit by it because Carlsbad will be even more desirable than it is today, which
is quite desirable because of how careful the City is. She again complimented staff and stated
that if Council wants to revisit what they have indicated to staff - what they do want, then that
certainly is their option, but clearly the indication was that they wanted to see less mass on lots and also single story and again it is offering a different product type being a single story option
for people. She stated that she definitely supports this and thanked staff for the work that they
have done and for listening to the business community and having done a wonderful job in that.
Chairperson Segall congratulated Ms. Landers, on a project which is her final project
presentation. He stated that he believes in the concept but the only concern he has is that he
wants to make sure it works before the Commission passes something and he stated that he
has not been able to be convinced that all of this works, and especially the one-story which he
has been talking to staff about and mentioned again tonight; that he is not sure that will work
and he has not seen that it can so he stated that he cannot support the Ordinance because of
that. He stated that he hopes it does work and he hopes they can put this together and have a
Livable Community, but he stated that he has some concerns and stated that therefore he
cannot support it, but conceptually he thinks it is wonderful for the community and it will make
Carlsbad a better community and again congratulated Ms. Landers on her work.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4982 recommending adoption of the Negative
Declaration and addendum issued by the Planning Director and adopt Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 4958 and 4959 recommending approval of ZCA Ol- 01 and LCPA 01-01 based on the findings contained therein and also to approve
the errata sheet dealing with the Planning Development Ordinance Amendment
and in addition the changes made by the staff in tonight’s meeting.
VOTE:
AYES:
5-l -0
Commissioners Compas, Heineman, Baker, Nielsen, Trigas
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Chairperson Segall
None
DECEMBER 6,200l
All Receive-Agenda Item# /*
For the Information of the:
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: Planning Department
AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (ZCA Ol-Ol/LCPA 01-01)
On December 4, 2001, the City Council held a public hearing on a Zone Code Amendment and
Local Coastal Program Amendment to repeal and reenact the City’s Planned Development
Ordinance. The City Council heard the staff presentation, took public testimony and discussed
the item. They continued ZCA Ol/LCPA 01-01 to December 11, 2001 and requested staff to
respond to several issues. The issues and responses are discussed below.
The Building Industry Association requested that two ordinance revisions be considered to
enable the production of one-story homes with a larger floor area. The proposed revisions include:
1. Increase the permitted lot coverage for one-story homes from 50% to 60%.
Staff recommends support of the request to increase the lot coverage for single-story homes
from 50% to 60%.
An overall objective of this ordinance amendment is to create more livable neighborhoods.
Consistent with this objective, staff is recommending a new standard that requires that 15% of
the homes in -a project be single story. This recommendation acknowledges that one-story
homes are a desirable product (particularly for seniors and empty nesters) in the housing
market and that there are major community benefits of providing lower rooflines and visual
diversity within our residential neighborhoods.
A primary consideration in the staff recommendation to require one-story homes is that the
development standards associated with single-story homes be reasonable enough so as to
enable and promote the development of one-story products. The development community has
indicated that marketable one-story homes have approximately 2,500 SF. The 50% lot
coverage standard applied to a 5,000 SF lot would enable the achievement of 2,100 SF of living
area and a two-car garage (400 SF). A 60% lot coverage standard applied to a similar sized lot
would enable the achievement of 2,600 SF of living area and a two-car garage.
Because the requested 10% lot coverage increase by the development community will enable
the development of marketable one story homes while not compromising the City’s objectives of
reducing the scale of homes relative to lot size, staff recommends support of this revision.
2. Reduce the side yard setback for adjacent one-story homes from 10% of the lot width to 5 feet.
Staff does not recommend support of the request to reduce the side yard setback for adjacent
one-story homes from 10% of the lot width to 5 feet.
One-story homes are typically located on the largest (widest) lots within a subdivision. In small
lot subdivisions, lot widths for one-story homes average around 60’ wide. A side yard setback equal to 10% of a 60’ wide lot would be 6’. Compared to the proposed 5’ side yard standard,
the 10% of lot width side yard standard will almost always (depending upon lot width) provide
CIT; MANAGER
ZCA Ol-Ol/LCPA 01-01 - PD ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
DECEMBER 6,200l
PAGE 2
additional side yard area and separation between adjacent houses. Increased building
separation is an important component in addressing oversized houses on small lots. The 10%
side yard standard is reasonable and will not preclude the development of one-story homes.
Hofman Planning requested that the 20’ average building separation for multiple dwelling units
be reduced to a 15’ average.
