HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-08-02; City Council; 18230; Local Shopping Center Zone and RezoningsCITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL
AB# 18,230
MTG. 8/2/05
DEPT. PLN
I- TITLE:
LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND REZONINGS
ZCA 00-07lLCPA 00-ISIGPA 04-18RC 04-13lLCPA 04-161
MP 149(T)/MP 178( C)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Project application(s)
ZCA 00-07; LCPA 00-1 5*; GPA 04-1 8; ZC 04-1 3; LCPA 04-1 6*; MP 149(T); MP 178(C)
That the City Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. NS-765 APPROVING ZCA-00-07,
Ordinance No. NS-766 APPROVING ZC 04-13, Ordinance No. NS-767
APPROVING MP 149(T), and Ordinance No. NS-768 APPROVING MP 178(C); and
ADOPT Resolution No. 2005-241 APPROVING the Negative Declaration for ZCA 00-
07ILCPA 00-1 5/GPA 04-1 8/ZC 04-1 YLCPA 04-1 6/MP 149(T)/MP 178(C ), and GPA 04-1 8, LCPA
00-15, and LCPA 04-16).
Administrative Reviewed by and To be Reviewed -
Approvals Final at Planning Final at Council Commission
X
Proiect Proposal. This project creates a new zone for local shopping centers (“C-L” Local Shopping
Center) and applies that zone to 48 properties on eleven sites where the General Plan calls for
existing and future local shopping centers. To accomplish this it is also necessary to process other,
related actions: a site-specific General Plan amendment, a Local Coastal Program (LCP)
amendment to create the zone, a second Local Coastal Program amendment for the re-zonings and
to add the “L” land use designation to the LCP land use map and apply it to specified properties, and
amendments to the La Costa Master Plan and Bressi Ranch Master Plan to include the new C-L
zone as a base zone referenced in the master plans. The proposed zone and property-specific re-
zonings are outgrowths of two larger programs that are described in the next section.
Background. The first program is the work that was started several years ago and culminated in 2002
in the City Council adopting a new, comprehensive policy framework in the General Plan that defined
and delimited what types of retail commercial land uses the city ought to have. Among other General
Plan changes the framework eliminated the old “N” (Neighborhood) and “C” (Community) commercial
shopping center designations and replaced them with a hybrid, new land use class called “L” (Local
Shopping Center). In addition, an inventory of sites was created to which the new designation was
applied. The spatial distribution of sites was very carefully developed using factors from the policy
Framework, including trade areas with optimum travel times (five minutes) for consumers. One of the
follow-through actions adopted with this policy framework (Land Use Element Commercial Policy C-
15) calls for creating a new zone that would regulate the development and redevelopment of local
shopping centers through a permit that would be approved by the City Council. The subject new
zone responds to this call, using the City’s existing Site Development Plan process (as proposed for
amendment). The adoption of the proposed new zone and property-specific re-zonings will conclude
the implementation of Commercial Policy C-I 5.
The second program is the ongoing “General Plan/Zoning Consistency Program” (GPZCP). This
multi-part, multi-year program is aimed at achieving improved consistency between the General Plan
and the Zoning Ordinance. There are several components of the GPZCP, one of which is to
determine the zoning classifications that are intended to implement each of the General Plan land
use designations. Part of this work identifies amendments that are needed to both the General Plan
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 18,230
text and the Zoning Code so as to assure consistency between the two systems of land use
classification and the allowed uses. Last fall the City Council adopted amendments to the residential
land use classifications and designations. The subject proposals are part of the current work staff is
conducting to address commercial land use inconsistencies. One provision of the new “C-L” zone
establishes that it is the zone that implements the ‘I“ General Plan designation. Therefore, part of
the subject proposal is the substitution of the new “C-L” zone for the “C-l”, “C-2” and other zones that
currently are assigned to properties that have the “L” General Plan designation.
Stakeholders’ Grow. The proposal for the new “C-L” zone was developed with the active
collaboration over many months of a stakeholders’ group comprised of commercial brokers, shopping
center owners, and representatives from the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce. The project proposal
is the result of this collaboration. While not every stakeholder agreed with every detail of the
proposed zone, the group developed a general consensus of support for the final version, as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
Plannincl Commission Recommendations. Just before the Planning Commission hearing, written
comments were received from two parties: a) Donahue Schriber, the owners of the Poinsettia Village
Shopping Center (and a member of the Stakeholders’ Group; see Exhibit 12), and b)
Sempra/SDG&E, in two letters (see Exhibits 13 and 14). Following consideration of the letters and
other testimony received at the public hearings, the Planning Commission recommended four
changes to the draft “C-L” zone ordinance. These recommendations have been incorporated into the
ordinance (ZCA 00-07) now before the City Council:
1.
2.
Delete as a land use permitted by CUP: “drug paraphernalia store” (currently allowed in
several commercial zones by CUP) (requested by the Planning Commission).
Add the word “other” in Section 21.31.020, the definition of ‘Local Shopping Center”, to clarify
that a local shopping center will “...normally have as major anchor tenants a grocery store
and/or drug store or such other combination of other establishments that function to provide
equivalent goods and services.. .” (requested by Donahue Schriber).
Add to note 3 of the table of allowed land uses (Section 21.31.030) to clarify that “ ... A CUP
shall not be required for those utility buildingslfacilities that are built, operated, or maintained
by a public utility to the extent that they are regulated by the California Public Utilities
Commission” (requested by Sempra/SDG&E).
Add a new Section 21.31.055 to clarify that the new zone requirements would not apply to
projects that have already made an application for development, if their application has been
found to be complete prior to the effective date of the ordinance (requested by Grant Tucker
Properties).
3.
4.
One additional issue was raised in the Donahue Schriber letter, a request to delete the Poinsettia
Village Shopping Center from the CommercialNisitor-Serving Overlay Zone. Staff recommended to
the Planning Commission, and the Commission concurred, that this request is outside the area of
concern represented by the current project. Therefore, no recommendation on this request is made
to City Council as a part of this Agenda Bill and proposed action.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
The proposed project was reviewed for potentially adverse environmental impacts in accordance with
the requirements of the California Environmental Act (CEQA). The initial study (EIA Part II) prepared
for this project did not identify any potentially significant impacts to the environment. Therefore, a
Notice of Intent to Issue a Negative Declaration was posted on March 14, 2005 for a 30-day public
review period. No comments were received during this review period.
PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 18,230
FISCAL IMPACT:
Approval of the new zone and its application to various properties will not result in any subsequent
one-time or ongoing costs to the City. To the degree that the new zone better facilitates the
development and operation of existing and new local shopping centers in the City than do existing
zones, sales tax revenues to the City may be somewhat enhanced.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS:
This project would change the zoning on 48 properties at eleven sites throughout the City. All of the
sites have been previously designated for local shopping centers in the General Plan and the
associated Local Facilities Management Plans have anticipated the type and intensity of
development that would occur at these sites. Approval of the project would have no adverse impact
to the City’s Growth Management Plan or its implementation.
EXHl BITS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
City Council Ordinance No. NS-765 , ZCA 00-07
City Council Ordinance No. Ns-768 , ZC 04-13
City Council Ordinance No NS-767
City Council Ordinance No. I_ Ns-768 , MP 178(C), Bressi Ranch Master Plan
City Council Resolution No. 2005-241
StrikeouVBold Version Ordinance, ZCA 00-07
StrikeouVBold Version, MP 149(T)
StrikeouVBold Version, (MP 178(C)
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5916, 5917, 5918, 5919, 5920, 5921, 5922, and 5923
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated June 15, 2005
Draft Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated June 15,2005
Letter from Luce Forward, on behalf of Donahue Schriber, dated June 14,2005
Letter from Sempra Energy, dated June 10,2005
Letter from SDG&E dated June 13,2005.
, MP 149(T), La Costa Master Plan
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Dennis Turner, (760) 602-4609, dturn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
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
ORDINANCE NO. NS-765
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE) AND, AMENDING
CHAPTERS 21 -06 (Q QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY
ZONE), 21.83 (CHILD CARE), 21.05 (ZONE ESTABLISHMENT),
AND THE SUMMARY OF TITLE 21 OF THE CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL CODE.
CASE NAME: LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADDING NEW CHAPTER 21.31 (C-L
REZONINGS
CASE NO.: ZCA 00-07
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as
follows:
SECTION 1: That Title 21, Chapter 21.06 (Q Qualified Development
Overlay Zone) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendments to
Sections 21.06.01 0, 21.06.020, and 21.06.090 each to read as follows:
“21.06.01 0 Intent and purpose.
The intent and purpose of the Q qualified development overlay zone is to
supplement the underlying zoning by providing additional regulations for development
within designated areas to:
(1) Require that property development criteria are used to insure compliance with the general plan and any applicable specific plans;
(2) Provide that development will be compatible with surrounding
developments, both existing and proposed;
(3) Insure that development occurs with due regard to environmental factors;
(4) Allow a property to be granted a particular zone where some or all of the permitted uses would be appropriate to the area only in certain cases with the
addition of specific conditions;
(5) Provide for public improvements necessitated by the development; (6) Promote orderly, attractive and harmonious development, and
promote the general welfare by preventing the establishment of uses or erection of
structures which are not properly related to or which would adversely impact their sites,
surroundings, traffic circulation or environmental setting.
(7) Provide a process for the review and approval of Site
Development Plans as called for by this Chapter or other provisions of this Code.”
“21.06.020 Permitted uses and findings.
(a) Subject to the provisions of subsection (b), in the Q qualified development
overlay zone, any principal use, accessory use, transitional use or conditional use
permitted in the underlying zone is permitted subject to the same conditions and
restrictions applicable in such underlying zone and to all of the requirements of this
chapter.
Notwithstanding subsection (a) no use shall be permitted unless the
planning commission, or the City Council on appeal, finds: (b)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(1) That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings
and environmental settings, is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the
general plan, will not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in
the area in which the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the
site, surroundings or traffic circulation; That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the use;
That all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and
other features necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses
in the neighborhood will be provided and maintained;
That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to
properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use and;
For local shopping centers located in the C-L Local Shopping
Center Zone, such additional findings as are set out in Chapter 21.31, Section
21.31.040.D for new or major amendments to site development plans approved by the
city council.’’
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
“21.06.090 Development standards.
Property in the Q zone shall be subject to the development standards required in
the underlying zone and any applicable specific plans, except for affordable housing
projects as expressly modified by the site development plan. The site development plan
for affordable housing projects may allow less restrictive development standards than
specified in the underlying zone or elsewhere provided that the project is in conformity
with the general plan and adopted policies and goals of the city, it would have no
detrimental effect on public health, safety and welfare, and, in the coastal zone, any
project processed Subject to this chapter shall be consistent with all certified local
coastal program provisions, with the exception of density. In addition, the planning
commission or the City Council in approving a site development plan may impose special
conditions or requirements which are more restrictive than the development standards in
the underlying zone or elsewhere that include provisions for, but are not limited to the
following:
(1) Special setbacks, yards, active or passive open space, required as part of the entitlement process;
(2) Special height and bulk of building regulations; (3) Fences and walls;
(4) Regulation of signs;
(5) Additional landscaping;
(6) Special grading restrictions;
(7)
(8) needed to service the proposed development;
(9) completed;
(1 0)
(1 1 )
(12)
Requiring street dedication and improvements (or posting of bonds);
Requiring public improvements either on or off the subject site that are
Time period within which the project or any phases of the project shall be
Regulation of point of ingress and egress;
Architecture, color, texture, materials and adornments
Such other conditions as deemed necessary to insure conformity with the
general plan and other adopted policies, goals or objectives of the city.”
-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
SECTION 2: That Title 21, Chapter 21.06 (Q Qualified Development Overlay
zone) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Section 21.06.170, to read
as follows:
”21.06.170 Amendments to site development plans.
Amendments to a site development plan may be initiated by the property owner
or an authorized agent. An application for amendment of an existing site development
plan shall be processed, heard, and determined in the same manner as an application
for a new site development plan, except as provided in Section 21.31.050 for a site
development plan for a local shopping center. When necessary, the amendment shall be
accompanied by an amendment to any related permit or map that is affected by the
amendment.”
SECTION 3. That Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the
addition of new Chapter 21.31, C-L Local Shopping Center Zone, to read as follows:
“Chapter 21.31
C-L Local Shopping Center Zone
Section:
21.31.010 Intent and purpose
21.31.020 Definition
21.31.030 Permitted uses
21.31 040 Approval process for new local shopping centers
21.31.050 Redeveloping, remodeling, and expanding existing shopping centers
21.31.055 Projects in process
21.31.060 Special requirements to be addressed in a SDP
21.31.070 Limitations on permitted uses in C-L zone
21.31.080 Development standards
21.31.090 Severability.
21.31.010 Intent and purpose
The intent and purpose of the C-L Local Shopping Center zone is to:
A.
B.
Implement the Local Shopping Center (L) land use designation of the
Carlsbad General Plan;
Assure that any site zoned C-L will be developed so as to provide a range
of goods and services to meet the daily necessities and convenience of the residents of
the neighborhoods in which the site is located.
Assure that local shopping centers are developed consistent with adopted
specific plans, master plans, and local facilities management plans;
Assure that local shopping centers will be compatible with surrounding
development and the local neighborhoods in which they are located;
Provide opportunities for local shopping centers to supplement their
principal function of providing local neighborhoods with daily goods and services through
the inclusion of community-serving uses, residential uses, general offices, medical
offices, public and semi-public facilities, and entertainment uses when such other uses
C.
D.
E.
-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
are found by the city to be desirable and can be integrated into the form and function of
the local shopping center; and
redeveloped local shopping centers will be reviewed to assure that shopping centers:
comply with the intents and purposes stated herein; include superior and creative design
and architecture; and conform with the city’s objectives for the community’s environment,
health, safety, and welfare.
F. Create a permit process through which proposals for new, expanded or
21.31.020 Definition: local shopping center.
“Local shopping center” means a group of architecturally unified commercial
establishments providing primarily neighborhood-serving goods and services, numbering at
least three such establishments, built upon a site that is planned, developed, owned and
managed as an operating unit related in its location, size, and type of shops to the trade area
that it serves and with on-site parking in definite relationship to the types and total size of the
stores. A local shopping center provides daily necessities and convenience goods and
services needed by the neighborhood in which it is located. Therefore, it normally will have as
major anchor tenants a grocery store and/or drug store or such combination of other
establishments that function to provide equivalent goods and services, plus other, secondary
tenants. Other uses and tenants may supplement, but not replace the local-serving nature of
the center.
21.31.030 Permitted uses.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Title, only the uses listed in Table A,
below, shall be permitted, subject to the requirements and development standards specified by
this chapter.
The uses permitted by conditional use permit, as indicated in Table A shall be
subject to the provisions of Chapters 21.42 (Conditional Uses) and 21.50 (Variances -
Conditional Use Permits).
A use similar to those listed in Table A may be permitted if the Planning Director
determines such similar use falls within the intent and purposes of this zone, and is
substantially similar to the specified permitted uses.
A use category may be general in nature, where more than one particular use
fits into the general category (ex: in some commercial zones “offices” is a general use category
that applies to various office uses). However, if a particular use is permitted by conditional use
permit in another zone, the use shall not be permitted in this C-L zone (even under a general
use category) unless it is specifically listed in Table A of this Chapter as permitted or
conditionally permitted.
A.
B.
C.
D.
TABLE A
USES PERMITTED IN THE C-L Zone
In the table, below, subject to all applicable permitting and development requirements of the Municipal Code:
“P” indicates the use is permitted.
“CUP” indicates that the use is permitted with approval of a conditional use permit.
-4- 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
THE C-L Zone
In the table, below, subject to all applicable permitting and development requirements of the Municipal Code:
“P” indicates the use is permitted.
-5- 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
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
Accessory buildings and structures and ancillary uses shall be developed and operated as an integral part of a permitted
use within or on the same structure or parcel of land.
Offices: The total floor area of office uses shall not exceed 40% of the gross leasable floor area within any local shopping
center.
Public/quasi-public accessory utility buildingdfacilities include, but are not limited to, water wells, water storage, pump
stations, booster stations, transmissioddistribution electrical substations, operating centers, gas meteringkegulating
stations, or neighboring telephone exchanges, with the necessary accessory equipment incidental thereto. A CUP shall not
be required for those utility buildings/facilities that are built, operated, or maintained by a public utility to the extent that they are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission.
Retail sales may also include those types of goods and services that are typically offered by “community” retail
establishments, when “community” retail establishments are included in the local shopping center, subject to the definition of a local shopping center, Section 21.31.020, and the function of the Local Shopping Center land use class as
described in the Carlsbad General Plan.
Educational facilities/schools. No individual school shall occupy more than 10,000 sq. A. of gross leasable floor area
within any local shopping center.
4.
5.
21.31.040 Approval process for new local shopping centers
A. A site development plan shall be required for the development of a new local
shopping center. The site development plan shall be processed subject to Chapter 21.06 (Q
Qualified Development Overlay Zone) of this title, as modified by this Section.
Role of Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is authorized to review
at a noticed, public hearing, subject to Chapter 21.54, a proposed site development plan and
any other permits or entitlements being processed concurrently therewith, and to make a
recommendation to the City Council to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the site
development plan or plan amendment, and any concurrently-processed permits or
entitlements. The recommendations of the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City
Council forthwith.
B.
C. Decision maker.
The City Council shall be the decision-maker for a site development plan required by
this chapter. The City Council shall also be the decision-maker for all other permits and
entitlements associated with a local shopping center, when such permits and entitlements are
processed concurrently with the site development plan. Once a site development plan has
been approved by the City Council, however, any subsequent permits or entitlements shall be
processed and approved as elsewhere established by this Title. The City Council, following a
public hearing, noticed subject to Chapter 21 54, shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny
the requested approvals. The decision of the City Council shall be final.
D. Mandatory findings of fact.
In addition to the findings set out in Section 21.06.020(b) (Q Qualified Development
Overlay Zone - findings), no site development plan for a local shopping center shall be
approved unless the City Council finds that the site, either by itself or in combination with
another, adjoining center, will provide the normal range of goods and services to meet the
everyday needs of the local neighborhood, in keeping with the intent and purpose of both this
zone and the local shopping center general plan designation. For the purpose of this section,
“adjoining center” means that the second shopping center either abuts the subject center or is
located on property immediately across a common street.
21.31.050 Redeveloping, remodeling, and expanding existing shopping centers
A. A proposal to redevelop, remodel or expand an existing local shopping center
shall be processed through a site development plan. Where a site development plan does not
exist for an existing center, a site development plan shall first be obtained pursuant to Section
21.31.040. Where a site development plan exists, the proposal shall be processed through an
amendment to the site development plan as provided by this section.
Major amendment. Any proposal for a major remodeling or redevelopment of an
existing shopping center shall first obtain a major amendment to the site development plan,
B.
-6- P
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
which amendment shall be processed according to Section 21.31.040 with the City Council as
the decision maker. Any change of a site that constitutes a major remodeling or
redevelopment will typically result in removal and/or replacement of 50% or more of the
existing building floor area of the center or a combination of changes to floor area, landscaping,
parking, facades, or other site features that constitutes a major reconfiguration or redesign of
the site. Where this threshold is unclear, the Planning Director shall determine whether the
proposal will require a major amendment to the site development plan.
Minor amendment. Any proposal for remodeling, redeveloping, or expanding an
existing local shopping center, which does not require a major amendment as established by
paragraph B, and which is not excepted by paragraph D shall first obtain a minor amendment
to the site development plan. A minor site development plan amendment shall be heard and
approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the process and findings contained in
Chapter 21.06 (Q. Qualified Development Overlay Zone).
C.
D. Exceptions.
The following are excepted from the need to obtain an amendment to an existing site
development plan or for a new site development plan for an existing center that does not have
one:
Any one addition of new floor area with a cumulative total of less than
Any non-floor-area changes to the site design that collectively result in
1. Tenant improvements.
2.
3.
1,000 square feet.
less than a ten percent change to the site, as determined by the Planning Director.
21.31.055 Projects in process.
Any application for a site development plan or an amendment to a site development plan,
which application was deemed complete prior to the effective date of the ordinance that
created this chapter, shall not be subject to the provisions of. this chapter, but shall be
processed and approved or disapproved pursuant to the ordinance superseded by the
ordinance codified in this chapter.
21.31.060. Special requirements to be addressed in the site development plan.
A site development plan for a local shopping center shall show how each of the following, if
applicable, will be developed.
A. Employee eating and outdoor eating areas.
1. Required eating areas for employees (subject to Section 21.31.080(L));
2. Food courts or outdoor seating areas, operated in common with or
3 Restaurants with eating areas located outdoors or within common areas
Areas for temporary outdoor display and sales of seasonal items (pumpkins,
Areas designated for outdoor cooking or barbequing, if any;
Kiosks and vending carts, if any;
Special events area or public gathering area, if any;
Shopping cart collection and storage areas; and
Access points to the site for pedestrians and internal pedestrian circulation.
available to the patrons of more than one restaurant, if any;
otherwise designated for pedestrian or other traffic, if any;
Christmas trees, etc.)
B.
C.
D.
E Signs;
F. Recycling facilities;
G.
H. Bicycle parking;
I.
J.
21.31.070. Limitations on permitted uses in C-L zone.
Every use permitted shall be subject to the following conditions and limitations:
-7- lo
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. Conduct uses in buildings.
All uses shall be conducted wholly within a building, except such uses as gasoline
stations, nurseries for sale of plants and flowers, uses set out in Section 21.31.060, and other
enterprises customarily conducted in the open or otherwise as identified and permitted in a site
development plan. The Planning Director is authorized to make any necessary interpretations
of this subsection;
B. On-site manufacture of goods.
Products made incident to a permitted use shall be sold only at retail on the premises,
and not more than five persons may be employed in the manufacturing of products permitted
herein;
Accessory storage of commodities to be sold at retail on the premises;
C. Storage shall be limited to:
1.
2. Materials to be recycled.
and
21.31.080 Development standards.
A. Exercise of site development plan.
The City Council in approving or amending, or the Planning Commission in
amending, a site development plan may impose special conditions or requirements that include
provisions for, but are not limited to the following:
1. Intensity of use;
2.
3. Parking standards;
4. Yards;
5.
6. Fences and walls;
7. Signs;
8. Landscaping;
9. Grading, slopes, and drainage;
10.
11.
12.
13.
Compatibility with surrounding properties and land uses;
Height and bulk of buildings;
Time period within which the project or any phases of the projects shall
be completed;
Points of ingress or egress, including points used by pedestrians and
bicyclists;
Architecture, including colors, textures, materials, and adornments;
Such other conditions as are deemed necessary to ensure conformity
with the general plan and other adopted policies, goals or objectives of the city, including the
purpose and intents of this Chapter.
B. Property size.
No site shall be included in the local shopping center zone unless all constituent
properties are contiguous, planned as an integrated whole, and aggregate to a minimum of
four (4.0) net acres, if already developed with retail uses, or seven (7.0) gross acres, if
undeveloped or developed with uses other than retail.
No building in the C-L zone shall exceed a height of thirty-five (35) feet
or three levels and allowed height protrusions as described in Section 21.46.020 shall not
exceed forty-five (45) feet. Additional building height may be permitted to a maximum of forty-
five (45) feet through the site development plan approved by the City Council, provided that:
a. The building does not contain more than three levels; and
b. All required yards shall be increased at a ratio of one (1)
horizontal foot for every one (1) foot of vertical construction beyond thirty-five (35) feet. The
additional yard area will be maintained as landscaped open space; and
' The building conforms to the requirements of Section 18.04.170
of this code; and
C. Building height.
1.
c.
-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
SITE PROPERTY LINE IS ADJACENT TO
Primary Arterial Road
Secondary Arterial Road
Non-Arterial Road
Not On A Street Frontaae
d. As described in Section 21.46.020, architectural features such as
flagpoles, steeples, or architectural towers, may be permitted up to fifty-five (55) feet if the City
Council makes the specific findings that the protruding architectural features:
1.
ii.
iii.
Do not function to provide usable floor area; and
Do not adversely impact adjacent properties; and
Are necessary to ensure a building's design excellence.
D. Yards.
center unless otherwise established through a prior site development plan approval:
1. The following yards shall apply to the periphery of a local shopping
YARD DEPTH
20 feet
15 feet
10 feet
10 feet
2. Protrusions into yards. The following intrusions only may be permitted
a. Pedestrian walkways,
b. Landscaping,
C. Fences or walls,
d.
e.
f.
g.
within required yards:
Approved areas of ingress and egress,
Directional signs and approved monument signs,
Public recreational facilities or outdoor eating areas as authorized
Architectural projections such as eaves, trellises, sun shades,
in the site development plan,
columns, and buttresses may extend up to three feet into any yard.
E.
F. Walls and Fences.
Landscaping. Landscaping shall be provided pursuant to the City of Carlsbad
A solid masonry wall, six feet in height, shall be constructed along
Landscape Manual and Chapter 21.44 (Parking).
1.
the common lot line with any residentially zoned property, except that the wall shall be
42 inches in height along that part of the common lot line that bounds the front yard of
the residential property.
except that no wall or fence shall be erected in excess of forty-two inches in height within
a yard adjacent to streets. Chain link, barbed wire, razor ribbon or other similar fences
are specifically not permitted.
G. Lighting.
Exterior lighting is required for all employee and visitor parking areas, walkways,
H. Roof Appurtenances.
2. Other walls and fences up to a height of six feet are permitted
and building entrances and exits. Light sources shall be designed to avoid direct or
indirect glare to any off-site properties or public rights-of-way.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally
integrated and shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six-foot-high masonry wall
Loading areas and docks '
I. Trash enclosures.
with gates subject to city standards.
J.
-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
All loading areas shall be oriented andlor screened so as to be
unobtrusive from the adjacent streets or properties. Appropriate mitigating measures
shall be incorporated to assure that noise from a loading area or dock does not exceed
65 dB CNEL at the shopping center's property line.
K. Parking requirements.
Parking shall be provided subject to the provisions of Chapter 21.44 of
this Title.
L. Employee eating areas.
Outdoor eating facilities for employees of the center shall be provided, as
follows, except as noted below:
1. A minimum of 300 square feet of outdoor eating facilities shall be
provided for each 50,000 square feet of floor area, or portion thereof. Credit towards the
required amount of floor area will be given for centers in which two or more restaurants
share a common, public eating area in a food court or for other public eating area
available to all patrons, comprising at least 600 square feet.
2. The area shall be easily accessible to the employees of the local
shopping center.
3. The area shall be landscaped and provided with attractive outdoor
furniture, Le., metal, wood, or concrete picnic tables, bencheslchairs and trash
receptacles.
The site size, location, landscaping and furniture required above
shall be approved as part of the required site development plan, or if no site
development plan is required, a plan of the eating area shall be provided to and
approved by the Planning Director;
Signage for sites in the C-L zone that are subject to a site development plan
shall be implemented according to a sign program, as established by Section 21.41.060 (Sign
Ordinance) of this Title. Signs for sites not subject to a site development plan shall be subject
to all other provisions of Chapter 21.41 (Sign Ordinance).
Where state law requires a recycling area for beverage containers to be located
within the center, said recycling area shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 21.105 of this
Title. The location of all recycling areas shall be set out in the site development plan and the
parameters of operation shall be called out.
4.
M. Signs.
N. Recycling areas.
21.31.090 Severability
is for any reason found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of
this chapter, which shall be in full force and effect. The City Council hereby declares that
it would have adopted this chapter with each section, subsection, sentence, clause,
phrase or part thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses, phrases or parts be declared invalid or unconstitutional."
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause phrase or part of this chapter
SECTION 4: That Title 21, Chapter 21.83 (Child Care) of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code is amended by the amendment to Section 21.83.040 to read as follows:
"21.83.040 Use chart.
-10- I3
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
Zoning
Zones in which small and large family day care homes and child
day care centers are shown on the following use chart. Permitted, administrative,
conditional, and prohibited are authorized as follows:
Small Family Day Care Large Family Day Care Home Child Day Care
Home (8 or fewer children) (14 or fewer children) Center
R-1
R-2
R-3, RD-M, RP
RT, RW, RMHP
I RA. RE. EA I P I Pf1) Ix I
P P(1 ) X
P P(1) X
P P(1) A(2)
P P(1) X
c-1, c-2, CL
PM, CM
M, PU, OS,
I 0 I X I X I Ai21 I
X X P(3)
X X C
X X X
I HO I X I X I P(3) I
1. Permitted only when the large family day care home is located on a lot occupied by a
detached, single-family dwelling on a lot of 7,500 square feet or more by ministerial approval
without a public hearing and subject to the provisions of Section 21.83.050 of this chapter.
2. Permitted subject to the provisions of Sections 21.83.070 and 21.83.080 of this chapter.
3. Permitted subject to the provisions of Section 21.83.080 of this chapter and the requirements of any controlling document (e.g., site development pian).
4. Permitted subject to the standards of the controlling document (village redevelopment master
plan and design guidelines or designated master plan) and the provisions of Section
21.83.080 of this chapter."
SECTION 5: That Title 21, Chapter 21.05 (ZONE ESTABLISHMENT -
BOUNDRIES), of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of
Section 21.05.010, to read as follows:
'r21.05.01 0 Names of zones.
In order to classify, regulate, restrict and segregate the uses of land and buildings,
to regulate and restrict the height and bulk of buildings, to regulate the area of yards and
other open spaces about buildings, and to regulate the density of population, thirty-six
classes of zones and overlay zones are established by this title to be known as follows:
C-I -Neighborhood Commercial Zone
C-2-General Commercial Zone
-1 1-
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
C-F-Community Facilities Zone
C-L-Local Shopping Center Zone
C-M-Heavy Commercial-Limited Industrial Zone
C-T-Commercial Tourist Zone
E-A-Exclusive Agricultural Zone
L-C-Limited Control Zone
M-Industrial Zone
0-Office Zone
0-S-Open Space Zone
P-C-Planned Community Zone
P-M-Planned Industrial Zone
P-U-Public Utility Zone
R-1-One-family Residential Zone
R-2-Two-family Residential Zone
R-3-Multiple-family Residential Zone
R-A-Residential Agricultural Zone
R-E-Residential Estate Zone
R-P-Residential-Professional Zone
R-T-Residen tial Tour is t Zone
R-W-Residential Waterway Zone
RD-M-Residential Density-Multiple Zone
RMHP-Residential Mobile Home Park
T-C-Transportation Corridor Zone
VR-Village Redevelopment Zone
BAO-Beach Area Overlay Zone
Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone
Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone
Coastal Resource Overlay Zone Mello I LCP Segment
CN-SO-CommercialNisitor-Serving Overlay Zone
F-P-Floodplain Overlay Zone
H-0-Hospital Overlay Zone
Q-Qualified Development Overlay Zone
S-P-Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone”
SECTION 6: That Title 21, Summary of Zones, is amended by the addition of Chapter
21.31, as follows:
“Title 21
ZONING
Chapters :
21.02 Purpose
21.04 Definitions
21.05 Zone Establishment - Boundaries
21.06
21.07 E-A Exclusive Agricultural Zone
21.08 R-A Residential Agricultural Zone
Q Qualified Development Overlay Zone
-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
21.09
21.10
21.12
21 .I6
21.18
21.20
21.21
21.22.
21.24
21.25
21.26
21.27
21.28
21.29
21.30
21.31
21.32
21.33.
21.34
21.35
21.36
21.37
21.38
21.39
21.40
21.41
21.42
21.43
21.44
21.45
21.46
21.49
21 SO
21.51
21.52
21 53
21 54
21.55
21.56
21.58
21.60
21.61
21.62
21.70
21.80
21.81
21.82
21.83
21.84
21.85
21.86
21.90
21.95
R-E Rural Residential Estate Zone
R-1 One-Family Residential Zone
R-2 Two-Family Residential Zone
R-3 Multiple-Family Residential Zone
R-P Residential Professional Zone
R-T Residential Tourist Zone
H-0 Hospital Overlay Zone
R-W Residential Waterway Zone
RD-M Residential Density - Multiple Zone
C-F Community Facilities Zone
C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Zone
0 Office Zone
C-2 General Commercial Zone
C-T Commercial Tourist Zone
C-M Heavy Commercial - Limited Industrial Zone
C-L Local Shopping Center Zone
M Industrial Zone
0-S Open Space Zone
P-M Planned Industrial Zone
V-R Village Redevelopment Zone
P-U Public Utility Zone
RMHP Residential Mobile Home Park Zone
P-C Planned Community Zone
L-C Limited Control Zone
S-P Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone
Sign Ordinance
Conditional Uses’
Adult Entertainment
Parking
Planned Developments
Yards
Nonresidential Planned Development
Variances - Conditional Use Permits
Administrative Variances
Amendments
Uses Generally
Procedures, Hearings, Notices and Fees
Dedications of Land and Fee for School Facilities
Interpretation
Revocation - Expiration
Permits - License Enforcement
Judicial Review of Zoning Decisions and Time Limitation
Violations
Development Agreements
Coastal Development Permits
Coastal Development Permits - Village Redevelopment Area
Beach Area Overlay (BOA) Zone
Child Care
Housing For Senior Citizens
lnclusionary Housing
Residential Density Bonus or In-Lieu Incentives
Growth Management
Hillside Development Regulations
-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
21 .I 00 T-C Transportation Corridor
21.105 Recycling Facilities and Recycling Areas
21.1 10 Floodplain Management Regulations
21.201 Coastal Development Permit Procedures
21.202 Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone
21.203 Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
21.204 Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone
21.205 Coastal Resources Overlay Zone Mello I LCP Segment
21.208 CommercialNisitor Overlay Zone”
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its
adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be
published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within
fifteen days after its adoption. (Not withstanding the preceding, this ordinance shall not be
effective within the City’s Coastal Zone until approved by the California Coastal Commission.)
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council on the 2nd day of 2005, and thereafter.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the day of
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
2005, by the following vote, to wit:
ABSTAl N:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-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
ORDINANCE NO. NS-766
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA CHANGING THE ZONING ON 39
SHOPPING CENTER) ON 7 SITES LOCATED IN VARIOUS
LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY IN VARIOUS LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONES CASENAME: LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND
PROPERTIES FROM VARIOUS ZONES TO “C-L“ (LOCAL
REZONINGS
CASE NO.: ZC 04-1 3
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: That the Zoning Map established in Title 21 (Zoning Ordinance),
Chapter 21.05 (Zone Establishment) is amended by changing the zoning assigned to properties
at sites 1-7 as indicated on “Exhibit Y and located as shown on Exhibits “1 of 10 through and
including “7 of IO”, attached hereto.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its
adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be
published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within
fifteen days after its adoption. (Notwithstanding the preceding, this ordinance shall not be
effective within the City’s Coastal Zone until approved by the California Coastal Commission.)
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
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
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council on the 2nd day of AUGUST 2005, and thereafter.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the day of
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
2005, by the following vote, to wit:
ABSTAl N:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-2-
Exhibit “Y”
Dated June 15,2005
~~~
Site
No.
1
2
3-a
ZC 04-13; GPA 04-18; LCPA 04-16; MP 1490; MP 178(C)
TABLE OF AFFECTED PROPERTIES
Property/Shopping Center
Name
Carlsbad Plaza North
Carlsbad Plaza North
Carlsbad Plaza North
Carlsbad Plaza North
Carlsbad Plaza North
Carlsbad Plaza North
Carlsbad Plaza South
Carlsbad Plaza South
Plaza Paseo Real (vons)
7
a Costa Plaza (Albertsons)
a Costa Plaza (Albertsons)
ointsettia Village (Ralphs)
ointsettia Village (Ralphs)
ointsettia Village (Ralphs)
ointsettia Village (Ralphs)
ointsettia Village (Ralphs)
ointsettia Village (Ralphs)
ointsettia Village (Ralphs)
-named center (vons)
-named center (vons)
Un-named center (vons)
Sunny Creek commercial
APN
167-030-29
167-030-32
167-030-48
167-030-50
167-030-74
167-030-75
167-030-76
167-030-77
2 15-050-69
2 15-050-70
2 15-050-72
215-050-75
215-050-76
21 6-580-01
2 16-5 80-02
216-580-03
216-580-04
21 6-580-05
2 16-580-06
2 16-5 80-07
216-580-08
2 14-430- 14
2 14-430-1 5
2 14-430-16
214-430-17
2 14-430-1 8
2 14-430-19
214-430-20
214-430-21
2 14-430-22
2 14-430-23
2 14-430-24
2 14-430-25
214430-26
206-050-16
206-050-17
206-050-18
206-050-20
209-090-1 1
_______-_-____
-
-
C
C
C
C
C
- - - - - .
- - - - - - - -
TS/C
TS/C
TS/C
TS/C
TS/C
TS/C
TS/C
TS/C
TS/C
TS/C
TS/C
TSIC
TS/C
N
N
N
N
LCP
To
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
-
- - -
Gen’l Plan
From
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
RM
RM
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
T-R/L
T-R/L
,T-R/L
T-R/L
T-R/L
T-R/L
T-R/L
T-R/L
T-R/L
T-R/I+
T-RL
T-lUL
T-R/L
L
L
L
L
L
~~
Gen’l Plan
To
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
L
L
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
no chg
_-_-_--____--__---.
Zone
From
c-2 c-1
c-2
c-2
c-2
c-2
C-2-Q/
R-P-Q
C-2-Q
R-P-Q
R-P-Q
RDM-Q
R-P-Q/
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-1-Q
C-1-Q
C-1-Q
C-1-Q
C-1-Q
C-1 -Q
C-1-Q
C-1-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
c-1 c- 1
c-1
c-1
c-2
------- -
Zone
To
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
----------
Page 1 of2
Exhibit “Y”
Dated June 15,2005
Site Property/Shopping Center LCP LCP Gen’lPlan Gen’lPlan Zone
NO. Name From To From To From
Zone
To
Los Coches Village (Henry’s)
i(MP 149)
La Costa Town Square (MP
,
149)
Rancho La Costa (MP 149) ’”
11
255-03 1-20
223-060-32
(approx.)
2232060-28
223-060-29
(SavOn)
Rancho La Costa (MP 149)
(SavOn)
Bressi Ranch (PA 15 partial)
Bressi Ranch (PA 15 partial)
Bressi Ranch (PA 15 partial)
Bressi Ranch (PA 15 partial)
Bressi Ranch (PA 15 partial)
2 13-1 90-0 1
213-190- 02
213-190- 03
213-191- 01
213-191- 02
L no chg
L no chg
L no chg
L no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
L no chg
L no chg
PC nochg
PC nochg
no chg
no chg
no chg
LCP Land Use Classifications General Plan Classifications Zoning Classifications
C = General Commercial
TS = Travel Services
N = Neighborhood Commercial
L = Local Shopping Center
L = Local Shopping Center
R-M = Residential Medm Density
T-R = Travel Recreation
C-2 = General Commercial
C-1 = Neighborhood Commercial
R-P-Q = Res/ Professional
R-D-M = Res Density Medium
P-C = Planned Community
Q (suffix) = Qualified Development Overlay
For sites 8-1 1 the “zone change” is effected through amendments to the respective Planned Community
master plans, which plans use tailored zoning that is based upon and references underlying, standard
zones. The reference to the underlying zone is being changed within the master plans.
.
Page 2 of2
Exhibit 1 of 10
June 15,2005
SITE ’
LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER REZONINGS
ZC 04-13
Exhibit 2 of 10
June 15,2005
' SITE
LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER REZONINGS
ZC 04-1 3/LCPA 04-1 6
93
Exhibit 3 of 10
June 15,2005
/ SITE 1
LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER
REZONINGS
GPA 04-18
alii
Exhibit 4 of 10
June 15,2005
I
/ SITE
c
LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER REZON I NGS
ZC 04-13
SITE
Exhibit 5 of 10
June 15,2005
LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER REZONINGS
GPA 04-1 81ZC 04-1 3/LCPA 04-1 6
Exhibit 6 of 10
June 15,2005
SITE
I I
LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER REZON I NGS
ZC 04-1 3/LCPA 04-1 6
Exhibit 7 of 10 June 15,2005
RANCHO CARLSBAD
GOLF COURSE
I I I
SITE
LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER
REZONINGS
ZC 04-13
Exhibit 8 of 10
June 15,2005
SITE
LA COSTA MP COMMERCIAL REZONING
MP 149(T)
Exhibit 9 of 10
June 15,2005
I
/ITE
LA COSTA MP COMMERCIAL REZONING
MP 149(T)
Exhibit 10 of 10
June 15,2005
I I
- SITE
BRESSI RANCH COMMERCIAL REZONE
MP 178(C)
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
ORDINANCE NO. NS-767
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE LA COSTA
MASTER PLAN, MP 149, TO REPLACE REFERENCES IN THE
(NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) and ‘IC-2” (GENERAL
CENTER) ZONE AND AMEND RELATED TEXT TO
REFERENCE THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL
CASENAME: LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND
CASE NO.: MP 149(T)
TEXT AND TABLES TO THE UNDERLYING “C-I”
COMMERCIAL) ZONE WITH THE “C-L” (LOCAL SHOPPING
PROCESS ASSOCIATED WITH THE “C-L” ZONE
REZO N I NGS
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, has reviewed and
considered a master plan amendment to the La Costa Master Plan (MP 149(T)) to change text
and charts by replacing the underlying “C-I ” (Neighborhood Commercial) and “C-2” (General
Commercial’’ zones with the new “C-L” (Local Shopping Center) zone and amending related text
to reference the site development plan approval process associated with the “C-L” zone; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 2nd day of AUGuST
2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a master plan amendment
consistent with Chapter 21.38 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code as shown on Exhibit “MP 149(T)”,
incorporated by reference;
NOW, THERERFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does
ordain, as follows:
SECTION 1: That Master Plan Amendment MP 149(T) changes text and charts
by replacing the underlying “C-I” (Neighborhood Commercial) and “C-2” (General
Commercial”) zones with the new “C-L” (Local Shopping Center) zone and amends related text
to reference the site development plan approval process associated with the “C-L” zone.
SECTION 2: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5922 shall also constitute the findings and conditions of
the City Council. 3a
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
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its
adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be
published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within
fifteen days after its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council on the day of 2005, and thereafter.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the day of
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAl N :
2005, by the following vote, to wit:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-2- 33
NIP 149(T)
LA COSTA
MASTER PLAN
Amendment
(clean)
1
LA COSTA MASTER PLAN
MP-149 (MP-6)
2900 acres, located east of El Camino Real and northerly of
Olivenhain Road (La Costa Land Development Co.).
ADOPTED BY:
City Council Ordinance # 9322, September 5,1972
AMENDED to delete an indicated school site shown westerly of El Fuerte
Street in an area hown as La Costa Estates North (CT 73-10, SP 112)
APPROVED BY:
Planning Commission Resolution # 10 19, December 1 1, 1973
City Council Ordinance # 9376, January 15,1974 ***
M€’-149(A)
Referred back to Planning Commission for partial amendment to allow for “continual” (concurrent)
processing of Rancheros De La Costa, La Costa Vale Unit #2, Green Valley Knolls, and Santa Fe Knolls
while a new PC zone was being developed. The processing of the remainder of the Master Plan area was
delayed until adoption of the PC zone. No formal action by City Council.
APPROVED BY:
Planning Commission Resolution # 1253, May 19, 1976 ***
MP-149(B)
Repealed Ordinance # 9376. Adopted an interim Master Plan for La Costa area.
Referred to new exhibit for type of development, which reflected La Costa’s plans for more single-family
development and less condominium development. Established a circulation plan, school site plan, park
site plan, and development standards for Santa Fe Knolls, Rancheros De La Costa, La Costa Vale #2, and
Green Valley Knolls.:
ADOPTED BY:
City Council Ordinance # 9469, November 2,1976 ***
Mp-l49(C)
No action taken ***
-9 MP-l49(D)
Deletes 45 acres from MP-l49(B). Deleted property is located generally east of
El Fuerte on both sides of the extension of Alga Road (Hidden Meadows,
Meadow Crest, and Meadowlark areas).
APPROVED BY:
Planning Commission Resolution # 1567, November 14, 1979
City Council Ordinance # 9546, March 18,1980 ***
.. 11
MP-l49(E)
Amended the La Costa Master Plan to provide for conformance with the
newly revised General Plan Elements for Parks gnd for Public Facilities.
APPROVED BY:
Planning Commission Resolution # 17 19,
City Council Ordinance # 9570, December 16, 1980 ***
MP-l49(F)
Deleted 4.5 acres fiom the La Costa Master Plan. Property deleted was
located on Centella Street south of Levante.
APPROVED BY:
Planning Commission Resolution # 1757,
City Council Ordinance # 9579, March 17,1981 ***
MP-l49(G)
Revised the Land Use Plan of the La Costa Northwest area and made minor administrative changes to the
Master Plan text and maps on property . . .located generally east of El Camino Real and north of Alga
Road. Changes to land use included the golf course, which was reduced in size from 105 acres to 85
acres, increased unit count by 100, and increased area of proposed park fiom 21 to 23.5 acres.
APPROVED BY:
Planning Commission Resolution #, 1954, City Council Ordinance # 9628, June 29, 1982 ***
MP-l49(H)
WITHDRAWN on August 3 1, 1981, w$h no action taken. ***
Mp-l49(I)
Minor amendment to the La Costa Master Plan to allow for separate development of neighborhood SE-13.
ADOPTED BY:
Planning Commission Resolution # 1935, March 24, 1982 *** .
Mp- 149(5)
Revised the Land Use Plan of La Costa Southeast and made minor administrative changes to the Master
Plan text and maps on property generally located at the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and future
Camino de Los Coches.
APPROVED BY:
Planning Commission Resolution # 20 1 1 ,
City Council Ordinance # 9647, October 19, 1982 ***
... 111 36
MP-l49(K)
Changed Master Plan designation of a parcel from RLM to RI!QI on property generally located on the
northeast corner of El Camino Real and Levante.
APPROVED BY:
Planning Commission Resolution # 2083,
City Council Ordinance # 9676-9677, dated April 5, 1983 ***
MP-l49(L)
WITHDRAWN on June 27,1983. No action taken. ***
MP- 1 49 (M)
Amendment to change densities and land uses on property generally located in the southwest portion of
La Costa Master Plan. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the amendment
(P.C. Resolution # 2277). Amendment was WITHDRAWN before it was heard by City Council. ***
MP-1490
Amendment to request land use change from C to RM on property generally located on the southeast
comer of Rancho Santa Fe Road and future Camino de Los Coches.
WITHDRAWN on August 9, 1985. No action taken. ***
MP- 149(0)
Elimination of any reference to the area previously known as Southwest (Arroyo La Costa), and
stipulation that updated EIRs and new Master Plans be required prior to future development occurring in
the Northwest and Southeast areas of La Costa.
APPROVED BY:
Planning Commission Resolution # 3028, June 20, 1990
City Council Ordinance # NS-123, September 4, 1990 ***
MP-l49(P)
Submitted for the La Costa Town Center Project on August 3 1 , 1993.
WITHDR&WN on January 12, 1996. No action taken. ***
MP- 149(Q)
An amendment to remove portions of the Northwest and Southeast areas (including the Rancheros) from
the plan. The areas removed are subject to the Villages of La Costa Master Plan.
APPROVED BY:
Planning Commission Resolution #5012, September 5,2001
City Council Ordinance #NS-604, November 6,200 1
iv
37
***
MP-149@)
La Costa Town Square Project
PENDING ***
MP-l49(S)
An amendment to remove the La Costa Resort and Spa properties from the plan. The area removed will
be subject to the La Costa Resort & Spa Master Plan, MP 03-02.
APPROVED BY:
Planning Commission Resolution # 570 1,
City Council Ordinance # NS- . ***
Mp-l49(T)
An amendment to change the underlying zoning of commercial neighborhoods (SE-13, SE-14, SE-15,
and SE-17) from “C-1” (Neighborhood Commercial) and “C-2” (General Commercial) to the new zone
“C-L” (Local Shopping Center) for those properties with the “L” (Local Shopping Center) general plan
designation. This amendment changes Table III-2 and text in paragraph II1.E. 1 (Land Use and
Development Standards).
APPROVED BY:
Planning Commission Resolution #
City Council Ordinance ## NS-
V 38
I. INTRODUCTION
.Section E is amended to read as follows:
“E Legislative Background
The following, in chronological order, represents oMicial actions pertaining to those
areas covered by this Master Plan or adjacent areas thereto:
August 1, 1972 Pre-annexation of changes of zone (ZC-26) with a Specific Plan,
adopted by Carlsbad City Council Ordinance #93 18 on 1 190 acres.
September 5, 1972 City Council adoptions of pre-annexation change of zone (ZC-
26) to Planning Community Zone on 2900 acres by Ordinance #9323.
September 5. 1972 Adoption of Master Plan (MP-6) for 2900 acres subject to . annexation by City Council Ordinance #9322.
September 5, 1972 Annexation of East Carlsbad Annexation #2.12 to City of
Carlsbad, composed of 4090 acres, by adoption of City Council Ordinance #1147.
Mav 15, 1973 Pre-annexation of change of zone (ZC-106) to Planned Community
for Rancho Ponderosa, 124.5 acres, adopted by City Council Ordinance #9351
June 5, 1973 Pre-annexation change of zone (ZC-105) to Planned Community for El
Camino Glens, 3 1 1. acres, adopted by City Council Ordinance #9354.
August 7, 1973 Adoption of Master Plan (MP-128) for 717 acres on property
generally located north of Alga Road, east of El Camino Real, known as Kratter
property (La Costa North), by City Council Resolution #3 183.
August 7, 1973 Annexation of East Carlsbad Annexation #2.16, Kratter property
(La Costa North), 717 acres, adopted by City Council Resolution #3 184.
I
August 8, 1973 Annexation of East Carlsbad Annexation #2.15 by City Council
Resolution #3185, El Camino (Ayres) (Weigand), 435.5 acres, of which 311 acres is
a La Costa annexation and 124.5 acres is a Ponderosa annexation.
August 21, 1973 Pre-annexation change of zone (ZC-124) to Planning Community
of 717 acres (Kratter property) by City Council Ordinance #9359.
September 4, 1973 Amendment to General Plan (GPA-16) for property generally
located north of Alga Road, east of El Camino Real, known as Kratter property (La
Costa North), by City Council Ordinance #3207.
October 2, 1973 Pre-annexation change of zone (ZC-116) to Planning Community
for La Costa Northeast, 1 82 acres, adopted by City Council Ordinance #936 1.
1 39
January 15, 1974 Amendment to Ordinance #9322 by adoption of a revised Master
Plan (MP-149) for the La Costa area (2900 acres), by City Council Ordinance
#9376.
March 16, 1974 Annexation of East Carlsbad Annexation #2.19 by City Council
Ordinance #1167 (La Costa Northeast), 182 acres.
October 16, 1974 Amendment to the Carlsbad General Plan (GPA 28-A) by
adoption of a revised Land Use Element for entire City by City Council Resolution
#3527.
March 23, 1976 Annexation of uninhabited territory designated as South City
(Byron White, et al.) Annexation No. CA 74-30 to the City of San Marcos by San
Marcos City Council Ordinance #76-358. The amount of La Costa lands annexed to
the City of San Marcos is approximately 240 acres.
April 27. 1976 Carlsbad City Council certification of Final Environmental Impact
Report (EIR-307) for the La Costa Master Plan (MP-l49(A)) and General Plan
Amendment (GPA-38).
May 4. 1976 Amendment of Land Use Element Text and Plan and Circulation
Element of the General Plan (GPA-38) by City Council Resolution #3896.
June 15, 1976 Revision of the P.C. (Planned Community) zone by City Council
Ordinance #945 8.
November 2, 1976 Adoption of an interim Master Plan (MP-149-B) for La Costa
area by City Council Ordinance #9546.
March 18, 1980 Change of zone (ZC-206) from P-C to RD-M-Q on approximately
134 acres in La Costa Northeast area and deletion of that portion of the rezoning
covered by a Master Plan (MP-1490)) by City Council Ordinance #9546.
December 16, 1980 Adoption of MP-l49(E) for the La Costa area by City Council
Ordinance #9570.
March 17. 1981 Adoption of MP-l49(F) deleted 4.5 acres from the La Costa Master
Plan as amended MP-l49(E). Property deleted was located on Centella Street south
of Levante in La Costa. Concurrent zone change (ZC 225) was processed changing
the zoning on the above property from C-2 and PC to RDM, Adopted by City
Council Ordinance #9579.
June 29, 1982 Adoption of MP-l49(G) revised the Land Use Plan of the La Costa
Northwest area and made minor administrative changes to the Master Plan text and
maps on property located generally east of El Camino Real and north of Alga.
Changes to land uses included the golf course, which was reduced in size from 105
acres to 85 acres, increased unit count by 100, and increased area of proposed park
from 21 to 23.5 acres. Adopted by City Council Ordinance #9628.
\
2
August 31, 1981 MP-l49(H) was withdrawn on August 31, 1981, with no action
taken.
March 24. 1982 Adoption of MP-l49(I) a minor amendment to the La Costa Master
Plan. Allowed for separate development of neighborhood SE-13. Adopted by
Planning Commission Resolution #1935.
October 19, 1982 Adoption of MP-l49(J) revised the Land Use Plan of La Costa
Southeast and made minor administrative changes to the Master Plan text and maps
on property generally located at the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and fbture
Camino de Los Coches. This changed the land use designation from TS to C [see
GPA 64(A)]. Amended Ordinance #9570 as amended by Ordinance #9628 and MP
149(E). Adopted by City Council Resolution #7030 and City Council Ordinance
#9647.
April 5, 1983 Adoption of MP-l49(K) changed Master Plan designation of a parcel
from RLM to RMH on property generally located on the northeast comer of El
Camino Real and Levante. This amendment was consistent with the existing
General Plan land use designation of RMH on the property. This was formerly part
of SP-171, which had provided for lower intensity land uses for this parcel along
with 98 acres to the east to accommodate the Green Valley Knolls Development.
The parcel had been the site of 6 model homes for the 98-acre development to the
east. Adopted by City Council Ordinance #9676-9677.
June 27, 1983 MP-l49(L) was intended to change 14 acres of office and 37 acres of
commercial to 34 acres of RMH and 17 acres of commercial located on the northeast
comer of future La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road. Withdrawn on June
27, 1983. No action was taken.
MP-l49(M): Amendment was to change densities and land uses on property
generally located in the southwest portion of the La Costa Master Plan. The
Planning Commission recommended denial to the amendment to the City Council
(Planning Commission Resolution #2277). The amendment was withdrawn before it
was heard by the City Council.
Aumst 9, 1985 MP-1490: Amendment was to request land use change from C to
RM on property generally located on the southeast comer of Rancho Santa Fe Road
and hture Camino de Los Coches. Withdrawn? on August 9, 1985, with no formal
action taken.
September 4, 1990 MP-149(0): Elimination of any reference to the area previously
known as Southwest (Arroyo La Costa), and stipulation that updated ERs and new
Master Plans be required prior to future development occurring in the Northwest and
Southeast areas of La Costa. Approved by City Council Ordinance #NS-123.
MP-l49(P): Submitted for the La Costa Town Center Project on August 31, 1993.
Withdrawn on January 12, 1996, with no formal action taken.
3
MP-149(0): An amendment to remove portions of the Northwest and Southeast
areas (including the Rancheros) from the plan. The areas removed are subject to the
Villages of La Costa Master Plan. Approved by City Council Ordinance #NS-604.
MP-149(R): Submitted for the La Costa Town Square Project on March 20, 2001.
It is pending formal action.
-
MP-l49(S): An amendment to remove the La Costa Resort and Spa properties from
the plan. The area removed will be subject to the La Costa Resort & Spa Master
Plan, MP 03-02.
MP-l49(T): A City-initiated amendment to change the underlying zoning of commercial
neighborhoods (SE-13, SE-14, SE-15, and SE-17) fiom “C-1” (Neighborhood Commercial)
and “C-2” (General Commercial) to the new zone “C-L” (Local Shopping Center) for those
properties with the “L” (Local Shopping Center) general plan designation. Approved by
City Council Ordinance #NS- 39
Section F is amended to read as follows:
“F. Existing and Amroved Development (See note at end of Section F)
The areas that previously have been developed or committed to development consist
of the La Costa Plaza area, La Costa Resort and Recreation area, including golf
course, La Costa Valley Condominiums, and developments of various types of living
units, such as single family, duplexes, cluster developments, condominiums, and
homes of all types from luxury to more modest homes.
The area already developed within old La Costa can be generally defined as located
from El Camino Real on the west, Alga Road on the north, Levante on the south and
Rancho Santa Fe and Melrose Drive on the east. Outside of the Master Plan area, an
industrial park has been constructed east ofRancho Santa Fe Road in the City of San
Marcos.
In the Southwest Area of the Master Plan, Neighborhoods previously designated SW
5 and SW 4 have been developed with single family homes.
In the Southwest Area of the Master Plan Neighborhoods SE 20 and SE 21 have
been developed with Single Family Homes. Neighborhoods SE 12 and SE 23 have
been developed with apartments. Neighborhoods SE 10, SE 16, SE 18, SE 19 have
been approved fordevelopment with single-family homes. Neighborhood SE 15 has
been approved for development as a local shopping center.
No development has been approved in the Northwest portion of the Master Plan.
Except as otherwise specifically indicated in this Plan or exhibits hereto, nothing in
this Master Plan shall be deemed to regulate or prohibit the development,
redevelopment or rehabilitation of any area in the Master Plan (see Exhibit 1-2 [on
file in the Planning Department], Existing Zoning). The following eleven areas are
zoned .P-C but have already been developed or are in the process of being developed
and the documents governing such development are described in Section 111, Land
Use and Development Standards.
-
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Existing 27-hole golf course and San Marcos Canyon
Estates North
Rancheros de la Costa
Vale 2 & 3
Vale 4
Corona La Costa
Spanish Village
Green Valley Knolls
Santa Fe Knolls
Santa Fe Glens
SMCWD Reservoir
Other than the eleven areas listed above, there exist areas within the 3,200+ acres
zoned other than P-C. The development of such areas (see Exhibit 1-2, Existing
Zoning [on file in the Planning Department]) shall be governed by the applicable
zoning.
Note: The above information for historical purposes only. See Map on Page 1-8 for
existing remaining areas of the La Costa Master Plan after the approval of Mp
149(S) and adoption of the La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan MP 03-02.
.
5
III LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. Overall Design Concepts
-
Section B is amended to read as follows:
“B. DeveloDment Review Process
1. This Master Plan provides for two alternative processes that may be utilized in
the submission and review of individual neighborhood development proposals:
the Standard Review Process and the La Costa Development Plan Review
Process, hereinafter referred to as the Development Plan. Process selection shall
be at the discretion of the applicant as provided herein.
2. The Standard Review Process shall utilize the requirements as set forth in Title
21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and any other applicable zone and
development type for neighborhoods developed under this process are set forth in
Tables m-1 and III-2 of this Master Plan. The Standard Review Process may
include the utilization of Chapter 21.45 Planned Development Ordinance at the
discretion of the applicant. The Standard Review Process shall not be applicable
to Neighborhoods SE-IO, SE-12, SE-13, SE-14, SE-15, SE-16 or SE 23,
identified in this Master Plan as the Community Core, or to SE-17, designated as
a Local Shopping Center.
3. The La Costa Development Plan Review Process shall require the submission of
a Development Plan, which shall be subject to the general and special
development standards, and regulations as set forth in this Master Plan. The
processing procedures set forth in Chapter 21.06 Q Qualified Development
Overlay Zone shall apply to the Development Plan Review Process of this Master
Plan except that:
4. I
a. A tentative subdivision map, if required by the Subdivision Map Act,
shall be submitted in conjunction with the Development Plan.
b. The Development Plan shall be acted on by the same decision-making
body that acts on the tentative subdivision map. If the City Engineer
approves the map for a project, then the Planning Commission shall
approve the Development Plan. ,
The Planning Director shall be authorized to approve minor amendments
to approved Development Plans providing such amendment shall not
increase the approved densities or boundaries of the site development
plan, permit a new use or group of uses not shown on the approved
Development Plan, rearrange the uses within the neighborhood or change
more than ten percent of the approved yards, coverage, heights, open
space, landscaping, parking or other development standards.
C.
d. The hearings for the Development Plan and tentative subdivision map
shall be duly noticed public hearings.
6
e. Notwithstanding the above provisions, development processing in all
neighborhoods for which the C-L (Local Shopping Center) zone is
shown in Table 111-2 as the zoning reference for the Standard Review Process shall follow the standards and process established by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.3 1, Local Shopping Centers. Chapter 2 1.3 1
calls for processing a Site Development Plan for local shopping centers
pursuant to Chapter 21.06 Q Qualified Development Overlay Zone, but
with certain changes, including a provision that the City Council shall
approve the Site Development Plan. “
Section E is amended to read as follows:
“E. Communitv Core and Neighborhood Commercial
1. Neighborhoods SE-10, SE-11, SE-13, SE-14, SE-15, and SE-16, are
designated in this Master Plan as the Community Core. Prior to
development of these neighborhoods, a Site Development Plan shall be
approved. Subsequent development shall be subject to said plan. For
neighborhoods SE-10, SE-11, and SE-16, the Site Development Plan shall
be developed and approved pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 21.06, Q
Qualified Development Overlay Zone, and for neighborhoods SE-13, SE-
14, and SE-15 it shall be developed and approved pursuant to Chapter
21.3 1, Local Shopping Center Zone of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
2. Preparation of all neighborhood development plans within the Community
Core shall insure compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods particularly
regarding the placement of open spaces, selection and location of
landscaping material, continuity of pedestrian and bike paths, siting of
structures for view opportunities and architectural harmony.
3. The Development Plan for neighbckhoods SE-13, SE-14, and SE-15 shall
set forth designated land uses pursuant to Table 111-2, external and internal
traffic circulation, a landscaping plan, building bulk, height and location,
exterior architectural style and signing, in addition to other standards of
this Master Plan. Also refer to the Individual Neighborhood Development
Regulations of Section 1II.L.
4. The preparation of Development Plans for neighborhoods SE-10, SE-11,
SE-12, SE-16 and SE-23 shall be governed by the Individual
Neighborhood Development Regulations of Section 1II.L in addition to
other standards of this Master Plan.
VI - 2
Note: The area described in Table III-1 below is for reference only and is removed MP 149W and by
inclusion in MP 03-032
NW-14
TABLE III-1
General Neighborhood Development Standards
General Zone Zone and Development Max. * Gross Open
Plan Type for Standard D.U. Acres Space
Review Process
OS 0-s Golf Course - 85.0 85.0
SE 8
SE-10
SE-11
SE-12
Neighborhood
Development
Zone and Development Max. * Gross Open Individual
General Zone Type for Standard Review D.U. Acres Space Neighborhood
Plan Process Development
RLM R-1 Standard; Detached Single 548 137 37.4 2.a. (p. 111-11)
Regulations
Family
RM RD-M** Clustered Multi-Family 100 10 2.b. (p. 111-11)
OS 0-s** Public Park 28 28.0 2.c. (p. m-11)
(STA)
RMH RD-M** Clustered Multi-Family 540 27 2.d. (p. 111-11)
VI-3
*Dwelling unit count shoyn on this table represents the potential maximum number of dwelling units under ideal
planning conditions. Refer to Sections III.C, III.D., and I1I.L.