Staff does not recommend support of the request to reduce the average building separation for
multiple dwelling units from 20’ to 15’.
The existing PUD Ordinance requires a 20’ separation between two and three story structures
(when 10 structures in a row front or back on a street). Staffs first draft revision to the PD
Ordinance proposed that this 20’ building separation standard apply to all multiple dwelling
units, regardless of the number of structures in a row.
The development community commented that a minimum standard 20’ building separation
could promote uniformity, monotony and repetition in project design. Based upon this input, staff
agreed to modify this proposed multiple dwelling building separation standard from 20’ to an
This revision to a 20’ average with a averaqe of 20’ with a minimum of 10’ between buildings.
10’ minimum, rather than a 20’ minimum, provides flexibility to vary building massing, orientation
and separation, thereby resulting in visually diverse and more livable multi-family
neighborhoods. Reducing the 20’ average building separation to a 15’ average will achieve
nothing more than locating multi-family buildings closer together.
Councilmember Hall requested that City Council Policy No. 44 be revised to clarify, what
architectural design guidelines apply to residential remodels and individual single- family homes.
The policy is proposed for revision as follows:
APPLICABILITY:
= Single family home remodels that cumulatively increase the useable living area
(floor area) more than 40% shall comply with architectural guidelines 3, 7, 13 and
14. . A new individual single-family home shall comply with architectural guidelines 4,
5, 7, 11, 14, and 15 (regardless of stated percentages) and one architectural
guideline from numbers 1 through 3.
n New single family and two-family residential projects of 24 homes shall comply
with architectural guidelines 4, 5, 7, 11, 14, and 15 (regardless of stated
percentages) and one architectural guideline from numbers 1 through 3.
1 New single family and two-family residential projects of 5 or more homes shall
comply with all of the architectural guidelines.
.
Cl+ MANAGER
ZCA Ol-011LCPA 01-01 - PD ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
DECEMBER 6,200l
PAGE 3
Councilmember Hall also requested information relative to the amount of increased
driveway paving as a result of the requirement to set a certain percent of garages back from
the front of the home so they are not as visibly prominent from the street. The information is
as follows:
The City’s R-l Zone and existing PD Ordinance require front loaded garages to be setback
20’ from the front property line and side loaded garages to be setback 20’ and 10’
respectively. Compared to the existing PD Ordinance, the revised PD Ordinance similarly
requires front loaded garages to be setback 20’ and side loaded garages to be setback 10’
from the front property line.
The amount of hardscape required for a 20’ and 10’ driveway is 320 SF (20’ x 16’) and
160 SF (10’ x 167, respectively. With regard to garage setbacks, the proposed PD
Ordinance differs from the existing PD Ordinance in that it requires 25% of project
garages to be setback 30’ from the front property line. This requirement will increase the
hardscape on such lots by 160 SF (320 SF to 480 SF).
This nominal increase in hardscape is likely mitigated by the additional Ordinance
requirements to: (1) design 25% of all driveways as “Pasadena” driveways with grass in
the middle, (2) increase the size of rear yards (between 100 and 400 SF) and sideyards,
and allow alley loaded garages as a project garage alternative.
Mayor Lewis indicated his interest in considering whether an applicant for a single family home
on an infill lot should be required to meet with the existing adjoining neighbors before or
immediately after an application is filed with the City. If the Council is interested in considering
this requirement, the action would be to direct staff to process an amendment to the existing
policy having to do with project notification for residential infill development.
Councilmember Nygaard was interested in having the Council consider whether any of the
standards in the PD Ordinance, specifically the maximum lot coverage requirements based
upon net pad area, might be appropriate to also apply to standard single family lots in the infill
areas of the City. If the Council is interested in considering this, the action would be to direct
staff to prepare a report analyzing the applicability of certain PD standards to all single family
construction in the infill areas.
DEC-!l-2001 TUE 02:22 PM CITY OF CARLSBAD FAX NO, 760 602 8559 PB 02
DECEMBER 11,200l
TO: cl-r Y COUNCIL All Receive-Agenda Item# w
VROM: PI<ANNING DEPARTMENT FIX the Inibdon of the:
cnYcouNy (I/
PROPOSED ENHATA - ZCA 01 -Ol/LCPA 01-01 Asst. CM /CA CC -e-
Date \s\\\ City Manager
1. Ordinmcs No .NS-612
Table D
Small-Lot. Single-Family and Two-Family Dwelling Development Standards
Livable Ncighborhood Polioy Must comply wilh City Council Policy 66, Principles
for the Development of Livable Neighborhoods -1
l 2 story homes -Lots equal to or greater lhan 5,000
SF, 40% of the net pad arca; lots less than 5,000
SF, 50% of the net pad arca
. 1 stoly homes - 60% -W&of the net pad arca
. Porches with no livable space above the porch and
portc-cochercs no more than 20 feet in widlh and G
feet in depth are exempt from lot covcragc
rcquiremcnts.