**See Sections III.B., III.D. and 1II.E.”
VI-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
ORDINANCE NO. NS-768
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE BRESSI RANCH
MASTER PLAN, MP 178, TO REPLACE REFERENCES IN THE
TEXT AND TABLES TO THE UNDERLYING “-2“ (GENERAL
COMMERCIAL) ZONE WITH THE “C-L” (LOCAL SHOPPING
CENTER) ZONE AND AMENDING RELATED TEXT TO
REFERENCE THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WOULD APPLY IN PLANNING
AREA 15.
CASENAME: LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND
CASE NO.: MP 178(C)
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, has reviewed and
considered a master plan amendment to the Bressi Ranch Master Plan (MP 178(C)) to change
text and charts by replacing the underlying “C-2” (General Commercial) zone with the new “C-L”
(Local Shopping Center) zone and amending related text to reference the site development plan
approval process associated with the “C-L” zone and clarify how the development standards of
the C-L zone would apply to Planning Area 15; and
PROCESS OF THE C-L ZONE AND CLARIFYING HOW C-L
REZON INGS
WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 2nd day of AUGUST , 2005,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a master plan amendment
consistent with Chapter 21.38 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code as shown on Exhibit “MP
178(C)”, incorporated by reference.
NOW, THERERFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does
ordain, as follows:
SECTION 1: That Master Plan Amendment MP 178(C) changes text and charts
by replacing the underlying “C-2” (General Commercial”) zone with the new “C-L” (Local
Shopping Center) zone and amending related text to reference the site development plan
approval process associated with the “C-L” zone and clarify how the development standards of
the C-L zone would apply to Planning Area 15.
48
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
SECTION 2: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5923 shall also constitute the findings and conditions 01
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 publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within
fifteen days after its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council on the 2nd day of AUGUST 2005, and thereafter.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the day of
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
2005, by the following vote, to wit:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-2- 4?
MP 178(C)
Bressi Ranch
Master Plan
Amendment
Text
Bressi Ranch Master Plan Amendment MP 178(C)
I. I n troduction
Section F.l is amended to read as follows”
“F. Applications
1. Applications Processed with the Master Plan
The following applications were processed concurrently with this
master plan:
General Plan Amendment - The General Plan Amendment revised
land use designations within the Master Plan area. The existing
General Plan designations did not accurately reflect existing
topography or constraints based on up-to-date surveys and current
development standards. The proposed revision resulted in a variety of
residential and non-residential land uses including large natural open
space areas that more accurately reflect the natural constraints of the
Zone Change - The zone change brought existing zoning into
conformance with General Plan designations of the Master Plan (see
Exhibit 1-9 on page ). The Limited Control (L-C) zoning was
replaced with Planned Community (P-C) Zoning. Since the Planned
Community Zone does not have any development standards, such as
setbacks or building heights, an underlying zoning of RD-M, R-I, P-M,
0-SI C-2 and CF was provided to implement the proposed General
Plan designations. In 2005, with amendment MP 178(C), the C-2
zoning designation was replaced with the C-L Local Shopping Center
Zone, a new zone created and applied throughout the city to sites with
the L General Plan designation.
Certification of a Program Environmental Impact Report - The
Program Environmental Impact Report constituted all environmental
review required for approval of this Master Plan and all related
discretion a ry a p p rova Is.
Hillside Development Permit - A Hillside Development Permit was
required since the project has a slope gradient of 15% or greater and a
slope height of 15 feet or greater. The approval of a Hillside
Development Permit ensures that the proposed grading is in
conformance with the requirements of Carlsbad’s Hillside Development
0 rd inance.
Tentative Maps - A Master Tentative Map was processed concurrently
with the Master Plan. The lots created by this map correspond to the
site (see Exhibit 1-9 on page >*
Page 1
boundaries of the Planning and Open Space Areas and establish the
alignments of the major roadways within the Master Plan.
Special Use Permits - A Special Use Permit was required for grading
and development of the portions of the Master Plan within the El
Camino Real Scenic Corridor and within the 100-year floodplain.”
Ill. Land Use and Entitlement Provisions
Section C is amended to read as follows:
“C. Zoning
Concurrent with the approval of the Bressi Ranch Master Plan, the zoning of
this site was changed from Limited Control (L-C) to Planned Community (P-
C). Since the P-C Zone requires the designation of underlying zoning, each of the planning areas and open space areas has been assigned an underlying
zoning designation. Pursuant to the powers of Chapter 21.38 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code (Planned Community Zone), this Master Plan shall constitute
the zoning of all lands within the Master Plan. No person shall use or develop
contrary to the provisions of the Master Plan. All provisions of the Master
Plan are imposed as a condition of zoning. Approval of this document does
not excuse compliance with all other applicable City ordinances in effect at
the time building permits are issued. Unless modified by this Master Plan, or
approval of a Planned Development Permit or Non-Residential Planned
Development Permit, all development shall comply with the requirements of
the underlying zoning as shown by Exhibit 1-9 on page -. These underlying
zoning designations are provided below:
Planninq Areas Zone
1 , 2, 3,4, 5, 14 P-M (Planned Industrial)
6, 7, 8, 12
9, IO, 11 R-I (One Family Residential)
13 CF (Community Facilities)
15 C-URD-M/CF (Local Shopping CentedResidential
-
RD-M (Residential Density - Multiple)
Density-Multiple/ Community Facilities)’’
VI. Development Review Process
Section E is amended to read as follows:
“E. Mixed Use and Community Facilities (PA 15)
Planned DeveloDment Permits
Subdivision of non-residential units for the purpose of separate ownership
shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 21.47 “Non-Residential
Planned Developments” of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and is subject to
Page 2
the Design Guidelines and Development Standards specified for Planning
Area 15.
Subdivision of residential units for the purpose of separate ownership shall
be processed in accordance with Chapter 21.45 “Planned Developments”
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and are subject to the Design Guidelines
and Development Standards specified for Planning Area 15.
Conditional Use Permits
A Conditional Use Permit shall be required for churches, assisted care
facilities, service stations and community facilities as well as all other uses
designated as allowed by conditional use permit in Chapters 21.24 (RD-
M), 21.25 (C-F), 21.31 (C-L) and 21.42 (Conditional Uses). The
Conditional Use Permit shall also address building placement,
architecture, parking, and access. Conditional Use Permits for these uses
will supersede the need for a Site Development Plan, as set out in the
ne$ section, except where such uses are conditionally allowed under the
C-L Zone.
Site Development Plan
Under Chapter 21.31 (C-L Zone) the table of allowed uses includes those
allowed under Chapter 21.25 (C-F Zone). Within PA-15 all uses that are
allowed in the C-L zone, but excepting those uses allowed within the C-F
zone, are allowed and shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 21.31,
including the preparation and approval by the City Council of a Site
Development Plan for a local shopping center. Where the uses under the
C-L Zone are conditionally permitted, development shall also require the
processing and approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Those uses that are not allowed by Chapter 21.31 (C-L Zone) but a) are
allowed by Chapters 21.24 (R-DM Zone) and 21.25 (C-F Zone) and b) do
not require a Conditional Use Permit, Planned Development Permit, or
Non-Residential Planned Development Permit shall be subject to the
preparation and approval by the Planning Commission of a Site
Development Plan, pursuant to Chapter 21.06 (Q Overlay Zone). These
uses include, but are not limited to, residential apartment development
and the Village Square.”
Section F shall be amended to read as follows:
‘IF. Amendments
Master Plan Amendments
Master Plan Amendments shall be processed pursuant to the
requirements of Chapter 21.38.120 (P-C Zone) of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code and all applicable City and Planning Department Policies. Minor
Page 3
5-3
Master Plan Amendments shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission. Major Master Plan Amendments shall be reviewed
and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. A Minor
Master Plan Amendment shall not change the densities of a planning
area, the boundaries of the subject property, or involve an addition of a
new use or group of uses not shown in the original Master Plan or
rearrangement of uses within the Master Plan.
The Master Plan provides an estimate of the approximate number of units
that will be developed within each Planning Area. The exact number of
units that will be developed within each Planning Area will be determined
during the subsequent review of the tentative maps that divide each
Planning Area into individual residential lots. A Minor Master Plan
Amendment shall be processed concurrently with each tentative map
requesting 10% (or less) above or below the anticipated number of
dwelling units stated for the Planning Areas. This amendment will revise
Exhibit XIV-I on page of the Master Plan to indicate exactly how
many units have been approved in each Planning Area and how many
remaining units exist in the Master Plan. If the number of units requested
in an individual Planning Area varies by more than IO%, a Major Master
Plan Amendment shall be processed concurrently with the proposed
Tentative Map. In no case shall the number of dwelling units approved in
an individual Planning Area exceed that allowed by its General Plan
designation (see Exhibit 111-1 on page ), nor shall the total number of
residential units in the Master Plan exceed 623.
Tentative Madplanned Development Permit Amendments
Amendments to Tentative Maps and Planned Development Permits may
be permitted in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20 and
Section 21.45.1 00 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Site Development Plan Amendments
Amendments to Site Development Plans shall be processed in
accordance with the requirements of either Chapter 21.06 (Q Overlay
Zone) or Chapter 21.31 (C-L Zone), as appropriate, of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code.
Substantial Conformance
Minor revisions to Tentative Maps, Parcel Maps, Planned Development
Permits, Site Development Plans and Conditional Use Permits may be
administratively approved by the Planning Director subject to the
requirements of the Planning Department’s Substantial Conformance
Policy in effect at the time of the proposed minor revision.”
Page 4
Vlll ComrnerciaVCommunity Facilities Development Standards and Design
Section A.2. shall be amended to read as follows:
Guidelines
“2. Planning Area 15
Description
Planning Area I5 is located in the northern portion of the Master Plan
area, south of Planning Area 4, east of Planning Area 6, and west of El
Fuerte Street. The southern edge of Planning Area 15 borders Planning
Area 7. Planning Area 15 has a gross area of 27.7 acres and a net
developable area of 26.7 acres (see Exhibit Vlll-2 on page -).
Implementation of Master Plan Vision and Goals
The purpose of this planning area is to allow for the creation of a unique
mixed-use neighborhood that will create a sense of place within the Bressi
Ranch Master Plan that is not dependent on the automobile. Planning
Area 15 will function like a small traditional village, which may include
residential and commercial uses surrounding a Village Square. Within this
planning area there will be a mixture of commercial/retail, office, housing,
and community facilities.
Many of the goals of the Bressi Ranch Master Plan will be incorporated
into the design of this planning area. Housing, jobs, daily needs and other
activities are all within easy walking (Goal 2). A variety of uses are also
within easy walking distance of transit stops on El Fuerte (Goal 3).
Planning Area 15 will contain housing that satisfies the City’s Affordable
Housing Criteria and possibly market rate units (Goal 4). There will be a
variety of job opportunities in Planning Area 15 (Goal 5). Planning Area
15 will serve as the central activity focus for the Bressi Ranch Master Plan
by combining residential, commercial, civic and recreational uses (Goal 7).
A Village Square may be centrally located in Planning Area I5 to
encourage frequent use by the public (Goals 8 and 9).
Exhibit Vlll-3 on page -. shows a possible scenario for the development
of Planning Area 15 and how the uses can tie into the adjacent residential
areas of the Master Plan. The exact location and details of the various
land uses will be determined as a part of the review of the Site
Development Plans and/or Conditional Use Permits for the various land
uses listed below.
General Plan 8t Zoninq
General Plan Land Use: RH/L/CF
Zoning: RDM/C-UC-F
Page 5
5.5-
Discretionarv Permits Required for Development
Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for this planning area,
discretionary applications shall be processed in accordance with the
requirements of Chapter VI of this Master Plan.
Uses Allowed
All commercial uses shall be developed and conducted pursuant to the
provisions of Chapter 21.31 (C-L) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The Master Plan anticipates the following uses will be developed in
Planning Area 15:
Up to 120 housing units, of which 100 units must be “affordable” per an
approved housing agreement with the City of Carlsbad.
Up to 200 assisted care living units
A Village Square that serves as the major public gathering area for the
Master Plan. The intention for the Village Square is to provide an area
where office workers, shoppers and the surrounding neighborhoods
can frequent this open space throughout the day and evening for
strolling, lunch and/or recreation and provide an area for small-scale
weekend events. A community facility may be included to serve as a
focal point and backdrop for the Village Square.
A temporary information center
Up to 130,000 square feet of commercial/office/community facilities
space
In addition, incidental outdoor dining is allowed, subject to the
development standards set forth in Section 21.26.013(c) of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code
In addition to the listed anticipated uses, tbose uses identified in Chapters
21.24 (RD-M), 21.25 (C-F), and 21.31 (C-L) of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code are permitted in Planning Area 15.
Uses and structures permitted subject to approval of a Conditional Use
Permit include all uses permitted by Conditional Use Permit in the C-L
zone with the exception of the uses established as prohibited by the next
section:
Prohibited Uses
The following uses, .though allowed by right or by approval of a Conditional
Use Permit in the RD-M (Chapter 21.24), C-F (Chapter 21.25 or C-L
(Chapter 21.31) zones of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, do not support the
vision of a walkable, mixed-use Village Center and are therefore
prohibited in Planning Area 15:
Drive-through facilities
Hospital
Page 6
56
0 Gas/Service Station
0 CarWash
0 Auto Repair
0 Upholstery Shop
0 Commercial Printing
4 Photo Engraving
Development Standards
Unless specified otherwise in this section, all development in Planning Area
15 will comply with the corresponding regulations and development standards
of Chapters 21.31 (C-L) and 21.44 (Parking) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
as outlined below:
0 Height limitations for buildings shall be governed pursuant to Chapter
21.31 (C-L), Section 21.31.080.C and shall not exceed 35 feet or three
levels, except as approved via Site Development Plan approved by the
City Council, in which case additional height may be approved to 45 feet.
Architectural features such as flagpoles, steeples, or architectural towers
are allowed to a maximum of 55 feet when specified findings are made.
0 No setbacks are required except that residential buildings that are not an
integrated component of a mixed-use building or group of attached
buildings within the same block shall maintain setbacks consistent with
Chapter 21.24 (RD-M) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Residential “Planned Developments” that are an integrated component of
a mixed-use building or group of attached buildings within the same block
shall include:
i. 200 square feet of centralized community recreational space per unit.
The required recreational space may ,be part of a larger community
facility .
ii. 480 cubic feet of enclosed storage area shall be provided for each unit.
iii. Either a 10’ x 10’ ground floor patio or 6’ x IO’ balcony.
iv. 20 square feet of recreational vehicle storage per unit for projects of 25
or more units. The storage area may be provided as part of a larger
community facility.
0 Residential “Planned Developments” that are not an integrated component
of a mixed-use building or group of attached buildings within the same
block shall comply with all of the applicable development standards of
Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.”
Page 7
MP 178(C)
Bressi Ranch
Master Plan
Amendment
Tables and Charts
.
I
? 3
I
I
1 1
I 1
1
4
1 1
u- 0
X f
.- d
z
c 3
0
U E m
E >
d .- .- -
b 0 m
9 r
-
7 0
-
t 0
I U S S .-
6
v)
7 a a
PROPOSED LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER REZONING
** Total of 2,160,500 sq. ft. of non-residential space (PA 1-5, & 14)
.
W
Concept Sketch
flm inzutr&*ve purposes on&)
Legend
VVV Fie Protection Zone
Q * oo City Trail
Setbacks(W1dth in Feet) ----__
%& Bus Stop! Bus Turnout
cD = Runway Protection Zone
= = m n Airport Influence Area
pD Ip Flight Activity Zone
General Plan Land Use:
W/CF
Zoning:
RD-M/C-L/CF . Product:
Aflordable Hausing Assisted Living,
Commercial Oflce, Community Facilities,
Town Green
wed
Ima Aptanned community in the City of Carisbad, California VI 11-6
%?e&? ares PAISrdr
\ I - -1
I
I' - --
-.__ 'I '/--
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-241
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT, A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, A ZONE CHANGE, AN
AMENDMENT TO THE LA COSTA MASTER PLAN, AN
AMENDMENT TO THE BRESSI RANCH MASTER PLAN, AND
TWO LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENTS; AND
APPROVING SAID NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT, AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENTS.
CASENAME: LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND
REZONINGS
CASE NO.: ZCA 00-07/LCPA 00-1 5/GPA 04-1 8/ZC 04-
13/LCPA 04-1 61MP149 (T)/MP 178(C)
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on June 15, 2005, hold a duly-noticed
follows:
public hearing as prescribed by law to consider: a Negative Declaration; a recommendation of
approval for a Zone Code Amendment (ZCA 00-07) and Local Coastal Program Amendment
(LCP 00-15) to add Chapter 21.31 to the Municipal Code, creating the “C-L” (Local Shopping
Center) zone; a recommendation for approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA 04-18) to
change the land use designation on 19 properties on three sites to the “L” (Local Shopping
Center) designation; a recommendation for approval of a zone change (ZC 04-13) on 39
properties at seven sites to apply the new ‘IC-L” zone; a recommendation for approval of an
amendment to the Local Coastal Program (LCPA 04-16) to add the “L” designation to the LCP
land use map, to change the designation on said map on 22 properties on three sites to the “L”
local shopping center designation, and to apply the “C-L” zone to the same properties; and
recommendations for approval to amend text and exhibits of the La Costa Master Plan (MP
149(T)) and Bressi Ranch Master Plan (MP 178(C)) to reference the new “C-L” zone as the
underlying zone for four sites within these master plans; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 5916, 5917, 5918, 5919, 5920, 5921, 5922, and 5923 recommending approval
of the Negative Declaration, Zone Code Amendment, Zone Change, General Plan Amendment,
Local Coastal Program Amendments, and Master Pian amendments; and
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
WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 2nd day of AUGUST , 2005 hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Negative Declaration, Zone
Code Amendment, Zone Change, General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program
Amendments, and Master Plan amendments 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, Zone Change, General
Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendments, and Master Plan amendments;
NOW, THEREFORE, 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 Planning Cornmission
Resolutions No. 5916, 5917, 5918, 5919, 5920, 5921, 5922, and 5923 constitute the findings of
the City Council in this matter.
3. That the Negative Declaration is adopted as shown in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 5916 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by
reference.
4. That the recommendations of the Planning Commission for approval of
GPA 04-18 (Amendment to Land Use Element), as shown in Planning Commission Resolution
No. 5919 is hereby accepted in concept, and shall formally be approved with GPA Batch No. 2
of 2005.
5. That the amendments to the Local Coastal Program (LCPA 00-15 and
LCPA 04-16), are approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5918 and 5921,
respectively), on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference.
6. That the approval of the Local Coastal Program amendments (LCPA 00-
15 and LCPA 04-16) shall not become effective until they are approved by the California
Coastal Commission and the California Coastal Commission’s approval becomes effective.
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 2nd day of AUGUST 2005, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Council Members Lewis, Hall, Kulchin, Packard, Sigafoose
ATTEST:
-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
STRlKEOUT/BOLD VERSION ORDINANCE
ZCA 00-07 EXHIBIT 6
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE) AND, AMENDING
CHAPTERS 21.06 (Q QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY
ZONE), 21.83 (CHILD CARE), 21.05 (ZONE ESTABLISHMENT),
AND THE SUMMARY OF TITLE 21 OF THE CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL CODE.
CASE NAME: LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADDING NEW CHAPTER 21.31 (C-L
REZONINGS
CASE NO.: ZCA 00-07
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as
follows:
SECTION 1: That Title 21, Chapter 21.06 (Q Qualified Development
Overlay Zone) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendments to
Sections 21.06.010, 21.06.020, and 21.06.090 each to read as follows:
“21.06.01 0 Intent and purpose.
The intent and purpose of the Q qualified development overlay zone is to
supplement the underlying zoning by providing additional regulations for development
within designated areas to:
Require that property development criteria are used to insure
compliance with the general plan and any applicable specific plans;
Provide that development will be compatible with surrounding
developments, both existing and proposed;
Insure that development occurs with due regard to environmental
factors;
Allow a property to be granted a particular zone where some or all
of the permitted uses would be appropriate to the area only in certain cases with the
addition of specific conditions;
(5) Provide for public improvements necessitated by the development; (6) Promote orderly, attractive and harmonious development, and
promote the general welfare by preventing the establishment of uses or erection of
structures which are not properly related to or which would adversely impact their sites,
surroundings, traffic circulation or environmental setting.
(7) Provide a process for the review and approval of Site
Development Plans as called for by this Chapter or other provisions of this Code.”
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
“21.06.020
(a) Subject to the provisions of subsection (b), in the Q qualified development overlay zone, any principal use, accessory use, transitional use or conditional use
permitted in the underlying zone is permitted subject to the same conditions and
restrictions applicable in such underlying zone and to all of the requirements of this
chapter.
Notwithstanding subsection (a) no use shall be permitted unless the
planning commission, or the City Council on appeal, finds:
Permitted uses and skt&wes findings.
(b)
Lh
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(1) That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings
and environmental settings, is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the
general plan, will not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in
the area in which the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the
site, surroundings or traffic circulation;
That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the use;
That all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and
other features necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses
in the neighborhood will be provided and maintained;
That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to
properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed userand;
For local shopping centers located in the C-L Local Shopping
Center Zone, such additional findings as are set out in Chapter 21.31, Section
21.31.040.D for new or major amendments to site development plans approved by
the city council.”
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
“21.06.090 Development standards.
Property in the Q zone shall be subject to the development standards required in
the underlying zone and any applicable specific plans, except for affordable housing
projects as expressly modified by the site development plan. The site development plan
for affordable housing projects may allow less restrictive development standards than
specified in the underlying zone or elsewhere provided that the project is in conformity
with the general plan and adopted policies and goals of the city, it would have no
detrimental effect on public health, safety and welfare, and, in the coastal zone, any
project processed Subject to this chapter shall be consistent with all certified local
coastal program provisions, with the exception of density. In addition, the planning
commission or the City Council in approving a site development plan may impose special
conditions or requirements which are more restrictive than the development standards in
the underlying zone or elsewhere that include provisions for, but are not limited to the
following:
(1) Special setbacks, yards, active or passive open space, required as part of
the entitlement process;
(2) Special height and bulk of building regulations; Fences and walls;
Regulation of signs; (3)
(4) (5) Additional landscaping;
(6) Special grading restrictions;
(7)
(8) needed to service the proposed development;
(9) completed;
(IO)
(1 1)
Requiring street dedication and improvements (or posting of bonds);
Requiring public improvements either on or off the subject site that are
Time period within which the project or any phases of the project shall be
Regulation of point of ingress and egress;
Architecture, color, texture, materials and adornments
(12) Such other conditions as deemed necessary to insure conformity with the
general plan and other adopted policies, goals or objectives of the city.
(: >
h, TW
r*
1
I
-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
(4j--fu€.”
SECTION 2: That Title 21, Chapter 21.06 (Q Qualified Development Overlay
zone) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Section 21.06.1 70, to read
as follows:
“21.06.170 Amendments to site development plans.
Amendments to a site development plan may be initiated by the property
owner or an authorized agent. An application for amendment of an existing site
development plan shall be processed, heard, and determined in the same manner
as an application for a new site development plan, except as provided in Section
21.31.050 for a site development plan for a local shopping center. When
necessary, the amendment shall be accompanied by an amendment to any related
permit or map that is affected by the amendment.”
SECTION 3. That Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the
addition of new Chapter 21.31, C-L Local Shopping Center Zone, to read as follows:
“Chapter 21.31
C-L Local Shopping Center Zone
Section:
21.31.01 0 Intent and purpose
21.31.020 Definition
21.31.030 Permitted uses
21.31 040 Approval process for new local shopping centers
21.31.050 Redeveloping, remodeling, and expanding existing shopping centers
21.31.055 Projects in process
21.31.060 Special requirements to be addressed in a SDP
21.31.070 Limitations on permitted uses in C-L zone
21.31.080 Development standards
21.31.090 Severability.
21.31 .OlO Intent and purpose
The intent and purpose of the C-L Local Shopping Center zone is to:
A.
B.
Implement the Local Shopping Center (L) land use designation of the
Carlsbad General Plan;
Assure that any site zoned C-L will be developed so as to provide a range
of goods and services to meet the daily necessities and convenience of the residents of
the neighborhoods in which the site is located.
Assure that local shopping centers are developed consistent with adopted
specific plans, master plans, and local facilities management plans;
Assure that local shopping centers will be compatible with surrounding
development and the local neighborhoods in which they are located;
Provide opportunities for local shopping centers to supplement their
principal function of providing local neighborhoods with daily goods and services
C.
D.
E.
-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
through the inclusion of community-serving uses, residential uses, general offices,
medical offices, public and semi-public facilities, and entertainment uses when such
other uses are found by the city to be desirable and can be integrated into the form and
function of the local shopping center; and
Create a permit process through which proposals for new, expanded or
redeveloped local shopping centers will be reviewed to assure that shopping centers:
comply with the intents and purposes stated herein; include superior and creative
design and architecture; and conform with the city’s objectives for the community’s
environment, health, safety, and welfare.
F.
21.31.020 Definition: local shopping center.
“Local shopping center” means a group of architecturally unified commercial
establishments providing primarily neighborhood-serving goods and services,
numbering at least three such establishments, built upon a site that is planned,
developed, owned and managed as an operating unit related in its location, size, and
type of shops to the trade area that it serves and with on-site parking in definite
relationship to the types and total size of the stores. A local shopping center provides
daily necessities and convenience goods and services needed by the neighborhood in
which it is located. Therefore, it normally will have as major anchor tenants a grocery
store and/or drug store or such combination of other establishments that function to
provide equivalent goods and services, plus other, secondary tenants. Other uses and
tenants may supplement, but not replace the local-serving nature of the center.
21.31.030 Permitted uses.
A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Title, only the uses listed in
Table A, below, shall be permitted, subject to the requirements and development
standards specified by this chapter.
B. The uses permitted by conditional use permit, as indicated in Table A shall
be subject to the provisions of Chapters 21.42 (Conditional Uses) and 21.50 (Variances -
Conditional Use Permits).
A use similar to those listed in Table A may be permitted if the Planning
Director determines such similar use falls within the intent and purposes of this zone,
and is substantially similar to the specified permitted uses.
A use category may be general in nature, where more than one particular
use fits into the general category (ex: in some commercial zones “offices” is a general
use category that applies to various office uses). However, if a particular use is
permitted by conditional use permit in another zone, the use shall not be permitted in
this C-L zone (even under a general use category) unless it is specifically listed in Table
A of this Chapter as permitted or conditionally permitted.
C.
D.
USES PERMllTED IN THE C-L Zone
In the table, below, subject to all applicable permitting and development requirements of the Municipal Code:
“P” indicates the use is permitted.
“CUP” indicates that the use is permitted with approval of a conditional use permit.
-4- 49
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
services.
Signs (Subject to Chapter 21.41 of this Title)
Temporary building/trailer (construction) (Subject to Section 21.53.1 10)
TABLE A
USES PERMllTED IN THE C-L Zone
X
X
In the table, below, subject to all applicable permitting and development requirements of the Municipal Code:
0 “P” indicates the use is permitted.
“CUP” indicates that the use is permitted with approval of a conditional use permit.
Pet shops/pet supplies
Plant nurseries, nursery supply (retail)
Pool halls, billiard parlors (Subject to Section 21.42.010(5)(X)) (defined: Sec. 21.04.292)
Public meeting halls, exhibit halls, and museums
Public/quasi-public accessory utility buildings and facilities (see Note 3, below)
Radioltelevisioolmicrowavehroadcast station/tower
Recycling collection facilities (Subject to Chapter 21.105 of this Title. See also Section
21.31.080(0) of this Chapter) (defined: Sec. 21.105.015)
Recycling, reverse vending machine (Subject to Chapter 21.105 of this Title. See also Section
21.31.080(0) of this Chapter) (defined: Section 21.105.025) (see Note 1, below)
Residential uses located above the ground floor of a multi-story, commercial building.
Restaurants, cafks, and other retail food and beverage-serving uses including take-out only
service (no drive-through)
Retail uses that provide goods sold directly to consumers, and focusing primarily on the needs of the local neighborhood. (see Note 4, below)
Satellite television antennas (Subject to Sections 21.53.130 through 21.53.150)
Services, provided directly to consumers, and focusing primarily on the needs of the local
neighborhood, including, but not limited to, personal grooming, dry cleaning, and tailoring X
28 I/ -5- 70
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
USE
Theaters, stages, amphitheaters - outdoors
Veterinary cliniclanimal hospital (small animals) (defined: Sec. 21.04.378)
Wireless communications facilities and antennas (defined: Sec. 21.04.379)
TABLE A
USES PERMllTED IN THE C-L Zone
P CUP ACC
X
X
X
In the table, below, subject to all applicable permitting and development requirements of the Municipal Code:
“P” indicates the use is permitted.
“CUP” indicates that the use is permitted with approval of a conditional use permit.
1.
2.
3.
Accessory buildings and structures and ancillary uses shall be developed and operated as an integral part of a
permitted use within or on the same structure or parcel of land.
Offices: The total floor area of offce uses shall not exceed 40% of the gross leasable floor area within any local
shopping center. Public/quasi-public accessory utility buildings/facilities include, but are not limited to, water wells, water storage,
pump stations, booster stations, transmission/distribution electrical substations, operating centers, gas
meteringhegulating stations, or neighboring telephone exchanges, with the necessary accessory equipment
incidental thereto. A CUP shall not be required for those utility buildings/facilities that are built, operated, or
maintained by a public utility to the extent that they are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission.
Retail sales may also include those types of goods and services that are typically offered by “community” retail
establishments, when “community” retail establishments are included in the local shopping center, subject to the
definition of a local shopping center, Section 21.31.020, and the function of the Local Shopping Center land use
class as described in the Carlsbad General Plan.
Educational facilities/schools. No individual school shall occupy more than 10,000 s. ft. of gross leasable floor area
within any local shopping center.
4.
5.
21.31.040 Approval process for new local shopping centers
A. A site development plan shall be required for the development of a new
local shopping center. The site development plan shall be processed subject to Chapter
21.06 {Q Qualified Development Overlay Zone) of this title, as modified by this Section.
Role of Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is authorized to
review at a noticed, public hearing, subject to Chapter 21.54, a proposed site
development plan and any other permits or entitlements being processed concurrently
therewith, and to make a recommendation to the City Council to approve, conditionally
approve, or deny the site development plan or plan amendment, and any concurrently-
processed permits or entitlements. The recommendations of the Planning Commission
shall be forwarded to the City Council forthwith.
C. Decision maker.
The City Council shall be the decision-maker for a site development plan required
by this chapter. The City Council shall also be the decision-maker for all other permits
and entitlements associated with a local shopping center, when such permits and
entitlements are processed concurrently with the site development plan. Once a site
development plan has been approved by the City Council, however, any subsequent
permits or entitlements shall be processed and approved as elsewhere established by
this Title. The City Council, following a public hearing, noticed subject to Chapter 21.54,
shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the requested approvals. The decision of
the City Council shall be final.
D. Mandatory findings of fact.
In addition to the findings set out in Section 21.06.020(b) (Q Qualified
Development Overlay Zone - findings), no site development plan for a local shopping
center shall be approved unless the City Council finds that the site, either by itself or in
combination with another, adjoining center, will provide the normal range of goods and
B.