Minimum Side-Yard Setback Two-stoly homes on lots with a minimum
width of 60 feet and all one-sloly homes
regardless of lot width shall have a minimum
side yard setback equal lo 10% of the lot width
on each side.
All two-story homes on lots that arc less than
60 feet wide shall have a combined minimum
sidcyard setback equal to 25% of lhc lot width with a minimum sidcyard setback of5 feet
Zero lot lint homes may reduce one side yard
setback to 0 feet provided that the other sideyard setback is equal lo 20% or 25% of’rhc lot width as reauircd herein
Garages l On a project basis, garages for singlefamily or two-family homes dwelling units shall be sited
as folIows: C4)
a. For a project with 3 floor plans: . A minimum of 33% of all units shall include .
DEC-11-2001 TUE 02:22 PM CITY OF CARLSBAD FAX NO, 760 602 8558
.
.
b. I
garages that arc recessed a minimum of 5 feet
behind the front house faqadc;
An additional 33% of all units shall include
garages that arc d-&+-or-located I
minimum of 30 feet behind the front propert)
lint; A maximum of 33% of all units may bc side.
loaded or project G feet forward of the fron
house fqade provided that the garages do no’ exceed 50% of lhe total house frontage.
For a project wilh 4 or more floor plans:
A minimum of 50% of all units shall incltId(
garages that a rc recessed a minimum of 5 fee
behind the front house faqade:
An additional 25% or all units shall i~~cludc
garages thaL are &lq&Me&~ located 2
minimum of 30 feet behind the front propcrtj
line; A maximum of 25% of all units may be sidc-
loaded or project G feet forward of the fro111
house faqade provided that the garages do not
exceed 50% of lhc total house frontage,
Pa 03
7
1
I
t
1
:
t
I
1 t
c. No more than 12.5% of the total project units
may include three-in-a-row car garages that dircclly
face the street. Three-in-a-row garages Ihal directly
face the street are defined as garages having-space
for three cars whclhcr constructed as 3 OWC;~T
garages Iocatcd adjacent to each other or
constructed as a two-car garage separated from a
one-car garage with all garage doors dircclly parallel to the street. The garages must have a
plane chsnge of n minimum of 18 inches between
the two-car and one-car garages. ThlS
configuration must also break tllc roof plane
with a design element such as I\ gable or trellis.
Garages that ~1% rccesscd 20 feet back from the
forward-most plane of the house arc exempt from
this provision. Such garages may occur only when lhcy do not exceed 40% of the width of the home along the street fronlngc. :Fke-etll:mnusH~~~ lTtmtm-oM9-it1em1
e-i - 3r-t: T1 ’ 1 s
cY3&~~11~~~0o&W~
tles&l~l~ti~k
2
DEC-11-2001 TUE 02:22 PM CITY OF CARLSBAD FAX NO, 760 602 6559 Pa 04
T In special circumstances, when lots less than 5,000
square feet in size are pcrmiWd in a planned
development, three-in-a-row car garages may not bc
used. Tandem garages are exempt from this
requirement.
l 25% of all driveways for non-alley-loaded projccls must be designed as “Pasadena” driveways with
grass or enhanced pavcmenl in the middle
l Driveways for side-loaded garages must
incorporate enhanced pavement lo improve
appearance,
(I) Lot width is measured is measured 20’ behind the front property
line.
(2) Sctbucks are applicable to streets that include parkways and
sidewalks along both sides. For cxisling streets without
parkways, the front setback shall be as follows: Front porch --
15’, Kesidcncc - 15’ (average), 10’ (minimum), Sidaentry
garage - lo’, Direct entry garage - 20’.
(3) The average front-yard selback is dctermincd by adding together
all of the unil front-yard setbacks (the sctbaclc for each unit
should bc me<asured from that element of each building,
excluding projections, that is located closest to the front property lint) and dividing that total by the total number of project units,
(4) Chragc standards do hot apply to alley loaded projects.