-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
services to meet the everyday needs of the local neighborhood, in keeping with the
intent and purpose of both this zone and the local shopping center general plan
designation. For the purpose of this section, “adjoining center” means that the second
shopping center either abuts the subject center or is located on property immediately
across a common street.
21.31.050 Redeveloping, remodeling, and expanding existing shopping centers
A. A proposal to redevelop, remodel or expand an existing local shopping
center shall be processed through a site development plan. Where a site development
plan does not exist for an existing center, a site development plan shall first be obtained
pursuant to Section 21.31.040. Where a site development plan exists, the proposal shall
be processed through an amendment to the site development plan as provided by this
section.
Major amendment. Any proposal for a major remodeling or redevelopment
of an existing shopping center shall first obtain a major amendment to the site
development plan, which amendment shall be processed according to Section 21.31.040
with the City Council as the decision maker. Any change of a site that constitutes a
major remodeling or redevelopment will typically result in removal and/or replacement
of 50% or more of the existing building floor area of the center or a combination of
changes to floor area, landscaping, parking, facades, or other site features that
constitutes a major reconfiguration or redesign of the site. Where this threshold is
unclear, the Planning Director shall determine whether the proposal will require a major
amendment to the site development plan.
C. Minor amendment. Any proposal for remodeling, redeveloping, or
expanding an existing local shopping center, which does not require a major
amendment as established by paragraph B, and which is not excepted by paragraph D
shall first obtain a minor amendment to the site development plan. A minor site
development plan amendment shall be heard and approved by the Planning
Commission pursuant to the process and findings contained in Chapter 21.06 (a.
Qualified Development Overlay Zone).
B.
D. Exceptions.
The following are excepted from the need to obtain an amendment to an existing
site development plan or for a new site development plan for an existing center that
does not have one:
1. Tenant improvements.
2.
3.
Any one addition of new floor area with a cumulative total of less
than 1,000 square feet. Any non-floor-area changes to the site design that collectively
result in less than a ten percent change to the site, as determined by the Planning
Director.
21.31.055 Projects in process.
Any application for a site development plan or an amendment to a site development
plan, which application was deemed complete prior to the effective date of the
ordinance that created this chapter, shall not be subject to the provisions of this
chapter, but shall be processed and approved or disapproved pursuant to the ordinance
superseded by the ordinance codified in this chapter.
21.31.060.
A site development plan for a local shopping center shall show how each of the
following, if applicable, will be developed.
Special requirements to be addressed in the site development plan.
A. Employee eating and outdoor eating areas.
-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
1. Required eating areas for employees (subject to Section
21.31.080(L));
2. Food courts or outdoor seating areas, operated in common with or
available to the patrons of more than one restaurant, if any;
3 Restaurants with eating areas located outdoors or within common
areas otherwise designated for pedestrian or other traffic, if any;
B. Temporary outdoor display and sales of seasonal items (pumpkins,
Christmas trees);
C.
D.
E. Signs;
F. Recycling facilities;
G. H. Bicycle parking;
1.
J. Access points to the site for pedestrians and internal pedestrian
Areas designated for outdoor cooking or barbequing, if any;
Kiosks and vending carts, if any;
Special events area or public gathering area, if any;
Shopping cart collection and storage areas; and
circulation.
21.31.070.
limitations:
Limitations on permitted uses in C-L zone.
Every use permitted shall be subject to the following conditions and
A. Conduct uses in buildings.
All uses shall be conducted wholly within a building, except such uses as
gasoline stations, nurseries for sale of plants and flowers, uses set out in Section
21.31.060, and other enterprises customarily conducted in the open or otherwise as
identified and permitted in a site development plan. The Planning Director is authorized
to make any necessary interpretations of this subsection;
B. On-site manufacture of goods.
Products made incident to a permitted use shall be sold only at retail on the
premises, and not more than five persons may be employed in the manufacturing of
products permitted herein;
C. Accessory storage of commodities to be sold at retail on the
premises; and
Storage shall be limited to:
1.
2. Materials to be recycled.
21.31.080 Development standards.
Exercise of site development plan.
The City Council in approving or amending, or the Planning Commission
in amending, a site development plan may impose special conditions or requirements
that include provisions for, but are not limited to the following:
A.
1. Intensity of use;
2.
3. Parking standards;
4. Yards;
5.
6. Fences and walls;
7. Signs;
8. Landscaping;
9. Grading, slopes, and drainage;
IO.
Compatibility with surrounding properties and land uses;
Height and bulk of buildings;
Time period within which the project or any phases of the projects
shall be completed;
-8- 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
SITE PROPERTY LINE IS ADJACENT TO
Primary Arterial Road
Secondary Arterial Road
11. Points of ingress or egress, including points used by pedestrians
and bicyclists ;
12. Architecture, including colors, textures, materials, and adornments;
13. Such other conditions as are deemed necessary to ensure
conformity with the general plan and other adopted policies, goals or objectives of the
city, including the purpose and intents of this Chapter.
No site shall be included in the local shopping center zone unless all
constituent properties are contiguous, planned as an integrated whole, and aggregate to
a minimum of four (4.0) net acres, if already developed with retail uses, or seven (7.0)
gross acres, if undeveloped or developed with uses other than retail.
B. Property size.
C. Building height.
1. No building in the C-L zone shall exceed a height of thirty-five (35)
feet or three levels and allowed height protrusions as described in Section 21.46.020
shall not exceed forty-five (45) feet. Additional building height may be permitted to a
maximum of forty-five (45) feet through the site development plan approved by the City
Council, provided that:
a.
b.
The building does not contain more than three levels; and
All required yards shall be increased at a ratio of one (1)
horizontal foot for every one (1) foot of vertical construction beyond thirty-five (35) feet.
The additional yard area will be maintained as landscaped open space; and
c. The building conforms to the requirements of Section
18.04.170 of this code; and
d. As described in Section 21.46.020, architectural features
such as flagpoles, steeples, or architectural towers, may be permitted up to fifty-five (55)
feet if the City Council makes the specific findings that the protruding architectural
features:
i. Do not function to provide usable floor area; and
ii. Do not adversely impact adjacent properties; and
iii. Are necessary to ensure a building’s design
excellence.
D. Yards.
1. The following yards shall apply to the periphery of a local shopping
center unless otherwise established through a prior site development plan
approval:
YARD DEPTH
20 feet
15 feet
I TABLE B: YARDS I
Non-Arterial Road
Not On A Street Frontage
10 feet
10 feet
2. Protrusions into yards. The following intrusions only may be
permitted within required yards:
a. Pedestrian walkways,
b. Landscaping,
C. Fences or walls,
d.
e.
Approved areas of ingress and egress,
Directional signs and approved monument signs,
-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
f. Public recreational facilities or outdoor eating areas as
g. Architectural projections such as eaves, trellises, sun
authorized in the site development plan,
shades, columns, and buttresses may extend up to three feet into any yard.
E. Landscaping. Landscaping shall be provided pursuant to the City of
F. Walls and Fences.
Carlsbad Landscape Manual and Chapter 21.44 (Parking).
A solid masonry wall, six feet in height, shall be constructed along
the common lot line with any residentially zoned property, except that the wall shall be
42 inches in height along that part of the common lot line that bounds the front yard of
the residential property.
Other walls and fences up to a height of six feet are permitted
except that no wall or fence shall be erected in excess of forty-two inches in height
within a yard adjacent to streets. Chain link, barbed wire, razor ribbon or other similar
fences are specifically not permitted.
I.
2.
G. Lighting.
Exterior lighting is required for all employee and visitor parking areas, walkways,
and building entrances and exits. Light sources shall be designed to avoid direct or
indirect glare to any off-site properties or public rights-of-way.
H. Roof Appurtenances.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally
integrated and shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six-foot-high masonry wall
with gates subject to city standards.
All loading areas shall be oriented and/or screened so as to be
unobtrusive from the adjacent streets or properties. Appropriate mitigating measures
shall be incorporated to assure that noise from a loading area or dock does not exceed
65 dB CNEL at the shopping center’s property line.
this Title.
1. Trash enclosures.
J. Loading areas and docks
K. Parking requirements.
Parking shall be provided subject to the provisions of Chapter 21.44 of
L. Employee eating areas.
Outdoor eating facilities for employees of the center shall be provided, as
follows, except as noted below:
I. A minimum of 300 square feet of outdoor eating facilities shall be
provided for each 50,000 square feet of floor area, or portion thereof. Credit towards the
required amount of floor area will be given for centers in which two or more restaurants
share a common, public eating area in a food court or for other public eating area
available to all patrons, comprising at least 600 square feet.
The area shall be easily accessible to the employees of the local
shopping center.
The area shall be landscaped and provided with attractive outdoor
furniture, Le., metal, wood, or concrete picnic tables, bencheslchairs and trash
receptacles.
The site size, location, landscaping and furniture required above
shall be approved as part of the required site development plan, or if no site
development plan is required, a plan of the eating area shall be provided to and
approved by the Planning Director;
2.
3.
4.
-10-
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
Zoning
RA, RE, EA
R- 1
M. Signs.
Signage for sites in the C-L zone that are subject to a site development
plan shall be implemented according to a sign program, as established by Section
21.41.060 (Sign Ordinance) of this Title. Signs for sites not subject to a site
development plan shall be subject to all other provisions of Chapter 21.41 (Sign Ordinance).
Where state law requires a recycling area for beverage containers to be
located within the center, said recycling area shall be subject to the provisions of
Chapter 21.105 of this Title. The location of all recycling areas shall be set out in the site
development plan and the parameters of operation shall be called out.
N. Recycling areas.
Small Family Day Care Large Family Day Care Home Child Day Care
Home (8 or fewer children) (14 or fewer children) Center
P P(1) X
P P(1) X
21.31.090 Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause phrase or part of this chapter
is for any reason found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of
this chapter, which shall be in full force and effect. The City Council hereby declares
that it would have adopted this chapter with each section, subsection, sentence, clause,
phrase or part thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or parts be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.”
R-2
R-3, RD-M, RP
RT, RW, RMHP
0
HO
SECTION 4: That Title 21, Chapter 21.83 (Child Care) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
P P(1) X
P P(1)
P P(1) X
X X A(2 1
X X P(31
amended by the amendment to Section 21.83.040 to read as follows:
“21.83.040 Use chart.
Zones in which small and large family day care homes and child day
care centers are shown on the following use chart. Permitted, administrative, conditional, and
prohibited are authorized as follows:
“P Indicates that the use is permitted in the zone.
“A Indicates that the use is permitted subject to approval of an administrative permit. “CY Indicates that the use is permitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit.
“X” Indicates that the use is prohibited in the zone.
I M, PU.0S
I I c-1, c-2, CL A A I
V
-1 1- ‘76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1. Permitted only when the large family day care home is located on a lot occupied by a
detached, single-family dwelling on a lot of 7,500 square feet or more by ministerial approval
without a public hearing and subject to the provisions of Section 21.83.050 of this chapter.
2. Permitted subject to the provisions of Sections 21.83.070 and 21.83.080 of this chapter.
3. Permitted subject to the provisions of Section 21.83.080 of this chapter and the requirements
of any controlling document (e.g., site development plan).
4. Permitted subject to the standards of the controlling document (village redevelopment master
plan and design guidelines or designated master plan) and the provisions of Section
21.83.080 of this chapter.”
SECTION 5: That Title 21, Chapter 21.05 (ZONE ESTABLISHMENT -
BOUNDRIES), of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of
Section 21.05.010, to read as follows:
“21.05.01 0 Names of zones.
In order to classify, regulate, restrict and segregate the uses of land and buildings, to
regulate and restrict the height and bulk of buildings, to regulate the area of yards and other
open spaces about buildings, and to regulate the density of population, iktlc()ckve thirty six
classes of zones and overlay zones are established by this title to be known as follows:
C-I -Neighborhood Commercial Zone
C-2-General Commercial Zone
C-F-Community Facilities Zone
C-T-Commercial Tourist Zone
C-L-Local Shopping Center Zone
C-M-Heavy Commercial-Limited Industrial Zone
E-A-Exclusive Agricultural Zone
L-C-Limited Control Zone
M-Industrial Zone
O-Office Zone
O-S-Open Space Zone
P-C-Planned Community Zone
P-M-Planned Industrial Zone
P-U-Public Utility Zone
R-l-One-family Residential Zone
R-2-Two-family Residential Zone
R-3-Multiple-family Residential Zone
R-A-Residential Agricultural Zone
R-E-Residential Estate Zone
R-P-Residential-Professional Zone
R-T-Resid e n tia I Tourist Zone
R-W-Residential Waterway Zone
RD-M-Residential Density-Multiple Zone
RMHP-Residential Mobile Home Park
T-C-Transportation Corridor Zone
VR-Village Redevelopment Zone
-12-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
2c
21
22
22
24
2:
2t
2:
21
BAO-Beach Area Overlay Zone
Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone
Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone
Coastal Resource Overlay Zone Mello I LCP Segment
CN-SO-CommercialNisitor-Serving Overlay Zone
F-P-Floodplain Overlay Zone
H-0-Hospital Overlay Zone
Q-Qualified Development Overlay Zone
S-P-Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone”
SECTION 6: That Title 21, Summary of Zones, is amended by the addition of Chapter
21.31, as follows:
“Title 21
ZONING
Chapters:
21.02
21.04
21.05
21.06
21.07
21.08
21.09
21.10
21 .I2
21 .I6
21 .I8
21.20
21.21
21.22.
21.24
21.25
21.26
21.27
21.28
21.29
21.30
21.31
21.32
21.33.
21.34
21.35
21.36
21.37
21.38
21.39
Purpose
Definitions
Zone Establishment - Boundaries
Q Qualified Development Overlay Zone
E-A Exclusive Agricultural Zone
R-A Residential Agricultural Zone
R-E Rural Residential Estate Zone
R-I One-Family Residential Zone
R-2 Two-Family Residential Zone
R-3 Multiple-Family Residential Zone
R-P Residential Professional Zone
R-T Residential Tourist Zone
H-0 Hospital Overlay Zone
R-W Residential Waterway Zone
RD-M Residential Density - Multiple Zone
C-F Community Facilities Zone
C-I Neighborhood Commercial Zone
0 Office Zone
C-2 General Commercial Zone
C-T Commercial Tourist Zone
C-M Heavy Commercial - Limited Industrial Zone
C-L Local Shopping Center Zone
M Industrial Zone 0-S Open Space Zone
P-M Planned Industrial Zone
V-R Village Redevelopment Zone
P-U Public Utility Zone
RMHP Residential Mobile Home Park Zone
P-C Planned Community Zone
L-C Limited Control Zone
-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
21.40
21.41
21.42
21.43
21.44
21.45
21.46
21.49
21 50
21.51
21.52
21 53
21.54
21.55
21 56
21 58
21.60
21.61
21.62
21.70
21.80
21.81
21.82
21.83
21.84
21.85
21.86
21.90
21.95
21.100
21.105
21.110
21.201
21.202
21.203
21.204
21.205
21.208
S-P Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone
Sign Ordinance
Conditional Uses’
Ad u I t Entertain men t
Parking
Planned Developments
Yards
Nonresidential Planned Development
Variances - Conditional Use Permits
Administrative Variances
Amendments
Uses Generally
Procedures, Hearings, Notices and Fees
Dedications of Land and Fee for School Facilities
Interpretation
Revocation - Expiration
Permits - License Enforcement
Judicial Review of Zoning Decisions and Time Limitation
Violations
Development Agreements
Coastal Development Permits
Coastal Development Permits - Village Redevelopment Area
Beach Area Overlay (BOA) Zone
Child Care
Housing For Senior Citizens
lnclusionary Housing
Residential Density Bonus or In-Lieu Incentives
Growth Management
Hillside Development Regulations
T-C Transportation Corridor
Recycling Facilities and Recycling Areas
Floodplain Management Regulations
Coastal Development Permit Procedures
Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone
Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone
Coastal Resources Overlay Zone Mello I LCP Segment
CommercialNisitor Overlay Zone”
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its
adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be
published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within
fifteen days after its adoption. (Not withstanding the preceding, this ordinance shall not be
effective within the City’s Coastal Zone until approved by the California Coastal Commission.)
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council on the 1st day of June, 2005, and thereafter.
-14- 79
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 1st day of June, 2005, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-15-
STRlKEOUTlBOLD VERSION ORDINANCE
MP 149(T)
NIP 149(T)
LA COSTA
MASTER PLAN
Amendment
(- oldface Version)
Strikeout =text is deleted
Bold = new text added.
EXHIBIT 7
i
LA COSTA MASTER PLAN
MP-149 (MP-6)
2900 acres, located east of El Camino Real and northerly of
Olivenhain Road (La Costa Land Development Co.).
ADOPTED BY:
City Council Ordinance # 9322, September 5, 1972
AMENDED to delete an indicated school site shown westerly of El Fuerte
Street in an area known as La Costa Estates North (CT 73-10, SP 112)
APPROVED BY:
Planning Commission Resolution # 10 19, December 1 1, 1973
City Council Ordinance # 9376, January 15, 1974 ***
MP-l49(A)
Referred back to Planning Commission for partial amendment to allow for “continual” (concurrent)
processing of Rancheros De La Costa, La Costa Vale Unit #2, Green Valley Knolls, and Santa Fe Knolls
while a new PC zone was being developed. The processing of the remainder of the Master Plan area was
delayed until adoption of the PC zone. No formal action by City Council.
APPROVED BY:
Planning Commission Resolution # 1253, May 19, 1976 ***
MP- 149(B)
Repealed Ordinance # 9376. Adopted an interim Master Plan for La Costa area.
Referred to new exhibit for type of development, which reflected La Costa’s plans for more single-family
development and less condominium development. Established a circulation plan, school site plan, park
site plan, and development standards for Santa Fe Knolls, Rancheros De La Costa, La Costa Vale #2, and
Green Valley Knolls.
ADOPTED BY:
City Council Ordinance # 9469, November 2, 1976 ***
MP- 149(C)
No action taken ***
MP- 149(D)
Deletes 45 acres from MP-l49(B). Deleted property is located generally east of
El Fuerte on both sides of the extension of Alga Road (Hidden Meadows,
Meadow Crest, and Meadowlark areas).
APPROVED BY:
Planning Commission Resolution # 1567, November 14, 1979
City Council Ordinance # 9546, March 18,1980 ***
11
MP- 149(E)
Amended the La Costa Master Plan to provide for conformance with the
newly revised General Plan Elements for Parks and for Public Facilities.
APPROVED BY:
Planning Commission Resolution # 17 19,
City Council Ordinance # 9570, December 16, 1980 ***
MP- 149(F)
Deleted 4.5 acres from the La Costa Master Plan. Property deleted was
located on Centella Street south of Levante.
APPROVED BY:
Planning Commission Resolution # 1757,
City Council Ordinance # 9579, March 17, 1981 ***
MP-149(G)
Revised the Land Use Plan of the La Costa Northwest area and made minor administrative changes to the
Master Plan text and maps on property . . .located generally east of El Camino Real and north of Alga
Road. Changes to land use included the golf course, which was reduced in size from 105 acres to 85
acres, increased unit count by 100, and increased area of proposed park fi-om 21 to 23.5 acres.
APPROVED BY:
Planning Commission Resolution # 1954, City Council Ordinance # 9628, June 29, 1982 ***
MP-l49(H)
WITHDRAWN on August 3 1,198 1, with no action taken. ***
MP-149(1)
Minor amendment to the La Costa Master Plan to allow for separate development of neighborhood SE-13.
ADOPTED BY:
Planning Commission Resolution # 1935, March 24, 1982 ***
MP- 149(J)
Revised the Land Use Plan of La Costa Southeast and made minor administrative changes to the Master
Plan text and maps on property generally located at the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and future
Camino de Los Coches.
APPROVED BY:
Planning Commission Resolution # 20 1 1,
City Council Ordinance # 9647, October 19, 1982 *** ... 111 83
MP- 149(K)
Changed Master Plan designation of a parcel from RLM to RMH on property generally located on the
northeast corner of El Camino Real and Levante.
APPROVED BY:
Planning Commission Resolution # 2083,
City Council Ordinance # 9676-9677, dated April 5, 1983 ***
MP-l49(L)
WITHDRAWN on June 27, 1983. No action taken. ***
MP- 149(M)
Amendment to change densities and land uses on property generally located in the southwest portion of
La Costa Master Plan. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the amendment
(P.C. Resolution # 2277). Amendment was WITHDRAWN before it was heard by City Council. ***
MP- 149(N)
Amendment to request land use change from C to Rh4 on property generalIy located on the southeast
comer of Rancho Santa Fe Road and future Camino de Los Coches.
WITHDRAWN on August 9, 1985. No action taken. ***
MP- 149(0)
Elimination of any reference to the area previously known as Southwest (Arroyo La Costa), and
stipulation that updated EIRs and new Master Plans be required prior to future development occurring in
the Northwest and Southeast areas of La Costa.
APPROVED BY:
Planning Commission Resolution # 3028, June 20, 1990
City Council Ordinance # NS-123, September 4,1990 ***
MP-l49(P)
Submitted for the La Costa Town Center Project on August 3 1, 1993.
WITHDRAWN on January 12, 1996. No action taken. ***
MP- 149(Q)
An amendment to remove portions of the Northwest and Southeast areas (including the Rancheros) from
the plan. The areas removed are subject to the Villages of La Costa Master Plan.
APPROVED BY:
Planning Commission Resolution #50 12, September 5,2001
City Council Ordinance #NS-604, November 6,200 1
iv
***
MP- 149(R)
La Costa Town Square Project
PENDING ***
MP-l49(S)
An amendment to remove the La Costa Resort and Spa properties from the plan. The area removed will
be subject to the La Costa Resort & Spa Master Plan, MP 03-02.
APPROVED BY:
Planning Commission Resolution # 570 1,
City Council Ordinance # NS- ***
MP-l49(T)
An amendment to change the underlying zoning of commercial neighborhoods (SE-13, SE-14, SE-
15, and SE-17) from “C-1” (Neighborhood Commercial) and T-2” (General Commercial) to the
new zone “C-L” (Local Shopping Center) for those properties with the “L” (Local Shopping
Center) general plan designation. This amendment changes Table 111-2 and text in paragraph
III.E.l (Land Use and Development Standards).
APPROVED BY:
Planning Commission Resolution #
City Council Ordinance # NS-
V
I. INTRODUCTION
.Section E is amended to read as follows:
“E Legislative Background
The following, in chronological order, represents official actions pertaining to those
areas covered by this Master Plan or adjacent areas thereto:
August 1, 1972 Pre-annexation of changes of zone (ZC-26) with a Specific Plan,
adopted by Carlsbad City Council Ordinance #93 18 on 1 190 acres.
September 5, 1972 City Council adoptions of pre-annexation change of zone (ZC-
26) to Planning Community Zone on 2900 acres by Ordinance #9323.
September 5, 1972 Adoption of Master Plan (MP-6) for 2900 acres subject to
annexation by City Council Ordinance #9322.
September 5. 1972
Carlsbad, composed of 4090 acres, by adoption of City Council Ordinance #1147.
Annexation of East Carlsbad Annexation #2.12 to City of
May 15, 1973 Pre-annexation of change of zone (ZC-106) to Planned Community
for Rancho Ponderosa, 124.5 acres, adopted by City Council Ordinance #9351
June 5, 1973 Pre-annexation change of zone (ZC-105) to Planned Community for El
Camino Glens, 3 1 1 acres, adopted by City Council Ordinance #9354.
August 7. 1973 Adoption of Master Plan (MP-128) for 717 acres on property
generally located north of Alga Road, east of El Camino Real, known as Kratter
property (La Costa North), by City Council Resolution #3 183.
August 7, 1973 Annexation of East Carlsbad Annexation #2.16, Kratter property
(La Costa North), 7 17 acres, adopted by City Council Resolution #3 184.
August 8, 1973 Annexation of East Carlsbad Annexation #2.15 by City Council
Resolution #3185, El Camino (Ayres) (Weigand), 435.5 acres, of which 31 1 acres is
a La Costa annexation and 124.5 acres is a Ponderosa annexation.
August - 21. 1973 Pre-annexation change of zone (ZC-124) to Planning Community
of 7 17 acres (Kratter property) by City Council Ordinance #9359.
September 4. 1973 Amendment to General Plan (GPA-16) for property generally
located north of Alga Road, east of El Camino Real, known as Kratter property (La
Costa North), by City Council Ordinance #3207.
October 2, 1973 Pre-annexation change of zone (ZC-116) to Planning Community
for La Costa Northeast, 182 acres, adopted by City Council Ordinance #9361.
1
January 15, 1974 Amendment to Ordinance #9322 by adoption of a revised Master
Plan (MP-149) for the La Costa area (2900 acres), by City Council Ordinance
#9376.
March 16, 1974 Annexation of East Carlsbad Annexation #2.19 by City Council
Ordinance #1167 (La Costa Northeast), 182 acres.
October 16, 1974 Amendment to the Carlsbad General Plan (GPA 28-A) by
adoption of a revised Land Use Element for entire City by City Council Resolution
#3527.
March 23, 1976 Annexation of uninhabited territory designated as South City
(Byron White, et al.) Annexation No. CA 74-30 to the City of San Marcos by San
Marcos City Council Ordinance #76-358. The amount of La Costa lands annexed to
the City of San Marcos is approximately 240 acres.
April 27, 1976 Carlsbad City Council certification of Final Environmental Impact
Report (EIR-307) for the La Costa Master Plan (MP-l49(A)) and General Plan
Amendment (GPA-38).
May 4, 1976 Amendment of Land Use Element Text and Plan and Circulation
Element of the General Plan (GPA-38) by City Council Resolution #3896.
June 15, 1976 Revision of the P.C. (Planned Community) zone by City Council
Ordinance #9458.
November 2, 1976 Adoption of an interim Master Plan (MP-149-B) for La Costa
area by City Council Ordinance #9546.
March 18, 1980 Change of zone (ZC-206) from P-C to RD-M-Q on approximately
134 acres in La Costa Northeast area and deletion of that portion of the rezoning
covered by a Master Plan (MP-l49(D)) by City Council Ordinance #9546.
December 16, 1980 Adoption of MP-l49(E) for the La Costa area by City Council
Ordinance #9570.
March 17, 1981 Adoption of MP-l49(F) deleted 4.5 acres from the La Costa Master
Plan as amended MP-l49(E). Property deleted was located on Centella Street south
of Levante in La Costa. Concurrent zone change (ZC 225) was processed changing
the zoning on the above property from C-2 and PC to RDM, Adopted by City
Council Ordinance #9579.
June 29, 1982 Adoption of MP-l49(G) revised the Land Use Plan of the La Costa
Northwest area and made minor administrative changes to the Master Plan text and
maps on property located generally east of El Camino Real and north of Alga.
Changes to land uses included the golf course, which was reduced in size from 105
acres to 85 acres, increased unit count by 100, and increased area of proposed park
from 21 to 23.5 acres. Adopted by City Council Ordinance #9628.
2
August 31, 1981 MP-l49(H) was withdrawn on August 31, 1981, with no action
taken.
March 24, 1982 Adoption of MP-149(1) a minor amendment to the La Costa Master
Plan. Allowed for separate development of neighborhood SE- 13. Adopted by
Planning Commission Resolution #1935.
October 19, 1982 Adoption of MP-l49(J) revised the Land Use Plan of La Costa
Southeast and made minor administrative changes to the Master Plan text and maps
on property generally located at the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and future
Camino de Los Coches. This changed the land use designation from TS to C [see
GPA 64(A)]. Amended Ordinance #9570 as amended by Ordinance #9628 and MP
149(E). Adopted by City Council Resolution #7030 and City Council Ordinance
#9647.
April 5, 1983 Adoption of MP-l49(K) changed Master Plan designation of a parcel
from RLM to RMH on property generally located on the northeast comer of El
Camino Real and Levante. This amendment was consistent with the existing
General Plan land use designation of RMH on the property. This was formerly part
of SP-171, which had provided for lower intensity land uses for this parcel along
with 98 acres to the east to accommodate the Green Valley Knolls Development.
The parcel had been the site of 6 model homes for the 98-acre development to the
east. Adopted by City Council Ordinance #9676-9677.
June 27, 1983 MP-l49(L) was intended to change 14 acres of office and 37 acres of
commercial to 34 acres of RMH and 17 acres of commercial located on the northeast
comer of future La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road. Withdrawn on June
27, 1983. No action was taken.
MP-l49(M): Amendment was to change densities and land uses on property
generally located in the southwest portion of the La Costa Master Plan. The
Planning Commission recommended denial to the amendment to the City Council
(Planning Commission Resolution #2277). The amendment was withdrawn before it
was heard by the City Council.
August 9, 1985 MP-1490: Amendment was to request land use change from C to
RM on property generally located on the southeast comer of Rancho Santa Fe Road
and future Camino de Los Coches. Withdrawn on August 9, 1985, with no formal
action taken.
September 4, 1990 MP-l49(0): Elimination of any reference to the area previously
known as Southwest (Arroyo La Costa), and stipulation that updated EIRs and new
Master Plans be required prior to future development occurring in the Northwest and
Southeast areas of La Costa. Approved by City Council Ordinance #NS-123.
MP-l49(P): Submitted for the La Costa Town Center Project on August 31, 1993.
Withdrawn on January 12, 1996, with no formal action taken.
3
Mp-149(0): An amendment to remove portions of the Northwest and Southeast
areas (including the Rancheros) from the plan. The areas removed are subject to the
Villages of La Costa Master Plan. Approved by City Council Ordinance #NS-604.
MP-l49(R): Submitted for the La Costa Town Square Project on March 20, 2001.
It is pending formal action.
MP-1496): An amendment to remove the La Costa Resort and Spa properties from
the plan. The area removed will be subject to the La Costa Resort & Spa Master
Plan, MP 03-02.
MP-149U’): A City-initiated amendment to change the underlying zoning of
commercial neighborhoods (SE-13, SE-14, SE-15, and SE-17) from “C-1”
(Neighborhood Commercial) and “C-2” (General Commercial) to the new zone “C-L”
(Local Shopping Center) for those properties with the “L” (Local Shopping Center)
general plan designation. Approved by City Council Ordinance #NS- 9,
Section F is amended to read as follows:
“F. Existing and Approved Development (See note at end of Section F)
The areas that previously have been developed or committed to development consist
of the La Costa Plaza area, La Costa Resort and Recreation area, including golf
course, La Costa Valley Condominiums, and developments of various types of living
units, such as single family, duplexes, cluster developments, condominiums, and
homes of all types fiom luxury to more modest homes.
The area already developed within old La Costa can be generally defined as located
from El Camino Real on the west, Alga Road on the north, Levante on the south and
Rancho Santa Fe and Melrose Drive on the east. Outside of the Master Plan area, an
industrial park has been constructed east of Rancho Santa Fe Road in the City of San
Marcos.
In the Southwest Area of the Master Plan, Neighborhoods previously designated SW
5 and SW 4 have been developed with single family homes.
In the Southwest Area of the Master Plan Neighborhoods SE 20 and SE 21 have
been developed with Single Family Homes. Neighborhoods SE 12 and SE 23 have
been developed with apartments. Neighborhoods SE 10, SE 16, SE 18, SE 19 have
been approved for development with single-family homes. Neighborhood SE 15 has
been approved for development as a M@&MAwA local shopping center.
No development has been approved in the Northwest portion of the Master Plan.
Except as otherwise specifically indicated in this Plan or exhibits hereto, nothing in
this Master Plan shall be deemed to regulate or prohibit the development,
redevelopment or rehabilitation of any area in the Master Plan (see Exhibit 1-2 [on
file in the Planning Department], Existing Zoning). The following eleven areas are
zoned P-C but have already been developed or are in the process of being developed
4 89
and the documents governing such development are described in Section 111, Land
Use and Development Standards.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Existing 27-hole golf course and San Marcos Canyon
Estates North
Rancheros de la Costa
Vale 2 & 3
Vale 4
Corona La Costa
Spanish Village
Green Valley Knolls
Santa Fe Knolls
Santa Fe Glens
SMCWD Reservoir
Other than the eleven areas listed above, there exist areas within the 3,200+ acres
zoned other than P-C. The development of such areas (see Exhibit 1-2, Existing
Zoning [on file in the Planning Department]) shall be governed by the applicable
zoning.
Note: The above information for historical purposes only. See Map on Page 1-8 for
existing remaining areas of the La Costa Master Plan after the approval of MP
149(S) and adoption of the La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan MP 03-02.
5
I11 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. Overall Design Concepts
Section B is amended to read as follows:
“B. Development Review Process
1. This Master Plan provides for two alternative processes that may be utilized in
the submission and review of individual neighborhood development proposals:
the Standard Review Process and the La Costa Development Plan Review
Process, hereinafter referred to as the Development Plan. Process selection shall
be at the discretion of the applicant as provided herein.
2. The Standard Review‘Process shall utilize the requirements as set forth in Title
21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and any other applicable zone and
development type for neighborhoods developed under this process are set forth in
Tables 111-1 and 111-2 of this Master Plan. The Standard Review Process may
include the utilization of Chapter 21.45 Planned Development Ordinance at the
discretion of the applicant. The Standard Review Process shall not be applicable
to Neighborhoods SE-IO, SE-12, SE-13, SE-14, SE-15, SE-16 or SE 23, 5 identified
in this Master Plan as the Community Core, or to Neighborhoods-@G+ SE-17
~FSV 17, designated as @
Gmmeed-a Local Shopping Center.
3. The La Costa Development Plan Review Process shall require the submission of
a Development Plan, which shall be subject to the general and special
development standards, and regulations as set forth in this Master Plan. The
processing procedures set forth in Chapter 21.06 Q Qualified Development
Overlay Zone shall apply to the Development Plan Review Process of this Master
Plan except that:
4.
a. A tentative subdivision map, if required by the Subdivision Map Act,
shall be submitted in conjunction with the Development Plan.
b. The Development Plan shall be acted on by the same decision-making
body that acts on the tentative subdivision map. If the City Engineer
approves the map for a project, then the Planning Commission shall
approve the Development Plan.
C. The Planning Director shall be authorized to approve minor amendments
to approved Development Plans providing such amendment shall not
increase the approved densities or boundaries of the site development
plan, permit a new use or group of uses not shown on the approved
Development Plan, rearrange the uses within the neighborhood or change
more than ten percent of the approved yards, coverage, heights, open
space, landscaping, parking or other development standards.
6
d. The hearings for the Development Plan and tentative subdivision map shall be duly noticed public hearings.
e. Notwithstanding the above provisions, development processing in all
neighborhoods for which the C-L (Local Shopping Center) zone is
shown in Table III-2 as the zoning reference for the Standard
Review Process shall follow the standards and process established by
Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.31, Local Shopping Centers.
Chapter 21.31 calls for processing a Site Development Plan for local
shopping centers pursuant to Chapter 21.06 Q Qualified
Development Overlay Zone, but with certain changes, including a
provision that the City Council shall approve the Site Development
Plan. ‘‘
Section E is amended to read as follows:
“E. Community Core and Neighborhood Commercial
1. Neighborhoods SE-10, SE-11, SE-13, SE-14, SE-15, and SE-16, are
designated in this Master Plan as the Community Core. 7 .. .
Prior to development of these neighborhoods, a Site Development
Plan shall be approved. Subsequent development shall be subject to
said plan. For neighborhoods SE-10, SE-11, and SE-16, the Site
Development Plan shall be developed and approved pursuant to
Municipal Code Chapter 21.06, Q Qualified Development Overlay
Zone, and for neighborhoods SE-13, SE-14, and SE-15 it shall be
developed and approved pursuant to Chapter 21.31, Local Shopping
Center Zone of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
2. Preparation of all neighborhood development plans within the Community
Core shall insure compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods particularly
regarding the placement of open spaces, selection and location of
landscaping material, continuity of pedestrian and bike paths, siting of
structures for view opportunities and architectural harmony.
3. The Development Plan for neighborhoods SE- 13, SE- 14, and SE- 15 shall
set forth designated land uses pursuant to Table 111-2, external and internal
traffic circulation, a landscaping plan, building bulk, height and location,
exterior architectural style and signing, in addition to other standards of
this Master Plan. Also refer to the Individual Neighborhood Development
Regulations of Section 1II.L.
4. The preparation of Development Plans for neighborhoods SE-10, SE-11 ,
SE-12, SE-16 and SE-23 shall be governed by the Individual
Neighborhood Development Regulations of Section 1II.L in addition to
other standards of this Master Plan.
VI-2
Note: The area described in Table 111-1 below is for reference only and is removed MP 1496) and by
inclusion in MP 03-032
NW-14
TABLE 111-1
General Neighborhood Development Standards
General Zone Zone and Development Max. * Gross Open Individual
Plan Type for Standard D.U. Acres Space Neighborhood
Review Process Development
Regulations
OS 0-s Golf Course - 85.0 85.0 1.a. (p.111-13)
LA COSTA NORTHWEST
Totals
(STA)
2,402 542 86.8
Note: This chart does not comply with current City PoIicies and Growth Control Points. It is for illustrative
purposes only.
TABLE 111-2
General Neighborhood Development Standards
LA COSTA SOUTHEAST
VI-3 93
*Dwelling unit count shown on hs table represents the potential maximum number of dwelling units under ideal
planning conditions. Refer to Sections III.C, IILD., and 1II.L.
**See Sections III.B., 1II.D. and 1II.E.”
VI-4
STRlKEOUT/BOLD VERSION ORDINANCE
MP 178(C)
MP 178(C)
BRESSI RANCH
MASTER PLAN
Amendment
(- Boldface Version)
Strikeout = text is deleted
Boldface = text is added
EXHIBIT 8
Bressi Ranch Master Plan Amendment MP 178(C)
I. Introduction
Section F.l is amended to read as follows”
“F. Applications
1. Applications Processed with the Master Plan
The following applications were processed concurrently with this
master plan:
General Plan Amendment - The General Plan Amendment revised
land use designations within the Master Plan area. The existing
General Plan designations did not accurately reflect existing
topography or constraints based on up-to-date surveys and current
development standards. The proposed revision resulted in a variety of
residential and non-residential land uses including large natural open
space areas that more accurately reflect the natural constraints of the
site (see Exhibit 1-9 on page ).
Zone Change - The zone change brought existing zoning into
conformance with General Plan designations of the Master Plan (see
Exhibit 1-9 on page-). The Limited Control (L-C) zoning was
replaced with Planned Community (P-C) Zoning. Since the Planned
Community Zone does not have any development standards, such as
setbacks or building heights, an underlying zoning of RD-M, R-I, P-MI
0-S, C-2 and CF 4as-k~ was provided to implement the proposed
General Plan designations. In 2005, with amendment MP 178(C), the
C-2 zoning designation was replaced with the C-L Local Shopping
Center Zone, a new zone created and applied throughout the city
to sites with the L General Plan designation.
Certification of a Program Environmental Impact Report - The
Program Environmental Impact Report constituted all environmental
review required for approval of this Master Plan and all related
discretionary approvals.
Hillside Development Permit - A Hillside Development Permit was
required since the project has a slope gradient of 15% or greater and a
slope height of I5 feet or greater. The approval of a Hillside
Development Permit ensures that the proposed grading is in
conformance with the requirements of Carlsbad’s Hillside Development
0 rd i na nce.
Tentative Maps - A Master Tentative Map was processed concurrently
with the Master Plan. The lots created by this map correspond to the
96
boundaries of the Planning and Open Space Areas and establish the
alignments of the major roadways within the Master Plan.
Special Use Permits - A Special Use Permit was required for grading
and development of the portions of the Master Plan within the El
Camino Real Scenic Corridor and within the 100-year floodplain.”
Ill. Land Use and Entitlement Provisions
Section C is amended to read as follows:
‘IC. Zoning
Concurrent with the approval of the Bressi Ranch Master Plan, the zoning of
this site was changed from Limited Control (L-C) to Planned Community (P-
C). Since the P-C Zone requires the designation of underlying zoning, each of the planning areas and open space areas has been assigned an underlying
zoning designation. Pursuant to the powers of Chapter 21.38 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code (Planned Community Zone), this Master Plan shall constitute
the zoning of all lands within the Master Plan. No person shall use or develop
contrary to the provisions of the Master Plan. All provisions of the Master
Plan are imposed as a condition of zoning. Approval of this document does
not excuse compliance with all other applicable City ordinances in effect at
the time building permits are issued. Unless modified by this Master Plan, or
approval of a Planned Development Permit or Non-Residential Planned
Development Permit, all development shall comply with the requirements of
the underlying zoning as shown by Exhibit 1-9 on page . These
underlying zoning designations are provided below:
Planninq Areas Zone
1,2, 3,4, 5, 14 P-M (Planned Industrial)
6, 7, 8, 12
9, IO, 11 R-I (One Family Residential)
13 CF (Community Facilities)
15 G-2 C-L/RD-M/CF (- ‘ Local Shopping
CentedResidential Density-Multiple/ Community Facilities)”
RD-M (Residential Density - Multiple)
VI. Development Review Process
Section E is amended to read as follows:
“E. Mixed Use and Community Facilities (PA 15)
Planned Development Permits
Subdivision of non-residential units for the purpose of separate ownership
shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 21.47 “Non-Residential
Planned Developments” of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and is subject to
the Design Guidelines and Development Standards specified for Planning
Area 15.
Subdivision of residential units for the purpose of separate ownership shall
be processed in accordance with Chapter 21.45 “Planned Developments”
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and are subject to the Design Guidelines
and Development Standards specified for Planning Area 15.
Conditional Use Permits
shall be A Conditional Use Permit -2 P-
required for churches, assisted care facilities, service stations and
community facilities as well as all other uses designated as allowed by
conditional use permit in Chapters 21.24 (RD-M), 21.25 (C-F), 2438,
21.31 (C-L) and 21.42 (Conditional Uses). The Conditional Use Permit
shall also address building placement, architecture, parking, and access
and. Conditional Use Permits for these uses will supersede the need
for a Site Development Plan, as set out in the next section, except
where such uses are conditionally allowed under the C-L Zone.
..
Site DeveloDment Plan
c 31 311 31 3K v L 1 .LI I, L I .-u --- .T
Under Chapter 21.31 (C-L Zone) the table of allowed uses includes
those allowed under Chapter 21.25 (C-F Zone). Within PA-I5 all uses
that are allowed in the C-L zone, but excepting those uses allowed
within the C-F zone, are allowed and shall be subject to the
provisions of Chapter 21.31, including the preparation and approval
by the City Council of a Site Development Plan for a local shopping
center. Where the uses under the C-L Zone are conditionally
permitted, development shall also require the processing and
approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Those uses that are not allowed by Chapter 21.31 (C-L Zone) but a)
are allowed by Chapters 21.24 (R-DM Zone) and 21.25 (C-F Zone) and
b) do not require a Conditional Use Permit, Planned Development
Permit, or Non-Residential Planned Development Permit shall be
subject to the preparation and approval by the Planning Commission
of a Site Development Plan, pursuant to Chapter 21.06 (Q Overlay
Zone). These uses include, but are not limited to, residential
apartment development and the Village Square. “
Section F shall be amended to read as follows:
“F. Amendments
Master Plan Amendments
Master Plan Amendments shall be processed pursuant to the
requirements of Chapter 21.38.120 (P-C Zone) of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code and all applicable City and Planning Department Policies. Minor
Master Plan Amendments shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission. Major Master Plan Amendments shall be reviewed
and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. A Minor
Master Plan Amendment shall not change the densities of a planning
area, the boundaries of the subject property, or involve an addition of a
new use or group of uses not shown in the original Master Plan or
rearrangement of uses within the Master Plan.
The Master Plan provides an estimate of the approximate number of units
that will be developed within each Planning Area. The exact number of
units that will be developed within each Planning Area will be determined
during the subsequent review of the tentative maps that divide each
Planning Area into individual residential lots. A Minor Master Plan
Amendment shall be processed concurrently with each tentative map
requesting 10% (or less) above or below the anticipated number of
dwelling units stated for the Planning Areas. This amendment will revise
Exhibit XIV-1 on page of the Master Plan to indicate exactly how
many units have been approved in each Planning Area and how many
remaining units exist in the Master Plan. If the number of units requested
in an individual Planning Area varies by more than IO%, a Major Master
Plan Amendment shall be processed concurrently with the proposed
Tentative Map. In no case shall the number of dwelling units approved in
an individual Planning Area exceed that allowed by its General Plan
designation (see Exhibit 111-1 on page ), nor shall the total number of
residential units in the Master Plan exceed 623.
Tentative Madplanned Development Permit Amendments
Amendments to Tentative Maps and Planned Development Permits may
be permitted in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20 and
Section 21.45.1 00 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Site Development Plan Amendments
Amendments to Site Development Plans shall be processed in
accordance with the requirements of either Chapter 21.06 (Q Overlay
Zone) or Chapter 21.31 (C-L Zone), as appropriate, of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code.
Substantial Conformance
Minor revisions to Tentative Maps, Parcel Maps, Planned Development
Permits, Site Development Plans and Conditional Use Permits may be
99
administratively approved by the Planning Director subject to the
requirements of the Planning Department‘s Substantial Conformance
Policy in effect at the time of the proposed minor revision.”
Vlll Commercial/Community Facilities Development Standards and Design
Section A.2. shall be amended to read as follows:
Guidelines
“2. Planning Area 15
Description
Planning Area 15 is located in the northern portion of the Master Plan
area, south of Planning Area 4, east of Planning Area 6, and west of El
Fuerte Street. The southern edge of Planning Area 15 borders Planning
Area 7. Planning Area 15 has a gross area of 27.7 acres and a net
developable area of 26.7 acres (see Exhibit Vlll-2 on page 1.
Implementation of Master Plan Vision and Goals
The purpose of this planning area is to allow for the creation of a unique
mixed-use neighborhood that will create a sense of place within the Bressi
Ranch Master Plan that is not dependent on the automobile. Planning
Area 15 will function like a small traditional village, which may include
residential and commercial uses surrounding a Village Square. Within this
planning area there will be a mixture of commercial/retail, office, housing,
and community facilities.
Many of the goals of the Bressi Ranch Master Plan will be incorporated
into the design of this planning area. Housing, jobs, daily needs and other
activities are all within easy walking (Goal 2). A variety of uses are also
within easy walking distance of transit stops on El Fuerte (Goal 3).
Planning Area 15 will contain housing that satisfies the City’s Affordable
Housing Criteria and possibly market rate units (Goal 4). There will be a
variety of job opportunities in Planning Area 15 (Goal 5). Planning Area
15 will serve as the central activity focus for the Bressi Ranch Master Pian
by combining residential, commercial, civic and recreational uses (Goal 7).
A Village Square may be centrally located in Planning Area 15 to
encourage frequent use by the public (Goals 8 and 9).
Exhibit Vlll-3 on page shows a possible scenario for the development
of Planning Area 15 and how the uses can tie into the adjacent residential
areas of the Master Plan. The exact location and details of the various
land uses will be determined as a part of the review of the Site
Development Plans and/or Conditional Use Permits for the various land
uses listed below.
General Plan & Zoning
General Plan Land Use: RH/L/CF
Zoning: RDM/W C-UC-F
Discretionarv Permits Required for Development
Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for this planning area,
discretionary applications shall be processed in accordance with the
requirements of Chapter VI of this Master Plan.
Uses Allowed
All commercial uses shall be developed and conducted pursuant to the
provisions of Chapter 21.31 (C-L) of the Carlsbad Municipal
C0de.k .. ..
The Master Plan anticipates the following uses will be developed in
Planning Area 15:
0 Up to 120 housing units, of which 100 units must be “affordable” per an
approved housing agreement with the City of Carlsbad.
0 Up to 200 assisted care living units
0 A Village Square that serves as the major public gathering area for the
Master Plan. The intention for the Village Square is to provide an area
where office workers, shoppers and the surrounding neighborhoods
can frequent this open space throughout the day and evening for
strolling, lunch and/or recreation and provide an area for small-scale
weekend events. A community facility may be included to serve as a
focal point and backdrop for the Village Square.
0 A temporary information center
0 Up to 130,000 square feet of commercial/office/community facilities
space
0 In addition, incidental outdoor dining is allowed, subject to the
development standards set forth in Section 21.26.013(c) of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code
In addition to the listed anticipated uses, those uses identified in Chapters
21.24 (RD-M), 21.25 (C-F), 24427+3) and ZL28 (6-2 21.31 (C-L)+tdA 1 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code are permitted in Planning Area 15.
Uses and structures permitted subject to approval of a Conditional Use
Permit include all uses permitted by Conditional Use Permit in the C-L
zone with the exception of the uses established as prohibited' by the
next section:
Prohibited Uses
The following uses, though allowed by right or by approval of a Conditional
Use Permit in the RD-M (Chapter 21.24), C-F (Chapter 21.25), 0 (Chapter
21.27) or C 2 (C!wpW 21 .?e) C-L (Chapter 21.31) zones of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, do not support the vision of a walkable, mixed-use Village
Center and are therefore prohibited in Planning Area 15:
Drive-through facilities
0 Hospital
0 Gadservice Station
0 CarWash
0 Auto Repair
Upholstery Shop
Commercial Printing
Photo Engraving
Development Standards
Unless specified otherwise in this section, all development in Planning Area
15 will comply with the corresponding regulations and development standards
of Chapters 24.28 {C 2) 21.31 (C-L) and 21.44 (Parking) of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code as outlined below:
Height limitations for buildings shall be governed pursuant to
Chapter 21.31 (C-L), Section 21.31.080.C and shall not exceed 35 feet
or three levels, except as approved via Site Development Plan
approved by the City Council, in which case additional height may be
approved to 45 feet. Architectural features such as flagpoles,
steeples, or architectural towers are allowed to a maximum of 55 feet
when specified findings are made.
No setbacks are required except that residential buildings that are not an
integrated component of a mixed-use building or group of attached
buildings within the same block shall maintain setbacks consistent with
Chapter 21.24 (RD-M) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Residential “Planned Developments” that are an integrated component of
a mixed-use building or group of attached buildings within the same block
shall include:
i. 200 square feet of centralized community recreational space per unit.
The required recreational space may be part of a larger community
facility.
ii. 480 cubic feet of enclosed storage area shall be provided for each unit.
iii. Either a IO’ x IO’ ground floor patio or 6’ x IO’ balcony.
iv. 20 square feet of recreational vehicle storage per unit for projects of 25
or more units. The storage area may be provided as part of a larger
community facility.
Residential “Planned Developments” that are not an integrated component
of a mixed-use building or group of attached buildings within the same
block shall comply with all of the applicable development standards of
Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.”
lo 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
EXHIBIT 9
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5916
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: ADD
NEW CHAPTER 21.31 (C-L LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER
ZONE) AND AMEND CHAPTERS 21.06 (Q-QUALIFIED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE), 21.83 (CHILD CARE),
21.05 (ZONE ESTABLISHMENT), AND THE SUMMARY OF
TITLE 21 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE; AMEND
ZONE TO THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM; AMEND THE
GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION ON 19 PROPERTIES OF THREE SITES FROM
VARIOUS DESIGNATIONS TO “L” (LOCAL SHOPPING
CENTER); CHANGE THE ZONE ON 39 PROPERTIES FROM
SEVEN PROPERTIES; AMEND THE LOCAL COASTAL
PLAN TO ADD THE “L” (LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER)
DESIGNATION TO THE LAND USE MAP AND APPLY THIS
DESIGNATION TO PROPERTIES AT THREE SITES; AND
AMEND THE LA COSTA MASTER PLAN AND BRESSI
L” (LOCAL, SHOPPING CENTER) ZONE.
ZONINGS
THE LOCAL COASTAL PLAN TO ADD THE NEW “C-L”
VARIOUS ZONES TO C-L (LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER) ON
RANCH MASTER PLAN TO ADD REFERENCES TO THE “C-
CASE NAME: LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND RE-
CASE NO.: ZCA 00-07LCPA 00-1 S/GPA 04- 18/ZC 04- 13/
LCPA 04-16W 149(T)/MP 178(C)
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad: has filed a verified application with the City of
Carlsbad regarding property owned by various parties, “Owner,” described as
48 properties located at 11 sites throughout the City (See
“Table of Affected Parties” in ND EIA Part 11)
(“the Property”); and
WHERE&3, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of June, 2005, 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
/04
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
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
t
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration,
Exhibit “ND,” according to Exhibits “NOI” dated March 14, 2005, and “PII”
dated March 10, 2005, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the
following findings:
Findbs:
1.
...
...
...
...
...
...
The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration
Environmental Impact Assessment Form Part I1 and the environmental
impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
b. 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
c. it reflects the independent judgmept of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA Part 11 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PC RES0 NO. 5916
.
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of June 2005, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez,
Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
q45, JEFFRE N. GALL, Ch lrperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: n
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5916 -3-
- City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND RE-ZONINGS
CASE NO: ZCA 00-07, LCPA 00-15. ZC 04-13, GPA 04-18, LCPA 04-16, MP 149(T), and MP 178 CC)
PROJECT LOCATION: 48 PARCELS ON 11 SITES THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A proposed Zone Code Amendment (ZCA 00-07) and one Local Coastal
Program Amendment (LCPA 00-,15) would create a new Local Shopping Center (C-L) zone withm both
the City of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program. In addition, a Zone Change (ZC 04-
13) and the other Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 04-16) would apply this new zone to
properties located at 11 existing and future sites for local shopping centers located throughout the city
(48 parcels). Further, a General Plan Amendment (GPA 04-1 8) would apply the Local Shopping Center
(L) land use designation to two of the properties proposed for the re-zoning. Finally, the text and
exhibits of the both the Bressi Ranch Master Plan (MP 178(C)) and La Costa Master Plan (MP 149(T))
are proposed for amendment to incorporate and reference the new zone as an underlying zone for
purposes of land use regulation in these master plans. For detailed information, please contact the
project planner, Dennis Turner, as indicated below.
PROPOSED DETERMINATION: 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, the initial study (EM Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on
the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of
Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council.
A copy of the initial study (EL4 Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative
Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faiaday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department
within 30 days of the date of this notice.
The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by the City
of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those
public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Principal Planner Dennis Turner in
the Planning Department at (760) 602-4609.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
IjUBLISH DATE Mkh 14.2005
March 14.2005 through April 13,2005
.-
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 6024600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.g$~~&)@.us @
Exhibit 1 of 10
June 15,2005
SITE
LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER REZONINGS
ZC 04-13
Exhibit 2 of 10
June 15,2005
SITE
.
LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER REZONINGS
ZC 04-13/LCPA 04-16
JO 9
Exhibit 3 of 10
June 15,2005
/ SITE
LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER REZONINGS
GPA 04-18
Exhibit 4 of 10
June 15.2005
/ SITE
L
LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER
REZONINGS
ZC 04-13
Exhibit 5 of 10
June 15,2005
SITE
LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER REZON I NGS
GPA 04-1 8/ZC 04-1 3/LCPA 04-1 6
Exhibit 6 of 10
June 15,2005
SITE
I 1 I
LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER REZONINGS
ZC 04=13/LCPA 04-16
Exhibit 7 of 10 June 15,2005
RANCHO CARLSBAD
GOLF COURSE
,
SITE
LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER
REZONINGS
ZC 04-13
Exhibit 8 of 10
June 15,2005
/ SITE
.
LA COSTA NIP COMMERCIAL REZONING
MP 149(T)
Exhibit 9 of 10
June 15,2005
/ITE
.
LA COSTA MP COMMERCIAL REZONING
MP 149(T)
Exhibit 10 of 10
June 15,2005
- SITE
-.
,
BRESSI RANCH COMMERCIAL REZONE
MP 178(C)
ENi'IRoNMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11
CASE NOS: ZCA 00-07. LCPA 00-15: ZC 04-13, GPA 04-18. LCPA 04-16, MP 149(T). and MP 178 (C]
DATE: March 10.2005
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND RE-ZONINGS
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Various - see list below
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad - 1635 Faraday Avenue. Carlsbad, CA 92008
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Dennis Turner, Princiual Planner - (760) 602-4609
PROJECT LOCATION: 48 parcels on 11 sites throughout the citv
PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Same as Lead Agency, above.
7. ZONING: Various - see list below
8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED @e., permits, financing approval or
participation agreements): California Coastal Commission (two Local Coastal Program Amendments)
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES:
A proposed Zone Code Amendment (ZCA 00-07) and one Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 00-
15) would create a new Local Shopping Center (C-L) zone within both the City of Carlsbad Zoning
Ordinance and Local Coastal Program. In addition, a Zone Change (ZC 04-13) and the other Local Coastal
Program Amendment (LCPA 04-16) would apply ths new zone to properties located at 11 existing and
fbture sites for local shopping centers located throughout the city (48 parcels). Further, a General Plan
Amendment (GPA 04-18) would apply the Local Shopping Center (L) land use designation to two of the
properties proposed for the re-zoning. Finally, the text and exhibits of the both the Bressi Ranch Master
Plan (MP 178(C)) and La Costa Master Plan (MP 149(T)) are proposed for amendment to incorporate and
reference the new zone as an underlying zone for purposes of land use regulation in these master plans.
More specifically, this project would: ,
A. Create a new Chauter 21.31 of the Carlsbad Zoninp Ordinance. The new zone would be entitled Local
Shopping Center Zone (C-L), intended to be the implementing zone for the existing Local Shopping Center
land use designation of the Carlsbad General Plan. The new zone would establish the allowed and
conditionally allowed uses in this zone, require a Site Development Plan be approved by the City Council
for development of properties within the zone, and establish the development standards with which
development proposals would have to comply. In addition, mino~; changes are proposed to Chapter 21.06
(Q Qualified Development Overlay Zone - having to do with the site development plan process), and
Chapter 2 1.83 (Child Care) to assure consistency between these chapters and the new Chapter 2 1.3 1.
B. Properties to have a new general ulan designation. 1) The general plan amendment would assign the
Local Shopping Center general plan designation to two properties within the existing Plaza Paseo Real
shopping center, currently designated RM (Residential Medium Density). One site is developed with an
existing city library (APN 215-050-70) and the other is developed with an existing United States Post
Office (APN 215-050-69). Both of these properties are part of the existing site development plan for the
shopping center. The change in general plan designations would be consistent with their current hction
and operations as part of this shopping center. 2) In addition, the general plan designations (T-IUL (Travel
-Recreation/Local Shopping Center) for all 13 properties of the existing Poinsettia Village shopping center
would be modified slightly by dropping the Travel-Recreation part of the designation, retaining only the
.
Local Shopping Center designation (L)). This adjustment would be consistent with the existing
development and tenant mix of the shopping center.
1
C. Properties to be rezoned. The new Local Shopping Center zone would be applied to properties with
existing and hture shopping centers, properties to which the Local Shopping Center general plan
designation has previously been applied (exceptions are the properties described in part B, above, to which
the general plan designation would be changedas part of this project). All of the properties that are part of
hs project are identified by Assessor’s parcel numbers in the following “Table of Affected Properties” and
by the series of exhibits (1- lo), attached to this document. Most of the properties are currently subject to
the City’s C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) or C-2 (General Commercial) zones. The existing designations
and proposed changes are shown on the table.
Carlsbad Plaza North
Carlsbad Plaza North
Carlsbad Plaza North
Carlsbad Plaza North
Carlsbad Plaza North
Carlsbad Plaza North
D. Master Plan Amendments. Some areas of Carlsbad are subject to Master Plans, documents that function
similarly to traditional specific plans. The areas subject to the Bressi Ranch Master Plan and the La Costa
Master Plan all have the PC (Planned Community) Zone that requires the development of a master plan.
However, within both master plan documents, tailored zoning is used for specific subareas that references
the individual zones of the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance as “base” zones upon which the tailoring occurs.
This project proposes amending these master plans by changing the current base zone to the new Local
Shopping Center zone in certain text sections, tables, and map ehbits that refer to the properties indicated
on the attached “Table of Affected Properties” (sites 8-1 1). One site would be changed in the Bressi Master
Plan and three sites would be changed in the La Costa Master Plan (see the “Table of Affected Properties”,
below)
2
E. No development, redevelopment, expansion, or modification is proposed for any property as part of this
project. This project is concerned with the assignment of zone and general plan designations only. Any subsequent proposals for development, redevelopment, expansion, or modification of any property would
constitute a separate project and be subject to preparing an environmental document that is specific to those
proposals.
“Table of Affected Properties”
Carlsbad Plaza South
sitel Shopping Center Name No.
3-a
Carlsbad Plaza South
Plaza Paseo Real (vons)
3-a
3
3
3
4
Plaza Paseo Real (vons)
Plaza Paseo Real (vons)’
Plaza Paseo Real (Vons)
Plaza Paseo Real (Vons)
La Costa Plaza (Albertsons)
La Costa Plaza (Albertsons)
La Costa Plaza (Albertsons)
La Costa Plaza (Albertsons)
La Costa Plaza (Albertsons)
APN
167-030-29
167-030-32
167-030-48
167-030-50
167-030-74
167-030-75
167-030-76
167-030-77
21 5-050-69
2 1 5-050-70
21 5-050-72
2 1 5-050-75
21 5-050-76
216-580-01
21 6-580-02
21 6-580-03
21 6-580-04
21 6-580-05
--__---_--____
;en7 Plan
From
L
L:
L
L
L
L
L
L
RM
RM
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
.-----------
Gen’l Plan To
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
#no chg
L
L
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
--_--_-_____-___
Zone
From
c-2
c-1
c-2
c-2
c-2
c-2
C-2-Ql
R-P-Q
C-2-Q
R-P-Q
R-P-Q
RDM-Q
R-P-Q/
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-1-Q
C-1-Q
C-1-Q
C-1 -Q
C-1 -Q
- - - - - - - - -
Zone To
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
C-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
C-L
c-L
_______--_-
Me
No.