MuIGple-Dwellin!: Development Standards
.--. Requirement
Policy Must comply with City Council Policy 66, Principles
-- 1 Development of Livable Neighborhoods
2. Cite Council Policy 43
APPLICARILITY~ -..-
3
DEC-H-2001 TUE 02:23 PM CITY OF CARLSBAD FAX NO, 760 602 0559
* Single family home remodels that cumulatively increase the useable living arca (floor area) more than 40% shall comply with architectural guidelines 3,
7,13 and 14.
4 A new individual single-family home shall comply with architectural
guidelines 4, 5, 7, 11, 14, and 15 (regardless of stated perccntagcs) and one
architectural guideline from numbers 1 through 3.
. New siugle family and two-family residential projects of 2-4 homes shall
comply with architectural guidelines 4, 5, 7, 11, 14, aud 15 (regardless 01 stated percentages) and one architectural guideline from numbers 1 through
3.
m New single family and two-family residential projects of 5 or mare homes
shall comply with all of the architectural guidelines
P, 05
4
“a
* PL 0 b ua
W I (3 2
ua
z 0
F a n z W
E
E 0 0
z
it a t- v)
2 0
F a n 2 W
E
E 0 0 W PL
.
l
b
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
This space is for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the
above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of
the printer of
North County Times
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudicated newapapers of general circulation by
the Superior Court of the County of San Diego,
State of California, for the County of San Diego,
thYit tic asticc sf which the mcxcd is ZL plied
copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has
been published in each regular and entire issue of
said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof
on the following dates, to-wit:
November 24, 2001
I certie (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at San Marcos , California
this
of
26th
November, 2001
day
&- &LA-
t Signature
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
Proof of Publication of
Notice of Public Hearinq
m..--’ NOTICE OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
- NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that‘ the
City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a
public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at
6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 4, 2001, to
consider a Zone Code Amendment and Local
Coastal Program Amendment to repeal and
reenact the City’s Planned Development
Ordinance (Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code) to: 1) create a user-friendly
document that provides clear and detailed
development standards and procedures for the
development of small-lot, sipgle-family and two- family/multiple-family ownership dwelling units;
2) modify residential development and design
standards to achieve the development of more
livable neighborhoods; and, 3) modify
development standards to ensure that homes
are in better scale to lot sizes.
Those persons wishing to speak on this
proposal are cordially invited to attend the
public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be
available on and after November 30, 2001. If
you have any questions, please call Chris
DeCerbo in the Planning Department at (760)
602-4611. _
If you challenge the Zone Code Amendment
and/or Local Coastal Program Amendment in
court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing described in this notice or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of
Carlsbad City Clerk’s Office at or prior to the
public hearing.
CASE FILE: ZCA 01 -Ol/LCPA 01-01
CASE NAME: AMENDMENT TO PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
PUBLISH DATE:
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER ;4,2001
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
Legal 71562. November 24,2001
J$t%wit of PutXication
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ATN: JANICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ss. al~Il~ofmlDi~~oj
The Undersigned, being duly sworn,
deposes and says: That.... She is a
resident of the County of San Diego.
THAT....She is and at all times herein mentioned
was a citizen of the United States, over the age
of twenty-one years, and that . . . . . . . . . . She is not a
party to, nor interested in the above entitled
matter; that . . ..She is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chief Cl@ for IhE !uhli!ht cf.....................
The San Diego Union-Tribune
a newspaper of general circulation, printed and
published daily in the City of San Diego, County
of San Diego, and which newspaper is published
for the dissemination of local news and
intelligence of a general character, and which newspaper at all the times herein mentioned had
and still has a bona fide subscription list of
paying subscribers, and which newspaper has
been established, printed and published at
regular intervals in the said City of San Diego,
County of San Diego, for a period exceeding one
year next preceding the date of publication of the
notice hereinafter referred to, and which
newspaper is not devoted to nor published for
the interests, entertainment or instruction of a
particular class, profession, trade, calling, race,
or denomination, or any number of same; that
the notice of which the annexed is a printed
copy, has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following date, to-wit:
NOVEMBER 24,200 1
Notary Public in andfor the said County and State
.
Affidavit of Publication of
Legal Classified Advertisement
AD #73000 11
Ordered bv: JANICE BREITENFELD
NOTICE OF ’
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a
public hearing at ‘the Council Chambers,
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
California, gt S:OQ pnt ~IJ Tuesday! ----
December 4, 2001, to consider a Zone
Code Amendment and Local Coastal
Program Amendment to repeal and
reenact the City’s Planned DeveloIjment
Ordinance (Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code) to: 1) create a user-
friendly document that provides clear and
detailed development standards and
procedures for the development of small-
lot, single-family and tvvo-family/multiple-
family ownership dwelling units; 2) modify
residential development and design
standards to achieve the development of
more livable neighborhoods; and, 3)
modify development standards to ensure
that homes are in better scale to lot sizes.
Those persons wishing to speak on this
proposal are cordially invited to attend the
public hearing. Copies of the staff report
will be available on and after November
30,200l. If you have any questions, please
call Chris DeCerbo in the Planning
Dep~QbfiLWW;i, m o -
If’ you challenge the Zone Code
Amendment and/or Local Coastal Program
Amendment in court, you may be limited
to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice or in written
correspondence delivered’ to the City of
Carlsbad City Clerk’s Office at or prior to
the public hearing.
CASE FILE: ZCA Ol-Ol/LCPA 01-01
CASE NAME: AMENDMENT TO
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
PUBLISH’ DATE:
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2001
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
.
730091111/24/01
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a
public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 4, 2001, to consider a Zone Code
Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to repeal and reenact the City’s
Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) to:
1) create a user-friendly document that provides clear and detailed development
standards and procedures for the development of small-lot, single-family and two-
family/multiple-family ownership dwelling units; 2) modify residential development and
design standards to achieve the development of more livable neighborhoods; and, 3)
modify development standards to ensure that homes are in better scale to lot sizes.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the
public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after November 30,
2001. If you have any questions, please call Chris DeCerbo in the Planning Department
at (760) 602-4611.
If you challenge the Zone Code Amendment and/or Local Coastal Program Amendment
in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at
the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the
City of Carlsbad City Clerk’s Office at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: ZCA Ol-Ol/LCPA 01-01
CASE NAME: AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
PUBLISH DATE: SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 24,200l
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00
p.m. on Tuesday, [DATE], to consider a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program
Amendment to repeal and reenact the City’s Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) to: 1) create a user-friendly document that provides clear and
detailed development standards and procedures for the development of small-lot, single-family
and two-family/multiple-family ownership dwelling units; 2) modify residential development and
design standards to achieve the development of more livable neighborhoods; and, 3) modify
development standards to ensure that homes are in better scale to lot sizes.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after [DATE]. If you have any
questions, please call Chris DeCerbo in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4611.
If you challenge the Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment in court,
you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at
or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: ZCA Ol-Ol/LCPA 01-01
CASE NAME: AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
PUBLISH NORTH COUNTY TIMES: [DATE]
PUBLISH UNION TRIBUNE: [DATE]
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
Note: This should be l/8 page ad.
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160’:’
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST
801 PINE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST
701 ENCINITAS BLVD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE
2730 LOKER AVE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY
SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
CHRIS DECERBO
SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
LEUCADIA CNTY WATER DIST
1960 LA COSTA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
VALLECITOS WATER DIST
788 SAN MARCOS BLVD
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STE B
9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
m& /&2/-o/
11106/2001
Address Labels
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
DEPT
ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST
101 RANCH0 SANTA FE RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
OLIVENHAIN WATER DIST
1966 OLIVENHAIN RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Laser 5160@
11/20/01 TUE 18:24 FAX 760 761 0908 NORTH COUNTY TIMES SM l&o01 _.- -,.- -. _- .,__
NOTlCE OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the
City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a
public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at
6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 4, 2001, to
consider a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to repeal and
reenact the City‘s Planned Development
Ordinance (Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) to: 1) create a user-friendly
document that provides clear and detailed
development standards and procedures for the
development of small-lot, single-family and two-
family/multiple-family ownership dwelling units;
2) modify residential development and design standards to achieve the development of more
livable neighborhoods; and, 3) modify development standards to ensure that homes
are in better scale to lot sizes.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the
public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after November 30, 2001. If
you have any questions, please call Chris
DeCerbo in the Planning Department at (760)
602-46 11.
If you challenge the Zone Code Amendment
and/or Local Coastal Program Amendment in
court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing described in this notice or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of
Carlsbad City Clerk’s Office at or prior to the
public hearing.
CASE FILE: ZCA 01-Ol/LCPA 01-0-l
CASE NAME: AMENDMENT TO PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
PUBLISH DATE:
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 24,200l
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
Legal 71562. November 24,200i