La Costa Plaza (Albertsons)
La Costa Plaza (Albertsons)
La Costa Plaza (Albertsons)
Shopping Center Name
5
6
7
APN
21 6-580-06
21 6-580-07
21 6-580-08
21 4-430-1 4
214-430-1 5
21 4-430-1 6
214-430-17
214-430-18
214-430-19
21 4-430-20
2 1 4-430-2 1
21 4-430-22
21 4-430-23
21 4-430-24
21 4-430-25
21 4-430-26
206-050-1 6
206-050-1 7
206-050-1 8
206-050-20
209-090-1 1
Poinsettia Village (Ralph’s)
Poinsettia Village (Ralph’s)
Poinsettia Village (Ralph’s)
Poinsettia Village (Ralph’s)
Poinsettia Village (Ralph’s)
Poinsettia Village (Ralph’s)
Poinsettia Village (Ralphls)
Poinsettia Village (Ralph’s)
Poinsettia Village (Ralph’s)
Poinsettia Village (Ralph’s)
Poinsettia Village (Ralph’s)
Poinsettia Village (Ralph’s)
Poinsettia Village (Ralph’s)
Un-named center (Vons)
Un-named center (Vons)
Un-named center (Vons)
Un-named center (vons)
Sunny Creek commercial
Zen’l Plar
From
Los Coches Village (Sav-On) 255-031 -20 L no chg
(MP149)
La Costa Town Square 223-060-32 no chg
10 Rancho La Costa (MP 149) 223-060-28 L; no chg
Rancho La Costa (MP 149) 223-060-29 L no chg
Bressi Ranch (PA 15 partial) 21 3-1 90- 01 L no chg
Bressi Ranch (PA 15 partial) 21 3-1 90- 02 L no chg
11 Bressi Ranch (PA 15 partial) 213-190- 03 L no chg
Bressi Ranch (PA 15 partial) 21 3-1 91 - 01 L no chg
Bressi Ranch (PA 15 partial) 21 3-1 91 - 02 L no chg
(MP149) (approx)
L
L
L
PC nochg
PC nochg
PC nochg
PC nochg
PC nochg
PC nochg
PC nochg
PC nochg
PC nochg
T-R/L
T-R/L
T-R/L
T-R/L
TWL
T-R/L
T-R/L
T-R/L
T-R/L
T-R/L
T-R/L
T-R/L
T-RIL
Gen’l Plan To
no chg
no chg
no chg
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
no chg
no chg
no chg i 1 noch;
no ch
Zone
From
C-1-Q
C-1 -Q
C-1 -Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
c-1
c-1
c-1
c-1
c-2
Zone To
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
C-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
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.
c] Aesthetics
0 Apcultural Resources
c] Air Quality
[7 Biological Resources
0 Cultural Resources
0 Geology/Soils 0 Noise
0 HazarddHazardous Materials u and Housing
0 HydrologyNater Quality 0 Public Services
0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation
u Mineral Resources c] TransportatiodCirculation
[7 Utilities & Service Systems u Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
Kl
0
0
17
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 “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applictible legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, includmg revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
n
Assistant Planning Director’s Signature Date
5 Rev. 07/03/02
ENMROMMENTAL 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. Thls 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 EJR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported
by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A ‘Wo Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source
document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not
significantly adverse, and the Tact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measufes 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 significantly
adverse.
Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the
environment, but potentially sidicant adverse 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 adhtional environmental
document is required.
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made
pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or
any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment.
If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there
are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse unpacts to less than significant, and those mitigation
measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In thls case, the appropriate “Potentially
Significant Impact Unless Mirigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration
may be prepared.
6 Rev. 07/03/02 123
e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to
the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant ,adverse 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 adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding
Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR, (3)
proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the
EIA-Part I1 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 hscussion 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, whlch would otherwise be determined significant.
7 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
No
Impact
[XI
[XI
IXI
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
I.
II.
AESTHETICS - Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 0 0
0 0 Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 0 0 Substantially degrade the 'existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 0 Create a new source of substantial light and glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - (In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would
the project:
:El 0 Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0' CI 0 Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
(See Discussion of Envirolimental Evaluation)
0 0 0 Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
8 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations.) Would the
project:
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(See Discussion of Enviroxiinental Evaluation)
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian,
aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially Significant Impact
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
17
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
No Impact
1sI
Ix1
IXI
Ixl
Ixl
Ixl
Ixl
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
9 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact . 0 0
Potentially Significant
Impact No .ImDact c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites? ,
0 0 IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 0 0 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
0 0 [XI
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 0 Ixl g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
0 0 0 a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in 9 15064.5?
Ixl
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi-
cance of an archeological resource pursuant to
$15064.5? -9
0
0
0 0 [XI
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 0 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi-
cal resource or site or unique geologic feature?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
10 Rev. 01/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
V. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, inclurlmg the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact ..Impact .o 0 ow
0 0 ow
0
0
0
0
OH ow
0 0 ow
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 ow b) Result in substantial soil 'erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
a 0 ow c)
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - l-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
0, 0 ow
0 0 ow b
e)
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
11 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact . Impact VI. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would
the project:
0 Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Create a significant hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 Be located on a site whch is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
environment?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
For a project within an airport land use plan, or
where such a plan has not been adopted, withm two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
0
;
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
For a project withm the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
% 17
0 OM
0
0 OM
0
17 OIXI
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
12 Rev. 07/03/02 129
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact ..Impact OB h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with ground water recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground water table
level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Impacts to groundwater quality?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in
a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site? .
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
0
0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
13 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact cl cl Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Place housing withm a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation
map?
(See Discussion of Environmental EvaIuation)
Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss ‘injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals,
pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics,
nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash)
into receiving surface waters or other alteration of
receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or
wetland waters) during or following construction?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired
water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list?
.
Potentially Significant Impact 0
0
0
0
0
0
cl
(7
cl
0 0
0 0
No Impact IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
14 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation Jncorporated 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IX.
X.
XI.
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
c) Conflict with &y applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) 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?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of
other agencies?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
Potentially
Significant Impact 0
0
0
(0
0
0
Less Than Significant Impact . 0
17
cl
0
0
0
No .Impact El
[XI
[XI
IXI
IXI
[XI
[XI
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
15 Rev. 07/03/02 /3a
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant No
Impact Incorporated 0 impact . 0 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 0 IXI d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 0 0 (XI e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 0 0 IXI f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either dxectly
(for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Ea
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 0 0 IXI b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
0 Ea c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
(See Discussion of Environplental Evaluation)
/33 16 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Potentially significant Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered government facilities, a
need for new or physically altered government
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
0
v) Other public facilities?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
XIV. RECREATION
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
Less Than Significant No Impact . Impact
0 OB Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such 'hat substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Does the project include recreational facilities or :o oIx1
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFC - Would the project:
a) 0 Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehlcle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
0 0
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
17 Rev. 07/03/02 i34
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact . Impact 0 0 UIXI b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
or hghways?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
CI CIN c)
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Result in insufficient parking capacity?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
- g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-
outs, bicycle racks)?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant enviromcptal effects?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
0
0
03
0
0
0
0
UIXI
UIXI
om
om
n[x1
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
18 Rev. 07/03/02 135
Issues (and Supporting Mormation Sources).
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project fiom existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permiaed
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
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?
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula-
tively 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?) --
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directIy or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant Impact El
I7
0
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated 0
0
0
0
17
0
Less Than
Significant Impact 0
0
0
0
17
17
0
No
ImDact
IXI
(See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
19 Rev. 07/03/02
XWI. 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 thls case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) 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 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.
20 Rev. 07/03/02 137
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
No Impact - The proposed text amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do
not propose or affect any policy or standard that could: a) adversely effect a scenic vista; b) substantially damage
scenic resources; c) degrade the visual character of any site; or d) create substantial light or glare that would
adversely affect day or nighttime views. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies
and standards will be subject to Mer environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
No Impact - The proposed text amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do
not propose or affect any policy or standard that could a) result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural
use; b) conflict with any existing zoning for agncultural uses or a Williamson Act contract; or c) result in changes to
the existing city environment that would cause the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. Any future
development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental
review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
AIR QUALITY-Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not
propose or affect any policy or standard that could conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional air quality
plan.
All properties within the city are located in the San Diego Air Basin which'is a federal and state non-attainment area
for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter
(PMlo). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin
(SDAB), particularly for ozone in sand foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution
controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, ths attainment planning process is
embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District
(APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).
A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state-
mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having
serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by
the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly
regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996.
21 Rev. 07/03/02 /38
Future development projects relate to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are
incorporated into the air‘ quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and the
County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project
presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that
the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact.
Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific
reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality
management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set
forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California
Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the
following:
0
0
Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
The project area (citywide) is located’in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is
being implemented. The proposed amendments will not change the growth assumptions of the General Plan. Future
development projects that are subject to the amended policies and standards will be required to be consistent with
the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the
regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
No Impact - The closest air quality monitoring station to properties within the city is in the City of Oceanside. Data
available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded
were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal
%hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No
violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. The proposed amendments do not involve
the physical development of any site nor air quality planningktandard changes. Any future development proposal
that is subject to the amended policies-and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to
CEQA on a site specific basis.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
No Impact - The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The
project consists of an amendment to residential policies and standards contained in the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance, which will affect the development of future residential projects on a citywide basis. The proposed
amendments do not propose or affect any policy or standard that would result in a contribution to a cumulatively
considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. Additionally, the project does not include
a proposal for physica1,development of any site. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended
policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not
propose or affect any policies or standzrds relating to air quality or pollution. Any hture development proposal that
is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA
on a site specific basis.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not
propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in an activity that could create objectionable odors.
Any hture development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further
environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
22 Rev. 07/03/02
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California
Department of Fish and Game or US. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
e)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any
site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in an adverse effect on any sensitive
habitat or species, or interference with any native or migratory wildlife corridor or native wildlife nursery site. Any
future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further
environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact (e & f) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and
do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in a conflict with local policies and ordinances
that protect biological resources or the provisions of any habitat conservation plan. Any future development
proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review
pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
9) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive?
No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal fbr physical development of any site, and do not
propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in an adverse impact to any environmentally sensitive
tributary area. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be
subject to Mher environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
Cause a substantia1 adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5? . b)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any
site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in a disturbance of any human remains
or an adverse impact to any historical, archeological, or paleontological resource. Any future development proposal
23 Rev. 07/03/02
that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to
CEQA on a site specific basis, and will be subject to the City’s Cultural Resource Guidelines.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial ‘adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
No Impact - There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within the City of Carlsbad and there is no other
evidence of active of potentially active faults within the City. However, there are several active faults throughout
Southern California, and these potential earthquakes could affect Carlsbad. Landslides are also a potential threat in
parts of the City. All development proposals in Carlsbad are subject to requirements such as the Uniform Building
Code earthquake construction standards and soil remediation that when necessary ensure potential adverse effects
are not significant. The proposed amendments, however, do not include a proposal for physical development of any
site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would expose people or structures to potential
adverse effects fkom a known earthquake fault, ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure or landslides. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further
environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not
propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in substantial soil erosion on any site. Any future
development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental
review pursuant to CEQA and the City’s Engineering standards on a site specific basis.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact (c, d & e) - The proposed amendments do not ihclude a proposal for physical development of any site,
and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in impacts to unstable or expansive soil
conditions. Any future development ptoposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to
fiirther environmental review pursuant to CEQA and the City’s engineering standards on a site specific basis.
24 Rev. 07/03/02
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? b)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle 'hazardous or. acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or environment?
No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any
site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in hazards associated with exposure to
hazardous materials. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be
subject to Mer environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact (e & f) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and
do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in exposing people to hazards associated with an
airport. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to
further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
No Impact (g & h) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and
do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would interfere with the implementation of an adopted
emergency response or evacuation plan, or result in exposing people to risk from wildland fires. Any future
development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to Mer environmental
review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete iroundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
25 Rev. 07/03/02
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration .of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount
(volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 0
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
No Impact (a, b, c, d, e, f & g) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of
any site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would conflict with any water quality standards,
impact groundwater supplies/quality, alter any drainage pattern, -act the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems, or result in the degradation of water quality. Any future development proposal that is
subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on
a site specific basis.
h) Place housing within 'a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map?
i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?
j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact (h, i, j 8t k) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any
site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in placing housing within a 100-year
flood hazard area, or expose people or structures to flooding or inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further
environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters.
m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic
organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or
other alteration of receiving surface water qualiy (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)? I
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following
construction?
0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) list?
P) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater keceiving water quality objectives or
degradation of beneficial uses?
No Impact (I, m, n, o & p) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any
site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in increased erosion or pollutant
discharges into any surface waters, a change to receiving water quality, or an exceedance of receiving water quality
objectives. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to
further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
26 Rev. 07/03/02
LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically-divide an established community?
No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not
propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in the division of an established community. Any hture
development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental
review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis. All of the sites are either built shopping centers or proposed
shopping centers in the General Plan. The proposed zoning changes would not &vide and established community.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not
propose or affect any policies or standards that would conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. Any future development proposal that is subject to
the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site
specific basis.
e) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not
propose or affect any policies or standards that would conflict with the any habitat conservation plan or natural
comm~~Q conservation plan. Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and
standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) 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?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No Impact (a & b) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and
do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result @ the loss of availability of a mineral resource.
Any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further
environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
NOISE -Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne
noise levels?
c) A substantial permaneht increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
No Impact (a, b, c & d) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any
site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in exposing people to excessive noise
levels or groundboume vibrations, or increase noise levels. All of the sites are either existing local shopping centers
or are vacant sites that have been previously designated in the general plan for local shopping centers. Any future
27 Rev. 07/03/02
development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental
review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport; would the project expose people’residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact (e & f) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and
do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in exposing people to excessive noise levels
associated with an airport. In addition, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport, will
ensure that future commercial development will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by the airport.
Also, any future development proposal that is subject to the new zoning standards will be subject to further
environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and
therefore will not directly induce any growth. In addition, the proposed amendments will not introduce any new
standard or provision that would indirectly induce substantial growth beyond what is currently allowed and
anticipated by City policies and standards. Any future residential development withm the city must comply with the
City’s growth projections contained in the City’s Growth Management Plan. Because all public facilities (roads,
infrastructure, etc) have been planned to accommodate the growth anticipated in the Growth Management Plan, no
substantial new roads or infrastructure will be necessary. Therefore, the project will not induce substantial growth
either directly or indirectly. Also, any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and
standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
No Impact (b & c) - The proposed amendments do not include a pr8posal for physical development of any site, and
do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in the displacement of any existing housing or
people. All of the sites are either developed with existing local shopping centers, or, where vacant, have been
designated previously in the general plan for local shopping centers. Any future development proposal that is subject
to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site
specific basis.
PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government
facilities, the constructlbn of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
V. Other public facilities?
28 Rev. 07/03/02 145
No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not
propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in adverse impacts to the maintenance of acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any public service (fire & police protection,
schools, parks and other public facilities). The Carlsbad Growth Management Plan requires that a facilities
management plan be prepared for each of the 25 sub areas of the city prior to any development being allowed. All
needed facilities are called out and financed in advance, of any development. The proposals that are part of this
project are all consistent with the existing Local Facilities Management Plans. Any future development proposal that
is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to Mer environmental review pursuant to CEQA
on a site-specific basis.
RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact (a & b) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site. As
part of the City’s Growth Management Plan, a performance standard for parks was adopted. Any future residential
development subject to the proposed amended policies standards will be required to comply with the performance
standards of the Growth Management Plan, However, none of the current proposals are for residential zoning.
Also, any future development proposal that is subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to
further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system?
No Impact - The project does not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and it does not affect or
propose any policy or standard that might cause an increase in traffic. A performance standard for traffic is part of
the City’s Growth Management Plan. Future development that is subject to the amended policies and standards will
be required to comply with this performance standard, which ensures future development will not exceed the traffic
load and capacity of the city’s street system. In addition, future development will be subject to further
environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis.
I
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
No Impact - SANDAG, acting as the County Congestion Management Agency, has designated three roads (Rancho
Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two hghway segments in Carlsbad as part of the
regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these
designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is:
Existing ADT* Buildout ADT*
Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 “A-C” 28-43
El Camino Real \ 21-50 “A-C” 32-65
Palomar Airport Road 10-52 “A-B” 29-77
SR 78 120 “F’ 144
1-5 183-198 “D’ 2 19-249
*The numbers are in thousands of daily trips.
The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E”, or LOS “F” if
that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990). Accordingly, all designated
roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS.
29 Rev. 07l03102
Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and community
plans. The proposed land use and zone change is consistent with the growth projections of the general plan and,
therefore, its traftic was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of
Service (LOS) “E” standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMF’ strategies. Based on the design
capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at
acceptable level(s) of service in the short-term and at buildout.
This project proposes no physical development of a property. Further, it does not propose to change or add a
standard that would affect levels of service as established by the CMP. Any future residential development subject
to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA and the
CMP on a site-specific basis
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change
in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not
propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial
safety risks associated with air traffic patterns. Any future residential development subject to the amended policies
and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses?
No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not
propose or affect any policies or standards that would cause a future project to increase hazards due to a design
feature or incompatible use. Any future residential development subject to the amended policies and standards will
be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
9 Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact (e & 9 - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and
do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would result in inadequate emergency access or parking
capacity. The new C-L zone addresses parking needs for local shopping centers by referring to the existing section
of the Municipal Code and the existing parking standards for all of the uses allowed under the zone. Any future
residential development subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental
review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis.
8) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not
propose or affect any policies or standards that would conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting
alternative transportation. Any future residential development subject to the amended policies and standards will be
subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS -Would the project:
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board? -L
a)
No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not
propose or affect any policies or standards that would cause hture development to exceed any wastewater treatment
requirements. Any future residential development subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to
the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Mer environmental review pursuant to
CEQA, on a site specific basis.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental
effects?
30 Rev. Q7lQ3IO2
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? d)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
No Impact (b, c, d & e) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any
site, and do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would increase the need for, or conflict with the
current growth projections for water facilities, wastewater treatment or drainage facilities. All public facilities,
including water facilities, wastewater treatment facilities and drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to
accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out. Any future residential development subject to the
amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific
basis.
0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact (f & g) - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and
do not propose or affect any policies or standards that would conflict with any regulations related to solid waste, or
impact the ability to accommodate solid waste disposal needs withm the city. Any future commercial development
subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on
a site specific basis.
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?
No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not
propose or affect any policies or standards that would 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. Any hture commercial development subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to
Mer environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis.
b)
No Impact
Does the project have impacts that are individually lihited, 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 proba6le future projects?)
- San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San
Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Basedupon those
projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation,
congestion management standards, etc, are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the
region. All of the City’s development standards and regulations are consistent with the region-wide standards. The
City’s standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic
standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development
within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact.
31 Rev. 07/03/02
There are two regional issues that development withm the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively
considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. Development of future shopping
center projects subject'to the proposed amended policies and standards may represent a contribution to a
cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. However, emissions
associated with a future residential development would be minimal'. Given the limited emissions potentially
associated with a residential development, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not a residential
development is implemented.
With regard to circulation, the County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roads (Rancho
Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the
regional circulation system. The CMA has determined, based on the City's growth projections in the General Plan,
that these designated roadways will function at acceptable levels of service in the short-term and at build-out.
The proposed amendments will not affect any policies or standards that would conflict with City or region-wide
standards. Also, the proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site;
therefore, the project will not result in an individually or cumulatively considerable environmental impact. Any future shopping center development subject to the amended policies and standards will be subject to further
environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
No Impact - The proposed amendments do not include a proposal for physical development of any site, and do not
propose or affect any policies or standards that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly. Any future shopping center development subject to the amended policies and standards will
be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site specific basis.
.
32 Rev. 07/03/02
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of hs project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
1. Final Master Environmental Imuact Rmort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01).
City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
2. Carlsbad General Plan, September 6, 1994.
3.
4.
5.
Carlsbad Municipal Code. Title 2 1. Zoning
Carlsbad Local Facilities Management Zones
Citv of Carlsbad Geotecbnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992.
.
33 /53 Rev. 07/03/02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2.4
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5917
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALJFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT TO ADD NEW
CHAPTER 21.31 (C-L LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE)
AND AMEND CHAPTERS 21.06 (Q-QUALIFIED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE), 21.83 (CHILD CARE),
21.05 (ZONE ESTABLISHMENT), AND THE SUMMARY OF
TITLE 21 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE.
CASENAME: LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND
REZONINGS
CASE NO: ZCA 00-07
WHEREAS, the Planning Director has prepared a proposed Zone Code
Amendment pursuant to Section 21.52.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to: add new
Chapter 21.31 (C-L Local Shopping Center Zone) and amend Chapters 21.06 (Qualified
Development Overlay Zone), 21.83 (Child Care), 21.05 (Zone Establishment), and the
summary of Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is set forth in the draft City Council
Ordinance, Exhibit “X,” dated June 15, 2005, and attached hereto LOCAL SHOPPING
CENTER ORDINANCE - ZCA 00-07; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of June, 2005, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Zone Code Amendment.
\
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER
ORDINANCE (ZCA 00-07), based on the following findings:
157
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1.
2.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
0..
...
...
...
That the proposed Zone Code Amendment LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER
ORDINANCE - ZCA 00-07 is consistent with the General Plan in that, General Plan
Commercial Objective C-15, calls for creating a new zone to implement the General
Plan Local Shopping Center land use class, with the City Council as the decision
maker for a new permit, and the “C-L” zone has been created specifically to fulfill
that call by establishing allowed land uses and development standards that assure
that local shopping centers meet the objectives and policies set out in the Land Use
Element for local shopping centers and by requiring a Site Development Plan
permit for all new and expanded local shopping centers, with the City Council as the
permit’s decision-maker.”
That the proposed ZCA reflects sound principles of good planning in that the provision
of the new “C-L” zone will assure that any site zoned “C-L” will be developed so as
to provide a range of goods and services needed to meet the daily necessities and
convenience of the residents of the neighborhoods in which the site is located, assure
that local shopping centers will be compatible with surrounding development and
the local neighborhoods in which they are located, through creating a permit
process by which proposals for new, expanded or redeveloped local shopping
centers will be reviewed to assure that they comply with the intents and purposes of
the general plan, include superior and creative design and architecture, and
conform with the city’s objectives for the community’s environment, health, safety,
and welfare.
PC RES0 NO. 5917 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 15th day of June, 2005, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez,
Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: 3 JEFFRE N. SEGALL, airperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
n
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
.
PC RES0 NO. 5917 -3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5918
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO ADD NEW CHAPTER
2 1.3 1 (C-L LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE) AND AMEND
CHAPTERS 21.06 (Q-QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT
OVERLAY ZONE), 21.83 (CHILD CARE), 21.05 (ZONE
ESTABLISHMENT), AND THE SUMMARY OF TITLE 21 OF
THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE.
CASENAME: LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND
REZONINGS
CASE NO: LCPA 00-1 5
WHEREAS, the Planning Director has prepared an amendment to Title 21 of the
Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) relating to residential development regulations, and
WHEREAS, the zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance for the City of
Carlsbad Local Coastal program; and
WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program and
Zoning Ordinance be in conformance, and therefore, an amendment to the Local Coastal
Program is required in conjunction with an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance (implementing
ordnance) to ensure consistency between the two documents; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, “Applicant,” has filed a verified application for an
amendment to the Local Coastal Program; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal Program
Amendment as shown on Exhibit “X,” dated June 15,2005, attached to Planning Commission
Resolution No. 5920 and incorporated herein by reference, as provided for in Public
Resources Code Section 30514 and Article 15, Subchapter 2, Chapter 8, Division 5.5 of Title 14
of the California Code of Regulations (California Coastal Commission Regulations); and
.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of June, 2005, hold a duly
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
1-94
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
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; and
WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines require 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, April 29,
2005 and ending on June 10, 2005, 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 LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE
AND REZONINGS - LCPA 00-07 based on the following findings, and subject
to the following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
...
...
...
...
...
...
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 all segments of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program not being amended by this
amendment, in that it assures consistency with the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, and
does not conflict with any coastal zone regulations, land use designations, or policies,
with which development must comply.
That the proposed amendment to the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program is required to bring
it into consistency with proposed Zone Code Amendment ZCA 00-07.
PC RES0 NO. 5918
.
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
2:
24
2:
2f
2:
21
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting to the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 15th day of June, 2005, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez,
Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
A
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 5918 -3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5919
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION ON TWO PROPERTIES
LOCATED IN THE PLAZA PASEO REAL SHOPPING
CENTER AND 13 PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE
POINSETTIA VILLAGE SHOPPPING CENTER IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONES 4 AND 6,
RESPECTIVELY.
CASENAME: LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND
REZONINGS
CASE NO: GPA 04- 18
WHEREAS, the Planning Director has filed a verified application with the City
of Carlsbad regarding 15 properties on two sites, owned by various parties; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a General Plan
Amendment as shown on Exhibits ‘“’Y,97 “3 of 10,” and “5 of 10” dated June 15,2005, attached
to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5920 and incorporated herein by reference, and on
file in the Carlsbad Planning Department, LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND
REZONINGS - ZC 04-13, as provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq. and Section
21 S2.160 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 15th day of June, 2005, 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 General Plan Amendment.
\
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2s
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE
AND REZONINGS - GPA 04-18, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The existing General Plan designation “R-M” (Residential Medium) for the two
properties associated with the Plaza Paseo Shopping Center (a U.S. Post Office and
a City of Carlsbad library) is inappropriate, in that the properties are already
developed with non-residential uses and have been incorporated within and are
subject to the existing site development plan for the shopping center and function
successfully as part of said local shopping center. Therefore, the designation should
be changed to “L” (Local Shopping Center), the general plan designation assigned
to the other properties of the shopping center.
2. The existing General Plan combination designation “T-R/L” (Travel
Recreation/Local Shopping Center) for the 13 properties that comprise the
’ Poinsettia Village Shopping Center is inappropriate, in that a) the site functions
successfully as a local shopping center, developed without the types of land uses
typically associated with a tourist-recreation development, and b) nearby land,
suitable for and designated for tourist-recreation uses has been developed in
sufficient quantities to meet anticipated needs. Therefore, the designation on the
subject properties should be changed to “L” (Local Shopping Center).
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of June 2005, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez,
Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton
NOES:
ABSENT:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
A EST: Lx
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5919 -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. 5920 I
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLA”G COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF ZONE CHANGES ON 39 PROPERTIES FROM
SEVEN SITES LOCATED IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS
THROUGHOUT THE CITY IN VARIOUS LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONES.
ZONINGS
VARIOUS ZONES TO C-L (LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER) ON
CASE NAME: LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND RE-
CASE NO: ZC 04-13
WHEREAS, the Planning Director of the City of Carlsbad has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding 39 properties on seven sites owned by various
parties; and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for Zone Changes as shown on
Exhibits “Y” and “1 of 10” - YO of 10” dated June 15,2005, attached hereto and on file in the
Planning Department, LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND REZONINGS - ZC 04-
13, as provided by Chapter 21.52 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of June, 2005, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
r
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 Change.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows: --
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS ADOPTION OF LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE
AND REZONING - ZC 04-13, based on the following findings:
...
...
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Findings:
1. That the proposed Zone Changes are consistent with the goals and policies of the various
elements of the General Plan, in that the zone will enable and govern the development
of needed local shopping centers, as called for by the Land Use Element of the
General Plan to provide the retail goods and services needed on a daily basis by
residents of local neighborhoods.
2. That the Zone Change will provide consistency between the General Plan and Zoning as
mandated by California State law and the City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use
Element, in that concurrent with or in advance of this proposed rezoning, the City
adopted the “C-L” (Local Shopping Center Zone) for the express purpose of
implementing the “L” (Local Shopping Center) General Plan designation, as called
for by commercial land use policy C-15 of the Land Use Element.
3. That the Zone Change is consistent with the public convenience, necessity and general
‘ welfare, and is consistent with sound planning principles in that the application of the
zone to these properties will implement the city-wide spatial distribution of
shopping centers anticipated by the general plan as needed to provide for a)
convenient travel times for shoppers and b) desirable price points for daily-needed
goods and services through moderated competition, while not over-commercializing
the city with undesirable numbers of shopping centers or strip commercial
developments.
Conditions
1. The adoption of the this zone change is subject to the prior or concurrent adoption
of ZCA 00-07 (LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE), which adds Title 21.31 to the
Municipal Code, creating the “C-L” Local Shopping Center Zone.
i ...
...
...
...
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 5920 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 15th day of June, 2005, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez,
Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
n
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
.
PC RES0 NO. 5920 -3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5921
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO ADD THE “L” (LOCAL
SHOPPING CENTER) DESIGNATION TO THE LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE MAP, AND TO BRING
THE DESIGNATIONS ON THE LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM, GENERAL PLAN, AND ZONING MAP INTO
CONFORMANCE ON PROPERTIES LOCATED AT THE
PLAZA PASEO REAL SHOPPING CENTER, THE
NAMED SHOPPING CENTER AT THE INTERSECTION OF
TAMARACK AVENUE AND ADAMS STREET IN THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD.
- POINSETTIA VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER, AND THE UN-
CASENAME: LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND
REZONINGS
CASE NO: LCPA 04- 16
WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program,
General Plan, and Zoning designations for properties in the Coastal Zone be in conformance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director, has filed a verified application for an
amendment to the Local Coastal Program designations to add the “L” (Local Shopping
Center) designation to the Local Coastal Program land use map, and to change the land
use and zoning designations on 22 properties on three sites, known as the Plaza Paseo Real
shopping center, the Poinsettia Plaza shopping center, and an un-named center located at
the southwest corner of the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and Adams Street, owned by
various parties; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal
Program Amendment to add the ccL’’ (Local Shopping Center) land use class to the Local
Coastal Program land use map, and to make changes to the land use designations and
zoning on properties shown on Exhibits “Y,” “2 of 10,” ‘‘5 of 10,” and “6 of 10,” dated June
15, 2005, attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5920, and incorporated herein
by reference, and on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department, LOCAL SHOPPING
%
16 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
CENTER Z.ONE AND REZONINGS - ZC 04-13, as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 30574 and Article 15 of Subchapter 8, Chapter 2, Division 5.5 of Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations of the California Coastal Commission Administrative
Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of June 2005, 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; and
WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines require 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)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on April 29,
2005 and ending on June 10, 2095, staff shall present to the City Council a
summary of the comments received.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
ZONINGS (LCPA 04-16), based on the following findings, and subject to the
following conditions:
C) RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER RE-
Findinm:
1. That the propos‘ed addition of the “L” (Local Shopping Center) designation to the
land use map of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) meets the requirements of, and is
in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and is necessary to
maintain consistency and conformity of said map with the Land Use Map of the
Carlsbad General Plan and that said designation is appropriate to replace the “C”
(General Commercial) and “N” (Neighborhood Commercial) coastal land use
designations on the LCP land use map on properties designated by the General Plan
with the ”L” (Local Shopping Center) designation.
PC RES0 NO. 5921 -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
2.
3.
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 and Mello I1 segments of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program not being
amended by this amendment, in that the existing General Commercial and
Neighborhood Commercial land use designations and text descriptions within the
LCP for all three sites call for retail commercial development; all three sites have
been developed with local shopping centers; and the proposed “C-L” (Local
Shopping Center) zone exists specifically to enable development of local shopping
centers. In addition, with regard to the existing “T-R/L” (Travel Recreation/
General Commercial) combination zoning on the Poinsettia Shopping Center, the
Mello I discussion of the “Occidental Land” segment establishes that the shopping
center site is designated “for visitor-serving neighborhood commercial”
[emphasis added], and, therefore, no need exists to retain the “T-R” portion of the
combination zone.
That the proposed amendment to the land use map of the Carlsbad Local Coastal
Program is required to bring it into consistency with the Carlsbad General Plan Land
Use Map, in that all three of the subject sites are designated “L” (Local Shopping
Center) on the General Plan Land Use Map and this designation was created in the
General Plan to replace the no-longer extant “N” (Neighborhood Commercial) and
“C” (Community Commercial) land use classes. Further, all the sites are developed
with existing local shopping centers, in keeping with the “L” designation.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting to the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 15th day of June 2005, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez,
Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton
NOES:
ABSENT:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
TEST: LZL
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5921 -3- lL 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5922
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LA COSTA
MASTER PLAN, MP 149, TO REPLACE REFERENCES IN
THE TEXT AND TABLES TO THE UNDERLYING “C-1”
(NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) and “C-2” (GENERAL
COMMERCIAL) ZONE WITH THE “C-L” (LOCAL SHOPPING
CENTER) ZONE AND AMEND RELATED TEXT TO
REFERENCE THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL
CASENAME: LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND
CASE NO: MP 149(T)
PROCESS ASSOCIATED WITH THE “C-L” ZONE.
REZONINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Director has filed a verified application with the City of
Carlsbad regarding property described as
All properties located within the La Costa Master Plan
((‘the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Master Plan
Amendment as shown on Exhibit “Z,” dated June 15, 2005, on file in the Carlsbad Planning
Department, LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND REZONINGS - MP 149(T), as
provided by MP 149 (La Costa Master Plan) kd Chapter 21.38 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 15th day of June 2005,
consider said request; and
WHEREAS, b 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 Master Plan Amendment.
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.
165
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
26
27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commissio-n
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of. LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE
AND REZONINGS - MP 149 (T) based on the following findings and subject
to the following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance
with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the facts set forth in the staff
report dated June 15,2005, including, but not limited to the following: concurrent with
or in advance of this proposed master plan amendment, the City adopted the “C-L”
(Local Shopping Center Zone) for the express purpose of implementing the “L”
(Local Shopping Center) General Plan designation, as called for by commercial land
use policy C-15 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which land use
designation has been assigned to sites within the La Costa Master Plan area.
That all necessary public facilities can be provided concurrent with need and adequate
provisions have been provided to implement those portions of the Capital Improvement
Program applicable to the subject property, in that the existing La Costa Master Plan
(MP 149) was developed and approved with an associated Local Facilities
Management Plan and both the Master Plan and the Local Facilities Management
Plan anticipated the sites and types of local shopping center development that would
be allowed under the proposed C-L zoning.
That the local shopping center commercial sites will be appropriate in area, location,
and overall design’ to the purpose intended, that the design and development are such as
to create an environment of sustained desirability and stability, and that such
development will meet performance standards established by Title 21, in that a principal
tenet of the C-L zone is to require all new local shopping centers to be developed via
a site development plan approved by the City Council, pursuant to an expanded list
of topics to be addressed in the site development plan and according to standards
designed specifically to create successful, well-designed, desirable, and stable
shopping centers to meet the everyday shopping needs of local residents.
That the streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry the
anticipated traffic thereon, in that the existing La Costa Master Plan (MP 149) was
developed and approved with an associated Local Facilities Management Plan that
addressed streets and thoroughfares, and both the Master Plan and the Local
Facilities Management Plan anticipated the locations and types of local shopping
center developm’nt that would be allowed under the proposed C-L zoning.
That any proposed commercial development can be justified economically at the location
proposed and will provide adequate commercial facilities of the types needed at such
location proposed, in that as detailed in the staff report dated June 15,2005, the Local
Shopping Center (“L”) General Plan designation was assigned to sites within the La
Costa Master Plan area only after conducting a multi-year study of the local
shopping center land use needs for the entire city, which study included: surveys of
resident shopping needs, three public workshops to develop a policy framework for
the types of shopping centers the city desired, and the development and application
PC RES0 NO. 5922 -2-
1
e
L
-
4
4 -
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of trade area criteria to determine the optimum spatial distribution of local
shopping centers throughout the city, and the creation of an inventory of desired
sites, which inventory included the sites contained within the La Costa Master Plan.
Conditions:
1. The adoption of this Master Plan amendment is subject to the prior or concurrent
adoption of ZCA 00-07 (LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND
REZONINGS), which adds Title 21.31 to the Municipal Code, creating the “C-L”
Local Shopping Center Zone.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of June 2005, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez,
Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
,
JEFFRE N. SEGALL, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: n
b DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5922 -3- 16 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5923
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE BRESSI RANCH
MASTER PLAN (178), TO REPLACE REFERENCES IN THE
TEXT AND TABLES TO THE UNDERLYING “C-2”
(GENERAL COMMERCIAL) ZONE WITH THE “C-L” (LOCAL
SHOPPING CENTER) ZONE AND AMEND RELATED TEXT
TO REFERENCE THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
APPROVAL PROCESS ASSOCIATED WITH THE “C-L”
ZONE AND CLARIFY HOW C-L DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS WOULD APPLY IN PLANNING AREA 15.
CASENAME: LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND
CASE NO: MP 178(C)
REZONINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Director has filed a verified application with the City of
Carlsbad regarding property described as
Planning Area 15 of the Bressi Ranch Master Plan
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Master Plan
Amendment as shown on Exhibit “W” dated June 15, 2005, on file in the Carlsbad Planning
Department, LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND REZONINGS - MP 178(C), as
provided by MP 178 (Bressi Ranch Master Plan) and Chapter 21.38 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 15th day of June 2005,
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 Master Plan Amendment.
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.
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) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE
AND REZONINGS (MP 178(C)) based on the following findings and subject to
the following conditions:
Findinw :
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance
with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the facts set forth in the staff
report dated June 15,2005, including, but not limited to the following: concurrent with
or in advance of this proposed master plan amendment, the City adopted the “C-L”
(Local Shopping Center Zone) for the express purpose of implementing the “L”
(Local Shopping Center) General Plan designation, as called for by commercial land
use policy C-15 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which land use
designation has been assigned to Planning Area 15, a mixed-use area of the Bressi
Ranch Master Plan.
That all necessary public facilities can be provided concurrent with need and adequate
provisions have been provided to implement those portions of the Capital Improvement
Program applicable to the subject property, in that the existing Bressi Ranch Master
Plan (MP 178) was developed and approved with an associated Local Facilities
Management Plan and both the Master Plan and the Local Facilities Management
Plan anticipated the site and type of local shopping center development that would
be allowed under the proposed C-L zoning.
That the Planning Area 15 mixed-use site will be appropriate in area, location, and
overall design to the purpose intended, that the design and development are such as to
create an environment of sustained desirability and stability, and that such development
will meet performance standards established by Title 21, in that a principal tenet of the
C-L zone is to require all new local shopping centers to be developed via a site
development plan approved by the Cit’, Council, pursuant to an expanded list of
topics to be addressed in the site development plan and according to standards
designed specifically to create successful, well-designed, desirable, and stable
shopping centers to meet the everyday shopping needs of local residents.
That the streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry the
anticipated traffic thereon, in that the existing Bressi Ranch Master Plan (MP 178) was
developed and approved with an associated Local Facilities Management Plan that
addressed streets and thoroughfares, and both the Master Plan and the Local
Facilities Management Plan anticipated the locations and types of local shopping
center development that would be allowed under the proposed C-L zoning.
That any proposed commercial development can be justified economically at the location
proposed and will provide adequate commercial facilities of the types needed at such
location proposed, in that as detailed in the staff report dated June 15,2005, the Local
Shopping Center (“L”) General Plan designation was assigned to Planning Area 15
within the Bressi Ranch Master Plan area only after conducting a multi-year study
of the local shopping center land use needs for the entire city, which study included:
surveys of resident shopping needs, three public workshops to develop a policy
lI 4 PC RES0 NO. 5923 -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
framework for the types of shopping centers the city desired, and the development
and application of trade area criteria to determine the optimum spatial distribution
of local shopping centers throughout the city, and the creation of an inventory of
desired sites, which inventory included Planning Area 15 of Bressi Ranch.
Conditions:
1. The adoption of this Master Plan amendment is subject to the prior or concurrent
adoption of ZCA 00-07 - LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND
REZONINGS, which adds Title 21.31 to the Municipal Code, creating the “C-L”
Local Shopping Center Zone.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of June 2005, by the
follo*g vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINi
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez,
Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton
JEFFRE N. SEGALL, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: n
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5923 -3- 1 70
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department EXHIBIT 10
P.C. AGENDA OF: June 15,2005
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application complete date: NIA
Project Planner: Dennis Turner
Project Engineer: N/A
Item No. 0
SUBJECT: ZCA 00-07LCPA 00-15/GPA 04-18/ZC 04-13LCPA 04-16MP 149 (T)/MP
178(C) - LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND REZONINGS -
Request for: a recommendation to adopt a Negative Declaration; a
recommendation of approval for a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal
Program (LCP) amendment to add Chapter 21.31 to the Municipal Code, creating
the “C-L” (Local Shopping Center) zone; a recommendation for approval of a
General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation on 19 properties on
three sites to the “L”(Loca1 Shopping Center) designation; a recommendation for
approval of a zone change on 39 properties at seven sites to apply the new “C-L”
zone; a recommendation for approval of an amendment to the Local Coastal
Program to add the “L” designation to the LCP land use map, to change the
designation on said map on 22 properties on three sites to the “L” local shopping
center designation, and to apply the “C-L” zone to the same properties; and
recommendations for approval to amend text and exhibits of the La Costa Master
Plan and Bressi Ranch Master Plan to reference the new “C-L” zone as the
underlying zone for four sites within these master plans.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5916
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration; and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 5917, 5918, 5919, 5920, 5921, 5922 and 5923
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Zone Code Amendment ZCA 00-07, Local Coastal
Program Amendment LCPA 00-15, General Plan Amendment GPA 04-18, Zone Change ZC 04-
13, Local Coastal Program LCPA 04-16, Master Plan Amendment MP 149(T), and Master Plan
Amendment 178(C), based upon the findings contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
This project creates a new zone for local shopping centers (“C-L” Local Shopping Center) and
applies that zone to 48 properties on eleven sites where the General Plan calls for existing and
future local shopping centers. To accomplish this it is also necessary to process other, related
actions: a site-specific General Plan amendment, a Local Coastal Plan amendment to create the
zone, a second Local Coastal Plan amendment for the re-zonings and to add the “L” land use
designation to the LCP land use map and apply it to specified properties, and amendments to two
master plans. The proposed zone and property-specific re-zonings are outgrowths of two larger
programs that are described in the next section. The proposal for the new “C-L” zone was
developed with the active assistance over many months of a stakeholders’ group that was
comprised of city staff, commercial brokers, shopping center owners, and citizens. While not
ZCA 00-07/LCPA 00- 1 5/GPA 04- 1 8/ZC 04- 13LCPA 04-1 6/MP 149 (T)/MP 178(C) - LOCAL
SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND REZONINGS
June 15,2005
every stakeholder agreed with every detail of the proposed zone, the group developed a general
consensus of support for the final draft that constitutes the current project proposal.
111. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION
B ackmound
As was mentioned in the “Introduction” the new zone and related re-zonings are outgrowths of
two larger programs.
The first program is the work that was started several years ago and culminated in 2002 in the
City adopting a new, comprehensive policy framework in the General Plan that defined and
delimited what types of retail commercial land uses the city ought to have. Among other General
Plan changes the framework eliminated the old “N“ (Neighborhood) and “C” (Community)
commercial shopping center designations and replaced them with a single, new land use class
called “L,” (Local Shopping Center). In addition, an inventory of sites was created to which the
new designation was applied The spatial distribution of sites was carefully developed using
factors from the policy framework, including trade areas and optimum travel times (five minutes)
for consumers. One of the follow-through actions that was adopted with this policy fiamework
(Land Use Element Commercial Policy C- 15) calls for creating a new zone that would regulate
the development and redevelopment of local shopping centers through a new permit that would
be approved by the City Council. The subject new zone responds to this call. The adoption of
the proposed new zone and property-specific re-zonings will conclude the implementation of
Commercial Policy C- 15.
The second program is the ongoing “General PldZoning Consistency Program” (GPZCP).
This multi-part, multi-year program is aimed at achieving improved consistency between the
General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. There are several components of the GPZCP, one of
which is to determine the zoning classifications that are intended to implement each of the
General Plan land use designations. Part of this work identifies amendments that are needed to
both the General Plan text and the Zoning Code so as to assure consistency between the two
systems of land use classification and the allowed uses. Last year the City adopted amendments
to its residential land use classifications and designations. The subject proposals are part of the
current work staff is conducting to address commercial land use inconsistencies. One provision
of the new “C-L” zone establishes that it is the zone that implements the “L” General Plan
designation. Therefore, part of the subject proposal is the substitution of the new “C-L” zone for
the “C-l”, “C-2” and other zones that currently are assigned to properties that have the “L”
General Plan designation. [Staff will be bringing forward proposals dealing with other
commercial zones and land use designations as separate actions at a later time. Study and
proposals on industrial lands and other GPZCP topics are targeted for next year.]
Project Descrktion
This project can be broken into two distinct parts: a) the new “C-L” zone and, b) the application
of the zone to 48 individual properties. The two parts are described separately.
ZCA 00-07LCPA 00-l5/GPA 04-1 8/ZC 04-13LCPA 04-16W 149 (T)W 178(C) - LOCAL
SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND REZONINGS
June 15,2005
A. NewC-Lane
When the City Council created the Local Shopping Center designation in the General Plan it
stated it’s interest in having the development and major redevelopment of local shopping centers
governed by a special permit that would have the Council as the decision-maker. When it came
time to draft an ordinance to achieve this objective, staff decided to use the existing “Site
Development Plan” (SDP) permit and process, in lieu of creating an altogether new type of
permit. Because the Planning Commission normally approves SDPs, certain adjustments had to
be made to the existing SDP code to accommodate its use with the C-L zone. Because of this, the
ordinance that creates the new “C-L” (Local Shopping Center) zone includes sections dealing
with the “Q’ (Qualified Development Overlay), zone, wherein lie the existing codes for Site
Development Plans. Other sections of the ordinance address other parts of the Zoning Code that
need to be adjusted to accommodate the new zone.
A copy of the proposed revision is attached to Planning Commission Resolution as Exhibit
“X” (this resolution is provided as Attachment 2 to this report). A S%dee&B old face version of
the ordinance that shows deletions (strikeout) and additions (bold) is provided as Attachment 9 to
this report. A section-by section description of the ordinance follows:
Section 1. Amends existing sections of Chapter 21.06, the “Q” Qualified Overlay Zone, as
follows.
0 21.06.10. Stipulates that the “Intents and Purpose” of the zone is to create a process for
the review and approval of site development plans for this and other sections of the
Zoning Code. Previously the section did not address the SDP process at all.
0 21.06.20. Changes the title of the section fiom “Permitted Uses and Structures” to
“Permitted Uses and Findings” to reflect that the balance of the section deals with the
mandatory findings needed to approve a Site Development Plan (SDP). Adds to the
existing list of findings needed to approve an SDP a reference to the new Chapter 21.31
for the new C-L zone and the additional finding specified there for approval of local
shopping centers.
0 21.06.090. “Development Standards” is modified to add the provision that review of a
Site Development Plan can include review of the site’s “architecture, color, texture,
materials and adornments”, which factors are currently precluded under the existing code.
This change is being suggested because staff and the Planning Commission have
developed these factors, over time, to be important to the review of all types of Site
Development Plans and they have become part of de-facto, daily practice. A conscious
decision to delete this provision of the ordinance would have the effect of re-enforcing
the existing language and would, therefore, preclude staff and decision makers from
using these factors in the hture review of Site Development Plans.
Section 2. Adds a new section to Chapter 21.06 “Q’ Qualified Overlay Zone”
ZCA 00-07/LCPA 00- 1 5/GPA 04- 1WZC 04- 13/LCPA 04-16M 149 (T)M 178(C) - LOCAL
SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND REZONINGS
June 15,2005
21.06.170. Makes a provision for amending Site Development Plans. The current code is
silent on how to amend an SDP. The new provision establishes the process and
distinguishes between SDPs for shopping centers (City Council approval) and all other
types (Planning Commission approval).
Section 3. This section adds Chapter 21.31 to the Zoning Code, creating the “C-L” (Local
Shopping Center) zone. ‘This is the longest section of the ordinance and it consists of all new
language. Readers are invited to read the zone in its entirety in Exhibit X or the strike-out/bold
face version of the ordinance attached at the end of the report. The nine sections are summarized
as follows:
e
e
e
e
21.31.010. Intent and Purpose. This section declares that the C-L Zone is the zone to
implement the “L” (Local Shopping Center) land use designation of the General Plan.
Importantly, it describes how the zone implements key provisions of the “L” designation
by describing the function of local shopping centers in providing locally needed goods
and services. It also clarifies how other types of goods and services may be developed at
a “C-L” site, provided that these other uses supplement, rather than replace the local
goods and services. This section is important to declare what a local shopping center is
and how it functions, so as to distinguish it fi-om general or regional commercial land
uses.
21.31.020. Definition. Taken fi-om the General Plan’s description of what a local
shopping center is, this definition complements the Intent and Purpose section and is
intended to clarify what the function is of a local shopping center and how it is
distinguished from other types of retail commercial development.
21.31.030. Permitted Uses. This section uses the new “Table A” format that staff is
proposing with all zone updates. The table lists all permitted, conditionally permitted,
and accessory uses to be allowed in the “C-L” zone. One feature of the table is the use of
general categories for some types of land uses, in lieu of exhaustive lists of all types of
users. For example, the general class “office” is used instead of a list of all the types of
businesses that might be in an office (Le.: “insurance”, “architects”, “engineers”,
“bankers”) as is common in the older zones. & uses allowed by Conditional Use Permit
are now included in the table. None are still set out in other parts of the Code such as
Chapter 21.42, the Conditional Use Permit Chapter. Generally, the table is loosely based
upon uses allowed in the old “C-1” (Neighborhood Commercial) and “C-2” (General
Commercial”) zones, with some deletions (ex: hotels and motels) and revisions. A few
uses specific to shopping centers were added. The stakeholder committee was of great
help in developing this section. Because this is a completely new zone, readers are
encouraged to consider this section carefully.
2 1.3 1.040. Approval Process for New Local Shopping Centers. The section stipulates
that new development shall be subject to approval of a Site Development Plan, approved
by the City Council after the Planning Commission gives a recommendation. It further
stipulates that the Council will also be the decision-maker for any other permits required
for a new center. However, once a center is built, subsequent amendments to other
ZCA 00-07lLCPA 00-l5/GPA 04-18/ZC 04-13/LCPA 04-16/MP 149 (T)/MP 178(C) - LOCAL
SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND REZONINGS
June 15,2005
permits will be processed as otherwise provided by the Zoning Code. This last provision
was added so that amendments to permits that are handled routinely by the Planning
Commission (ex: wireless facility CUP) or by administrative process (ex: push cart
permit) don’t have to return all the way to the Council for amendment. This provision
was particularly important to many members of the stakeholder committee.
Paragraph D of this section establishes the special finding that must be made for the
shopping center Site Development Plan, in addition to the ones required for all other
SDPs. This finding requires the decision-maker to find that the site will, by itself or in
conjunction with an adjoining center, in fact, function as a local shopping center (as
defined, and as opposed to some form of general commercial site) to provide the full
range of goods and services needed by the neighborhood trade area. Because
stakeholders were concerned about the potential evolution of individual local shopping
centers, especially where two of them are adjacent and competing directly with one
another, the finding would allow such shopping centers to provide complementary goods
and services and not necessarily the full range normally expected of a single center. It
would also allow one center of such a competing pair to close, say, a grocery store if the
other center still provided grocery services adequate to meet the needs of the common
trade area.
21.3 1.050. Redeveloping, remodeling and expanding existinp shopping centers. This
section creates both “major” and “minor” SDP amendments. It also sets out criteria for
what additional development can be done without triggering any SDP amendment.
Generally, any proposed floor area expansion of less than 1,000 square feet or less than a
10-percent change to non-floor-area site components (as determined by the Planning
Director) would be exempt from an SDP amendment. These thresholds mirror what are
already in use with other Site Development Plans for other types of development as set
out in Chapter 21.06 (“Q’ - Quality Development Overlay) of the Zoning Code. Any
expansion of floor area or changes in other design components that exceed the exemption
threshold, but comprise a change of less than 50 percent (as determined by the Planning
Director) would be subject to a minor amendment. Changes exceeding the 50-percent
threshold would trigger a major amendment. The principal difference between a minor
and major amendment is that a minor amendment would have the Planning Commission
as the final decision-maker (with a lesser fee), and a major amendment would have to go
back to the City Council for final approval (with a greater fee).
This section was of great concern for many members of the stakeholder committee and
engendered considerable discussion, particularly with regard to the “exemption”
threshold of 1,000 square feet for floor area expansions. Shopping center owners wanted
the threshold to be much greater. Staff, however, does not feel that the criteria should
differ from what is already long-standard practice with other SDPs.
21.31.060. Special requirements to be addressed in the site development plan. This
section provides a list of subjects that are to be addressed in the Site Development Plan if
they are to be components of the proposed development. They have mostly to do with
various outdoor activities. The list includes kiosks, signs, outdoor eating areas, parking
ZCA 00-07LCPA 00- 15/GPA 04-1 8/ZC 04- 13/LCPA 04- 16M 149 (T)/MP 178(C) - LOCAL
SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND REZONINGS
June 15,2005
Pane 6
for shopping carts and bicycles, pumpkin and Christmas tree storage and sales, and other
facilities/hnctions that warrant advance consideration in a shopping center design.
0 21.31.070. Limitations On Permitted Uses in C-L zones. This section carries over and
slightly expands on existing provisions common to other commercial zones. Uses have
to be conducted in buildings (exceptions are called out); employees engaged in
manufacturing goods on site are limited to 5 in number; onsite storage is limited to goods
sold on the premises or [new provision] materials to be recycled.
0 2 1.3 1.080. Development standards. This is the longest section of the new zone. The first
paragraph sets out the range of subjects over which the site development plan has
authority to vary from standards set in other places in the Zoning Code (ex: parking,
yards, fences). Paragraphs that follow deal with minimum site size, building height,
yards, landscaping, walls and fences, lighting, roof appurtenances, trash enclosures,
loading areas and docks, parking, employee eating areas, signs, and recycling areas,
0 21.31.090. Severability. This is the standard section that addresses what happens to the
rest of the chapter if one section is successhlly challenged in court.
Section 4. This section amends the table in Chapter 21.83 (Child Care) that sets out the list of
zones in which child care facilities are allowed. It adds the “C-L” zone to the list.
Section 5.Amends Chapter 21.05 (Zone Establishment) by adding the “C-L” zone to the list of
35 established zones in section 21.05.010 and alphabetizing the list.
Section 6. Amends the “Summary of Zones” list at the beginning of the Zoning Ordinance by
adding the “C-L” zone.
B. Rezonings and Other Actions On Individual Properties.
This project would place the new “C-L” Zone on 48 properties at 11 sites designated for local
shopping centers. Most of the sites are already developed with such centers; a couple of the sites
are still vacant. Because the project is also concerned with consistency between the general plan
and zoning, certain other actions are necessary in advance of or concurrent with the rezonings.
For example, at the Plaza Paseo Real shopping center it is first necessary to change the general
plan designation of two of the five parcels from the current general plan designation of “R-M’
(Residential Medium) to “L” (Local Shopping Center). The project also proposes to change the
general plan designation of all 13 parcels that comprise the Poinsettia Village Shopping Center
from the combination designation “T-WL” to “L” by dropping the “T-R’ (Travel Recreation)
portion of the combination. Last, several changes are needed to the Local Coastal Program land
use map to assure consistency with the general plan designations, including adding the “L.”
General Plan designation to the LCP land use map and applying it to various properties.
All of these changes are reflected in Table 1, “Table of Affected Properties”. Each of the eleven
sites is listed with the constituent properties identified by Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN).
Each change of land use designation or zoning is shown for each parcel.
-
Site
No.
5
ZCA 00-07LCPA OO-lS/GPA 04-1 8/ZC 04-13/LCPA 04-16M 149 (T)/MP 178(C) - LOCAL
SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND REZONINGS
June 15,2005
Four of the sites are subject to either the La Costa Master Plan or the Bressi Ranch Master Plan.
In these master plans regular zoning does not pertain. Instead, each is designated with the PC
(Planned Community) zone. The PC zone requires land to be developed according to a master
plan in which tailored zoning for planning sub-areas is developed and applied. In these two
master plans the tailored zones are based upon “underlying” standard zones, but may vary in
allowed land uses and development standards. This project would substitute the “C-L” zone for
the underlying zones used in the master plans for the four sites and nine parcels indicated in
Table 1, even though there would be no change to the base “PC” zoning for these sites.
Please see the “Analysis” section of this report for site-by-site discussions of the proposed
changes.
Table 1:
Table of Affected Properties
PropertyIShopping Center Namr
Carlsbad Plaza North
Carlsbad Plaza North
Carlsbad Plaza North
Carlsbad Plaza North
Carlsbad Plaza North
Carlsbad Plaza North
Carlsbad Plaza South
Carlsbad Plaza South
Plaza Paseo Real (vons)
Plaza Paseo Real (vons)
Plaza Paseo Real (vons)
Plaza Paseo Real (Vons)
.................................
Plaza Paseo Real (vons)
La Costa Plaza (Albertsons)
La Costa Plaza (Albertsons)
La Costa Plaza (Albertsons)
La Costa Plaza (Albertsons)
La Costa Plaza (Albertsons)
La Costa Plaza (Albertsons)
La Costa Plaza (Albertsons)
La Costa Plaza (Albertsons)
Poinsettia Village (Ralphs)
Poinsettia Village (Ralphs)
Poinsettia Village (Ralphs)
Poinsettia Village (Ralphs)
Poinsettia Village (Ralphs)
Poinsettia Village (Ralphs)
Poinsettia Village (Ralphs)
Poinsettia Village (Ralphs)
APN
167-030-29
167-030-32
167-030-48
167-030-50
167-030-74
167-030-75
167-030-76
167-030-77
215-050-69
2 1 5 -05 0-70
21 5-050-72
2 15-050-75
_-__-___-___-_
2 15-050-76
216-580-01
216-580-02
21 6-580-03
2 16-580-04
2 16-580-05
21 6-580-06
21 6-580-07
216-580-08
2 14-430-14
2 14-430-1 5
2 14-430-1 6
2 14-430-1 7
214-430-1 8
214-430-19
214-430-20
2 14-430-2 1
LCP
From
TSIC
TSIC
TSIC
TSIC
TSIC
TSIC
TSIC
TSIC
Lcp To k’l Plan Fro1
L T-RL
L T-WL
L T-R/L
L T-R&
L T-RL
L T-WL
L T-WL
Gen’l Plan To
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
L
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chn
L
L
Zone From
c-2 c- 1
c-2
c-2
c-2
c-2
C-2-Ql R.
P-Q
C-2-Q
R-P-Q
R-P-Q
RDM-Q
R-P-Q/ C-
- - - - - - - - -
2-4
c-2-Q
C-1-Q
C-1-Q
C- 1 -Q
C-1-Q
C-1-Q
C-1-Q
C-1-Q
C- 1 -Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
Zone
To
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
-_-----__--
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
ZCA 00-07LCPA 00-1 S/GPA 04-1 8/ZC 04-1 3LCPA 04-1 6/MP 149 (T)/MP 178(C) - LOCAL
SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND REZONINGS
June 15,2005
Site
No.
6
7
Gen’l Plan Zone Zone Property/Shopping Center Name APN From To
Lcp Lcp Gen’l Plan From To From To
Poinsettia Village (Ralphs) 2 14-430-22 TSIC L T-WL L C-2-Q c-L
Poinsettia Village (Ralphs) 214-430-23 TSIC L T-WL L c-2-Q c-L
Poinsettia Village (Ralphs) 214-430-24 TS/C L T-WL L C-2-Q c-L
Poinsettia Village (Ralphs) 214-430-25 TSIC L T-Rk L C-2-Q c-L
Poinsettia Village (Ralphs) 214-430-26 TS/C L T-WL L c-24 c-L
Un-named center (vons) 206-050-16 N L L L c- 1 c-L
Un-named center (Vons) 206-050-17 N L L L c- 1 c-L
Un-named center (Vons) 206-050-18 N L L L c- 1 c-L
Un-named center (Vons) 206-050-20 N L L L c- 1 c-L
Sunny Creek commercial 209-090- 1 1 L no chg c-2 c-L
LCP Land Use Classifications General Plan Classifications Zoning Classifications
C = General Commercial
TS = Travel Services
N = Neighborhood Commercial
L = Local Shopping Center - = Site is not in the Coastal Zone
L = Local Shopping Center
R-M = Residential Medium Density
T-R = Travel Recreation
C-2 = General Commercial
C-1 = Neighborhood Commercial
R-P-Q = Res/ Professional
R-D-M = Res Density Medium
P-C = Planned Community .
Q (suffix) = Qualified Development Overlay
Los Coches Village (Henry’s)
(MP 149)
La Costa Town Square (MP 149)
Rancho La Costa (MP 149) (SavOn)
Rancho La Costa (MP 149) (SavOn)
Bressi Ranch (PA 15 partial)
Bressi Ranch (PA 15 partial)
Bressi Ranch (PA 15 partial)
Bressi Ranch (PA 15 partial)
Bressi Ranch (PA 15 partial)
8
9
10
11
For sites 8-1 1 the “zone change” is effected through amendments to the respective Planned Community master plans, which
plans use tailored zoning that is based upon and references underlying, standard zones. The reference to the underlying zone
is being changed within the master plans.
L no chg PC no chg
L no chg PC no chg
223-060-28 - L no chg PC no chg
223-060-29 - L no chg PC no chg
213-190- 01 L no chg PC no chg
2 13- 190- 02 L no chg PC no chg
213-190- 03 L no chg PC no chg
213-191- 01 L no chg PC no chg
213-191- 02 L no chg PC no chg
255-03 1-20
223-060-32
a rex,
IV. ANALYSIS
As with the “Project Description”, above, this section is divided into two parts, one addressing
the “C-L” zone ordinance and the other addressing the proposed land use changes for the
affected properties.
I78
ZCA 00-07LCPA 00- 1 5/GPA 04- 1 8/ZC 04- 13/LCPA 04- 16/MP 149 (T)/MP 178( C) - LOCAL
SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND REZONINGS
June 15,2005
Pane 9
A. “C-L” Zone Ordinance
The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, and standards as analyzed
within the following sections of this staff report.
1. General Plan;
2. Local Coastal Program
1. General Plan Amendment. As was stated in the background section, the proposed “C-L”
zone is a direct result of policy statements contained in the Land Use Element of the
General Plan. An extract of all relevant policy statements and definitions fiom the Land
Use Element is included in this report as Attachment 12. The following discussion
addresses key parts of these extracts and how the new C-L zone relates to them.
a. Implement “L” (local shopping center) land use designation via new zone.
Commercial Land Use Policy C. 15 calls for the creation of a new zone to implement the
General Plan’s Local Shopping Center land use designation and to create a permit for
local shopping centers with the City Council as the decision-maker.
“C.15: Amend Municipal Code Title 21 (zoning regulations) to create a
new zoning district appropriate for the Local Shopping Center land use
class. The new zone should establish allowed land uses, development
standards, together with design guidelines to assure that shopping centers
meet the objectives and policies set out herein. Create a new “planned
shopping center ’’ permit that will apply to all new shopping centers and
major remodels of existing shopping centers, with the City Council as the
decision-maker. ”
The proposed C-L zone declares in Section 21.31.010, “Purpose and intent”, that its
purpose is to implement the “L” general plan designation. Section 21.31.040 calls for a
site development plan for all new shopping centers to be approved by the City Council
and Section 21.31.050 calls for major amendments of site development plans to be
approved by the City Council. Staffs recommendation to use the existing site
development plan process, rather than create a new “planned shopping center” permit as
suggested by policy C-15, is based upon the belief that the SDP process would work just
as well as a new permit and is a permit and process already familiar to the Carlsbad
community. Therefore, there is no need to create a new type of permit.
b. Implement the purpose and intent of the “L” General Plan designation.
The Land Use Element contains extensive language (See Attachment 12) that describes
the types of shopping centers that are desired in the city and how these are distinguished
from regional, tourist, and strip commercial. In 2000 the policy framework was amended
to merge the previous “neighborhood commercial ” and “community commercial” land
use classes into a new “local shopping center” land use class. Among other things, the
change added “Table 3: Guidelines for Typical Shopping Centers” to the Land Use
ZCA 00-07/LCPA 00-l5/GPA 04-18/ZC 04-13LCPA 04-16/MP 149 (T)/-MP 178(C) -LOCAL
SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND REZONINGS
June 15,2005
Element. The table describes the typical characteristics of local shopping centers in terms
of site size, floor area, the size of the population that is served, and, particularly, the types
of primary and secondary tenants and the travel times that define the trade area of a local
shopping center. The guidelines establish that local shopping centers are required to have
major tenants, such as supermarkets and drugstores, and secondary tenants for the
purpose of providing local, daily goods and services. They may also include community-
serving tenants such as value department stores, chain apparel stores, home improvement
stores, and multiplex cinemas, but only if: the site will accommodate such uses along
with the local-serving uses; such uses complement and do not replace the neighborhood-
serving tenants; and they are fully integrated into the overall function and design of the
center, including architecture, internal circulation and landscaping.
The proposed “C-L” zone’s Section 21.3 1.010, “Purpose and intent”, contains subsection
B that speaks to the intent of the zone “. . .to provide local goods and services to meet the
daily necessities and convenience of residents of the neighborhoods.. .” and subsection E,
to “. . .Provide opportunities for local shopping centers to supplement their principal
function of providing local neighborhoods with daily goods and services through the
inclusion of community-serving uses, residential uses, general offices, medical offices,
public and semipublic facilities, and entertainment use when such other uses...can be
integrated into the form and function of the local shopping center.” In addition, Section
21.3 1.040.D, “Mandatory findings of fact”, requires the decision-maker to find that a
local shopping center:
‘r...will provide for the normal range of goods and sewices to meet the
everyday needs of the local neighborhood, in keeping with the intent and
purposes of both this zone and the local shopping center general plan
designation.. . ’’
With this language the proposed C-L zone assures that the key provisions of the General
Plan policy framework for local shopping centers will be implemented in development
permitted by the zone.
c. Define shopping center.
The commercial section of the Land Use Element contains a definition of the term,
“shopping center”, taken fi-om Urban Land Institute sources.
The C-L zone carries this definition into code via Section 21.31.020, “Definition: local
shopping center”, and requires that all development on land subject to the C-L zone be
developed as a shopping center, again re-enforcing key provisions of the General Plan
local shopping center policy framework.
In summary, the new C-L zone provides the means by which several important provisions of
the General Plan are implemented. Not only is it consistent with the General Plan, it is
needed to fulfill and implement the General Plan.
ZCA 00-07/LCPA 00- 1 5/GPA 04- 18/ZC 04- 13/LCPA 04-1 6/MP 149 (T)M 178(C) - LOCAL
SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND REZONINGS
June 15,2005
2. Local Coastal Program
The Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance for the Local Coastal Program
(LCP). The proposed LCP amendment is necessary to ensure consistency between the
LCP and the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendment will not result in any conflict
with existing provisions of the LCP
B. Application Of The C-L Zone to Individual Properties
Staff is recommending that the new “C-L” zone be applied to 11 sites located throughout the
city. All of these sites are already designated in the General Plan for local shopping centers. As
was described in the “Background” section, they comprise a carefully selected inventory of sites
that was designed several years ago to locate local shopping centers so that they would be
convenient to every neighborhood in the City. Because the “C-L” zone has been designed
specifically to be the zone to implement the “L” general plan designation, it is appropriate that it
be assigned to sites so designated.
For many of the sites in this project it is not possible to do only a simple re-zoning. As discussed
earlier in the “Project Description”, additional actions are also required to assure consistency
with other, related policy documents. For example, on one site the general plan designation is a
“combination designation” of “T-R/L” and staff is proposing that the “Travel Recreation”
portion of the designation be deleted. Hence, a general plan amendment is proposed. Three sites
are located in the Coastal Zone, so a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) is needed to
assure consistency with the zone change. In addition, the City’s LCP uses land use designations
for these sites that differ from that of the General Plan. Therefore, the LCPA includes proposals
to correct that inconsistency, including adding the “L” General Plan designation to the LCP land
use map and applying this designation to local shopping center properties.. Last, four of the sites
are located in master-planned areas where tailored zoning must be changed to reference the new
C-L zone. Therefore, staff is proposing amendments to the two master plans.
To help keep clear all of these proposals, this analysis section will look at the eleven sites one-at-
a-time and discuss the particulars of each related set of proposals. A summary of all of the
changes is contained in “Table 1 :Table of Affected Properties”. Readers are urged to refer to this
table as they read the following sections. In addition, Exhibits 1-10, attached to the resolution
for the property rezonings (Attachment 2 to this report), show the locations of the 11 sites.
Site 1 : Carlsbad Plaza North
Description: This existing retail center of 15.5 acres is located along the east side of El
Camino Real in the north end of the City, on the north side of Marron Road, opposite
Carlsbad Plaza South (See “Exhibit 1 of lo”, attached). The 172,296 square feet of space is
anchored by a Vons grocery store. It also has a Good Guys electronics specialty store as a
second major anchor tenant, plus numerous secondary tenants. The site is comprised of six
parcels, all of which have the “L” General Plan designation. Five of the parcels currently
have “C-2” (General Commercial) zoning and the sixth parcel has “C-1” (Neighborhood
Commercial) zoning. The site is not within the Coastal Zone.
ZCA 00-07/LCPA 00- 1 S/GPA 04- 1 8/ZC 04-1 3/LCPA 04-1 6/MP 149 (T)/MP 178(C) - LOCAL
SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND REZONINGS
June 15,2005
Proposal: Change the existing zoning of all five parcels to “C-L”(Loca1 Shopping Center).
Analysis: This existing local shopping center was identified in the studies of several years
ago to be included in the inventory of sites needed to provide convenient service to all areas
of the city, in this case the northeast quadrant of the city. It was therefore assigned the “L”
General Plan designation. The proposed zone change to “C-L” would assure that
development on the site would implement the General Plan designation.
Site 2: Carlsbad Plaza South
Description: This existing retail center of 11.7 acres is also located along the east side of El
Camino Real, but on the south side of Marron Road, opposite Carlsbad Plaza North (See
“Exhibit 1 of lo”, attached). It has approximately 90,000 square feet of leasable space and is
anchored by a Smart and Final specialty grocery store, with other secondary tenants that
supply a range of local goods and services. The site consists of two parcels, both of which
have the “L” General Plan designation. The main parcel of the site (APN 167-030-76) is
zoned “C-2-Q” (General Commercial - Qualified Development Overlay Zone), with a small
corner on the south end zoned “R-P-Q”, similar to adjoining properties to the south and
outside of the shopping center. The application of the “R-P-Q’ designation to this portion of
parcel 76 appears to have been an error that occurred many years ago when a map was
applied to the subject site to create the shopping center. The zoning was not changed along
with the revised lot lines. The other parcel (APN 167-030-77) is surrounded by the parcel 76
and zoned “C-2-Q’.
Proposal: Change the existing zoning of both parcels to “C-L”(Loca1 Shopping Center).
Analysis: This existing local shopping center was identified in the studies of several years
ago to be included in the inventory of sites needed to provide convenient service to all areas
of the city, in this case the Northeast quadrant of the city. It was therefore assigned the “L”
General Plan designation. The proposed zone change to “C-L” would assure that
development on the site would implement the General Plan designation.
Site 3: Plaza Paseo Real
Description: This is another existing local shopping center, on 16.8 acres located at the
northwest comer of El Camino Real and Aviara Parkway (See “Exhibit 2 of 10”). The center
consists of approximately 147,000 square feet of local-serving retail and office uses,
anchored by a Vons grocery store and an Ultrastar multiplex theater, plus the United States
Post Office for south Carlsbad and the City of Carlsbad Main Library. Although the shopping
center was constructed a year of so in advance of the post office and library, all were
approved together in 1989 under a common Site Development Plan (SDP 86-11(A)). Both
the library and post office are subject to individual Conditional Use Permits. The three
parcels that comprise the retail center have the “L” General Plan designation. However, the
post office and library both are designated “R-M” (Residential Medium). When the “L,”
designation was assigned to the shopping center in 2002, it also should have been assigned to
the post office and library. The land use map for the Local Coastal Program designates all
five of the sites as “C” (Community Commercial).
ZCA 00-07/LCPA 00-15/GPA 04-18/ZC 04-13/LCPA 04-16/I” 149 (T)/MP 178(C) -LOCAL
SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND REZONINGS
June 15,2005
The zoning of the five parcels varies. The two main parcels of the retail center (APNs 215-
050-75 and 21 5-050-76) are zoned “C-2-Q” (General Commercial - Qualified Development
Overlay). The third parcel (215-050-72) is a small remnant on the north side of the site that
resulted when Dove Lane was built to access the library. It is vacant other than for a small
detention basin that handles run-off from the north. It has combination zoning of “RDM-
Q/R-P-Q” (Residential Density Medium/Residential Professional, both with Qualified
Development Overlay), similar to vacant property to the north. The library and post office
both have “R-P-Q’ (Residential Professional - Qualified Development Overlay) zoning.
The “Q’ suffix appended to a zone requires the subject property to be developed with a site
development plan.
Proposal: Change the General Plan designation of the library and post office sites from
“RM” to “L” (See Exhibit 3 of 10).
Analysis: The library and post office function as part of the existing local shopping center
and all three facilities were approved jointly as part of, and are still subject to, the existing
site development plan. Both are the types of uses that the General Plan calls out as
acceptable in local shopping centers: (“Some local shopping centers may also include quasi-
public or public facilities, such as a city library or U.S. Post Office” [page 4 of Attachment
121). The current designation of “R-P” is more commonly used for transitional land uses
between a residential district and a general commercial district and more commonly include
medical offices or professional offices that serve the neighborhood. It is not likely that either
of these sites will convert to such uses in the foreseeable fbture. As was stated above, these
two parcels should have received the “L” designation at the time it was assigned to the other
parcels of the center.
Proposal: Change the designations on the Local Coastal Program land use map from “C”
(Community Commercial) to “L” (Local Shopping Center).
Analysis: Generally, the Local Coastal Program (LCP) contains few commercial land use
policies, and most that exist focus on protecting tourist-serving designations along the 1-5
corridor. Further, the LCP is not well-synchronized with the land use designations of the
General Plan. Commercial land uses shown on the LCP’s land use map differ from the
General Plan: some uses that were formerly (but no longer) part of the General Plan have
been retained on the LCP map (Le.: “C - Community Commercial”, “N - Neighborhood
Commercial”, “RRE”- Extensive Regional Retail”, and “TS - Travel Services Commercial”);
some uses are common to both maps (Le.: “V - Village Commercial”, “T-R - Travel/
Recreation Commercial”, and “R - Regional Commercial”; and some designations now in
use by the general plan are missing from the LCP map, including the “L” General Plan
designation. As was set out in the “Background” section, the “L” designation was established
in the General Plan to replace the “C” and “N” designations, which were then deleted. One of
the objectives of this project is to add the “L” designation to the LCP land use map and apply
it to appropriate properties, so as to increase consistency between the LCP and General Plan.
The Plaza Paseo Real shopping center is subject to the Mello II Segment of the LCP. The
text, however, contains no discussion specific to the subject property on any topic, let alone
ZCA 00-07/LCPA 00-1 5/GPA 04- 18/ZC 04- 13/LCPA 04- 16/MP 149 (T)/MP 178(C) - LOCAL
SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND REZONINGS
June 15,2005
with regard to commercial uses. The LCP land use map shows the site designated for “C”
(Community Commercial) uses. In keeping with the objective set out in the previous
paragraph, the designation should be changed to “L”.
Proposal: Change the zoning on all five properties to “C-L”.
Analysis: This existing local shopping center was identified in the studies of several years
ago to be included in the inventory of sites needed to provide convenient service to all areas
of the city, in this case the southerly part. It was therefore assigned the “L” General Plan
designation. The proposed zone change to “C-L” would assure that development on the site
would implement the General Plan designation.
Site 4: La Costa Plaza
Description: This recently-built center of 11.8 acres is located on El Camino Real at the
northeast comer of its intersection with La Costa Avenue (See Exhibit 4 of 10). It has
approximately 86,000 square feet of space and is anchored by an Albertsons market, with
other local-serving uses. The site consists of eight parcels, all of which have both the “L”
General Plan designation and “C-1-Q” (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning. The site is not
located within the Coastal Zone.
Proposal: Change the existing zoning of all eight parcels to “C-L”(Loca1 Shopping Center).
Analysis: This existing local shopping center was identified in the studies of several years
ago to be included in the inventory of sites needed to provide convenient service to all areas
of the city, in this case the southeast quadrant of the city. It was therefore assigned the “L”
General Plan designation. The proposed zone change to “C-L” would assure that
development on the site would implement the General Plan designation.
Site 5: Poinsettia Village
Description: This center of 19.9 acres is located at the southeast comer of Poinsettia Lane
and Avenida Encinas, at the 1-5 freeway (see “Exhibit 5 of 10”). It is developed with
approximately 183,100 square feet of local serving commercial, anchored by a Ralphs
grocery store. The site is comprised of 13 parcels, all of which have both the “T-RL” (Travel
Recreation/ Local Shopping Center) combination General Plan designation and “C-2-Qy
zoning. The site is located within the Coastal Zone, with a land use map designation of
“TS/C” (Travel Services CommerciaVCommunity Commercial).
Proposal: Change the General Plan designation from “T-R/L” (Travel RecreatiodLocal
Shopping Center) to ”L”(Loca1 Shopping Center).
Analysis: This existing local shopping center was identified in the studies of several years
ago to be included in the inventory of sites needed to provide convenient local shopping
service to all areas of the city, in this case the southwest quadrant of the city. The previous
designation was “T-WC” (Travel RecreationKommunity Commercial). When the “C”
designation was changed to “L” in 2001, staff decided not to address the combination 18 f
ZCA OO-O7/LCPA OO-lS/GPA 04-18/ZC 04-13/LCPA 04-16/MP 149 (T)/MP 178(C) - LOCAL
SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND REZONINGS
June 15,2005
designation (with the “T-R’ designation) at that time. The current proposal is to drop the “T-
R’y eliminating the combination designation. Staff believes that the Travel-Recreation
designation is no longer warranted at this site, given the lack of such facilities (particularly
hotels/motels) on the site and the observation that “T-R”-related uses have developed north
of the site at other locations along Avenida Encinas in sufficient quantities to meet the
current and anticipated future demand. With the application of a “pure” “L” designation (and
the accompanying “C-L” zone - see below), local neighborhoods can be assured that this site
will continue to meet their needs for local goods and services and that it will not, over time,
evolve into a hotelhimeshare complex or a collection of either tourist-serving or general
commercial uses that would not provide those services.
Proposal: Change the Local Coastal Program land use map designation fiom ‘“TS/C” (Travel
Services/Community Commercial) to “L”.
Analysis: The site is subject to the Mello I segment of the LCP and is discussed in the section
dealing with the “Occidental Land, Inc”. The LCP says:
“The Occidental Land parcels are hereby designated as follows:
(3) The area located west of Interstate 5 and south of Poinsettia Lane
neighborhood commercial
...
shall be designated for visitor-sewing
development ... ’’ [Emphasis added]
As has been discussed earlier, the commercial policy framework that was created in the
General Plan several years ago led to the elimination of the standard “neighborhood”
commercial designation, and, in its place, the creation of the “L” local shopping center
designation. It’s an interesting historical artifact that the LCP map uses the “TS/C” (Travel
Services/Community Commercial) designations, neither of which exists any longer in the
General Plan, and the LCP text references neighborhood commercial. The General Plan
calls for replacing the “C” designation with the “L” designation. Because the LCP also says
that the site should be designated for visitor serving OR neighborhood commercial, it is not
necessary that a combination designation be retained. As was set out in the discussion on
the proposed General Plan changes, there are adequate visitor-serving uses in the area. This
fact and the fact that the current tenant mix of the center isn’t predominantly a visitor-
serving mix suggests that eliminating the “TS” portion of the LCP designation is warranted.
Proposal: Change the zoning of all parcels fiom “C-2-Q’ to “C-L”.
Analysis: The “C-L” zone is designed to be the implementing zone for the “L” General Plan
designation. If the General Plan and LCP designations are changed to “Cy, the “C-L” zone
should be applied so as to assure that these designations would be implemented in
development on the site.
Site 6: Un-named center (Vons)
Description: This small, existing shopping center has no special name, although it has
existed at this site for many years. It consists of 4.8 acres of land located at the southwest
ZCA 00-07LCPA 00-l5/GPA 04-18/ZC 04-13/LCPA 04-16/Mp 149 (T)/MP 178(C) - LOCAL
SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND REZONINGS
June 15,2005
corner of Tamarack Avenue and Adams, just east of 1-5 (see “Exhibit 6 or IO,’). It is
developed with approximately 50,700 square feet of retail services, anchored by a Vons
market and a Rite-Aide drug store. The site consists of four parcels, each of which has the
“L” General Plan designation and the “C-1” zone. This older site is the only site discussed
within this staff report that is not already subject to an existing Site Development Plan. The
site is within the boundaries of the Mello I1 segment of the Local Coastal Program and is
designated “N“ (Neighborhood Commercial) by the LCP land use map.
Proposal: Change the LCP land use designation from “N“ to “L”.
Analysis: As with the two other sites located in the Coastal Zone, discussed above, this
site’s LCP designation is no longer in use in the General Plan. This site is also one of the
sites that was included in the 2001 inventory of local shopping centers and assigned the “L”
General Plan designation. Changing the LCP map designation would bring that map into
conformance with the General Plan.
This site was developed prior to the preparation of the Local Coastal Program.
Consequently, the Mello II segment of the LCP does not address this site with any policy
statements.
Proposal: Change the zoning of the site from “C- 1” to “C-L”.
Analysis: This existing local shopping center was identified in the studies of several years
ago to be included in the inventory of sites needed to provide convenient service to all areas
of the city, in this case the northeast part. It was therefore assigned the “L” General Plan
designation. The proposed zone change to “C-L” would assure that development on the site
would implement the General Plan designation.
Site 7: Sunny Creek Commercial
Description: This 18.6-acre7 vacant site is located on the east side of El Camino Real at its
intersection with College Boulevard. The site consists of a single parcel of land with the “L”
General Plan designation and “C-2” (General Commercial) zoning. The site has been the
subject of several proposals for development in recent years, but none have progressed to the
level of a city approval. The 2002 study that led to the “L” General Plan assignment
concluded that either this site OR another site on the Robertson Ranch would be necessary
for this area of the city to be served adequately with local shopping centers. Since both sites
were (and remain) vacant and neither site had an approved plan for a local shopping center,
both sites were included in the inventory. The study concluded that when one or the other of
the sites was developed with a local shopping center, the remaining site could be re-evaluated
for a1 t ernative desi gnations .
[The “P-C”-zoned Robertson Ranch area is currently in review for a new master plan.
Although a portion of the site has been designated for a Local Shopping Center, the
assignment of the “C-L” zone is not part of the subject proposals. Instead, zoning for the
area will be handled as part of the upcoming master plan approval process.]
ZCA 00-07LCPA OO-lS/GPA 04-18/ZC 04-13/LCPA 04-16/MP 149 (T)/MP 178(C) -LOCAL
SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND REZONINGS
June 15,2005
Pane 17
Proposal: Change the zoning fiom “C-2” to “C-L”.
Analysis: As with the other sites in this report the change in zoning is necessary to implement
the “L” (Local Shopping Center) General Plan designation.
Site 8: Los Coches Village
Description: The Los Coches Village’s 7.6-acre site is located at the southeast comer of the
intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Camino De Los Coches (see “Exhibit 8 of 10”). It
consists of a single parcel that is currently in construction with a small, local shopping center
that will have a Henry’s Market and a Petco pet supply store as the anchors. The site will
have approximately 80,000 square feet of retail commercial. The site is designated “L” by the
General Plan. This site (and the three sites to be discussed, below) is one of the sites that
have “P-C” zoning and are located within a Master plan. As was discussed in the Background
section, Master Plans have tailored zoning based upon standard zones. In this case the Los
Coches Village site is subject to the La Costa Master Plan, which references the site as SE 17
and uses the “C-1” (Neighborhood Commercial) zone as the underlying base zone. The site is
not within the Coastal Zone.
Proposal: Amend the La Costa Master Plan by changing the underlying “C-1” zone to “C-L”
and make text changes consistent with the Site Development Plan requirements of the “C-L,”
zone. Please see Attachment 10 for a strikeouthold version of these proposed changes.
Analysis: This site was identified in the studies of several years ago to be included in the
inventory of sites needed to provide convenient local shopping service to all areas of the city,
in this case the southeast quadrant of the city. It was therefore assigned the “L” General Plan
designation. The proposed zone change to “C-L” would assure that development on the site
would implement the General Plan designation. The minor changes to the text of the La
Costa Master Plan would assure that the ”C-L” zone’s Site Development Plan requirement
would operate within the master plan context.
Site 9: La Costa Town Sauare
Description: This large, vacant site is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of La
Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road (see “Exhibit 9 of lo”), across the street fiom site
10, the existing Rancho La Costa shopping center. The site is part of an area that is currently
in planning for a mixed-use development that would include separate commercial and
residential elements. The shopping center element would be on approximately 40 acres and
would make use of the opportunity of the “C-L” zone to include other types of commercial
uses that complement the uses typically found in a local shopping center. While not yet
approved by the city, the concept under review would include a major department store, a
multiplex theater, a grocery store/dmg store, medical and other offices, and secondary retail
tenants. The proposal calls for approximately 385,000 square feet of retail development on
this large site. The portion of the site proposed for the shopping center has “L” (Local
Shopping Center) General Plan designation and PC zoning. The site is within the
“Community Core” (SE 13, SE 14, and SE 15) component of the La Costa Master Plan,
ZCA 00-07LCPA 00-15/GPA 04-181ZC 04-13ILCPA 04-16/MP 149 (T)/MP 178(C) - LOCAL
SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND REZONINGS
June 15,2005
Pane 18
which references the “C-2” (General Commercial) zone. The site is not within the Coastal
Zone.
Proposal: Amend the La Costa Master Plan by changing the underlying “C-2” zone to “C-L”
and make text changes consistent with the Site Development Plan requirements of the “C-L”
zone. Please see Attachment 10 for a strikeouthold version of these proposed changes.
Analysis: This site was also identified in the studies of several years ago to be included in the
inventory of sites needed to provide convenient local shopping service to all areas of the city,
in this case the southeast quadrant of the city. It was therefore assigned the “L” General Plan
designation. The proposed zone change to “C-L” would assure that development on the site
would implement the General Plan designation. The minor changes to the text of the La
Costa Master Plan would assure that the ”C-L” zone’s Site Development Plan requirement
would operate within the master plan context.
Site 10: Rancho La Costa
Description: This small, existing shopping center is located at the southeast comer of the
intersection of La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road (see “Exhibit 9 of lo”), across
the street fiom site 9, the vacant site of the proposed La Costa Town Square shopping center.
The site consists of two parcels comprising 5.0 acres. The site is developed with a SavOn
drug store as the major tenant, with other, secondary tenants for a total development of
approximately 27,000 square feet. Both parcels have the “L” General Plan designation and
PC zoning. As with site 9, this site is within the “Community Core” (SE 13, SE 14, and SE
15) component of the La Costa Master Plan, which references the “C-2” (General
Commercial) zone. The site is not within the Coastal Zone.
Proposal: Amend the La Costa Master Plan by changing the underlying “C-2” zone to “C-L”
and make text changes consistent with the Site Development Plan requirements of the “C-L”
zone. Please see Attachment 10 for a strikeouthold version of these proposed changes.
Analysis: This site was also identified in the studies of several years ago to be included in the
inventory of sites needed to provide convenient local shopping service to all areas of the city,
in this case the southeast quadrant of the city. It was therefore assigned the “L” General Plan
designation. The proposed zone change to “C-L” would assure that development/
redevelopment on the site would implement the General Plan designation. The minor
changes to the text of the La Costa Master Plan would assure that the ”C-L” zone’s Site
Development Plan requirement would operate within the master plan context.
Site 1 1 : Bressi Ranch Commercial
Description: This vacant site is located west of Fuerte Street and south of Gateway Road
within the currently developing Bressi Ranch Master Plan development, within Planning
Area 15 (see “Exhibit 10 of 10”). The Master Plan designates PA 15 as a mixed-use area
village center. The plan calls for a portion of the area to include a local shopping area to
serve the new neighborhoods that are now in construction around PA 15. The site was
included in the inventory of sites identified in 2002 as needed for local shopping centers, and 188
ZCA 00-07/LCPA 00-1 5/GPA 04-1 8/ZC 04-13/LCPA 04-16/MP 149 (T)/MP 178(C) - LOCAL
SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND REZONINGS
June 15,2005
Pane 19
was assigned the “L” General Plan designation. Because at that time Bressi Ranch had not
been subdivided, the designation was not parcel-specific and was a generalized, floating
designation in the approximate area of what became PA. 15. Because the master plan calls
for PA 15 to be a mixed-use area, the reference in the plan to underlying zoning is a
combination designation of “C-2RD-M/C-F” (General CommerciaVResidential Density
Medium/Community Facilities). The site is not within the Coastal Zone.
Proposal: Amend the Bressi Ranch Master Plan by changing the underlying “C-2” zone
reference to “C-L” and make text, graphics, and chart changes consistent with the Site
Development Plan requirements of the “C-L” zone. Please see Attachment 11 for a
strikeouthold version of these proposed changes.
Analysis: This site was also identified in the studies of several years ago to be included in the
inventory of sites needed to provide convenient local shopping service to all areas of the city,
in this case the southeast quadrant of the city. It was therefore assigned the “L” General Plan
designation. The proposed zone change to “C-L” would assure that development/
redevelopment on the site would implement the General Plan designation. The minor
changes to the text, graphs, and charts of the Bressi Ranch Master Plan would assure that the
”C-L” zone’s Site Development Plan requirement would operate within the master plan
context.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed ordinance and site-specific general plan, zoning, Local Coastal Program, and
master plan changes were reviewed for potentially adverse environmental impacts in accordance
with the requirements of the California Environmental Act (CEQA). The initial study (EIA Part
11) prepared for this project did not identify any potentially significant impacts to the
environment. Therefore, a Notice of Intent to Issue a Negative Declaration was posted on
March 14, 2005 for a 30-day public review period. No comments were received during this
review period.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9
10.
11.
12.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 591 6 (Negative Declaration)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5917 (ZCA 00-07)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 591 8 (LCPA 00-1 5)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5919 (GPA 04-1 8)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5920 (ZC 04-13)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5921 (LCPA 04-16
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5922 (MP 149(T))
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5923 (MP 178(C))
Strikeout and boldface version of proposed ordinance ZCA 00-07)
Strikeout and boldface version of proposed amendment to La Costa Master Plan
Strikeout and boldface version of proposed amendment to Bressi Ranch Master Plan
Extract from Land Use Element of General Plan Regarding Local Shopping Centers
Attachment 12
Extract from the Land Use Element
Of the General Plan Regarding Local
Shopping Centers
Land Use Element of the General Plan
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND USE PLAN
C. LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS
3. COMMERCIAL
Commercial development within Carlsbad can
be defined by five principal categories: local
shopping center, regional commercial, travel/
recreation, Village, and office and related
commercial.
In general, retail development in Carlsbad
should occur in discrete shopping centers, as
opposed to more generalized retail districts or
linear strip commercial patterns along streets.
This general plan uses the following definition
of a shopping center:
Definition - “Shopping Center“ after Urban
Land Institute, 1947, as amended):
... a group of architecturally unified com-
mercial establishments, numbering at least three, built on a site that is planned,
developed, owned, and managed as an
operating unit related to its location, size,
and type of shops to the trade area that it
serves. The unit provides on-site parking
in definite relationship to the types and
total size of the stores ...
An exception to the general rule that retail
development should occur in discrete shopping
centers is the Village area of the City. As is
described in more detail below, this area
reflects the “downtown” heart of old Carlsbad,
much of which is today contained within a
formal redevelopment district. Retail
development within the Village should continue
the historical pattern of individual
establishments within a commercial district.
In prior versions of this General Plan, the City
recognized two types of local shopping centers:
neighborhood and community. In 2001,
however, these two categories were merged
into a single category called “local shopping
center.” The typical characteristics of local and
regional shopping centers are shown in the
following Table 3: Guidelines for Typical
Shopping Centers. Both types are described in
more detail in the following sections. Tenant
composition and the type of anchor tenant are
the main identifiers of a shopping center type.
An anchor tenant may be an individual tenant
or a group of like uses that function as an
anchor tenant. For example, a combination of
gourmet food shop, delicatessen meat market,
and green grocery might function in lieu of a
supermarket. A food service cluster, several
restaurants, and a cinema complex may
function as other anchor tenants. Tenant
composition and the characteristics of the leading tenants define a commercial center
type. Although building area, site size, trade area size, etc. are influential, they are not the
primary factors in determining a center type.
‘Yl City which provides for the
development of compatible,
conveniently located commercia/
Notwithstanding the last statement, the concept
of a shopping center’s trade area is important
for other reasons such as the economic viability
of the center, the amount of competition it will
experience, and, consequently, determining the optimal spatial distribution of shopping centers
within a community. The trade area is the
geographic area that provides the majority of
steady customers necessary to support a
shopping center. The boundaries of a trade
area are determined by a number of variables, including the type of center, the size of the
Page 2
anchor tenant, the site’s accessibility,
geographic barriers, the location of competing
facilities and, very importantly, driving time and
distance (See Table 3: Guidelines for Typical
Shopping Centers). Consequently, trade areas
can vary widely in shape, size, and
configuration. In general, the closer potential
customers are to a site the more likely they are
to patronize it. The number of persons residing
within the trade area (and their related
:enter
Possible Option, Depending on
Site and Special Approvals
Local, plus goods and services
provided by community-serving
tenants
Community-serving tenants, such
as value department store, chain
apparel store, volume specialty
store, home improvement center,
multiplex cinema
Apparel, specialty retail,
restaurant, specialty automotive,
sporting goods
To 30
Up to 400,000 (sq. ft.)
10 - 20 minutes
3 - 5 miles
purchasing power) must be of a sufficient size
for the center to be economically viable. When
the trade areas of centers overlap then
competition may exist between the centers and
the purchasing power of the residents will be
shared between the centers. The desired
number and location of shopping centers,
especially local shopping centers, depends
upon a number of factors (detailed later) that
Regional Shopping
center
Regional
Full-line department stores (2 or
more), factory outlet center,
“power center” of several high-
volume specialty stores.
Full range of specialty retail,
restaurants, entertainment
30- 100
300,000 to 1.5 million (sq. ft.)
20 - 30 minutes
8 - 12 miles
Site Size (acres)
Gross Lease Area
Primary Trade Area
Drive Time, at Buildout
Primary Trade Area
Radius
Primary Trade Area Population
Typical
Shopping Center
Trade Area Focus
8-20
60,000 - 150,000 (~q. ft.)
5 - 10 minutes
1.5 miles
10,000 - 40,000 people
I
40,000 - 150,000 people
Anchor Tenants
(examples)
Secondary Tenants
(examples)
150,000+ people
Required of All Local
Shopping Centers
Local daily goods and I services
Supermarket, drug store
Restaurant, bank, real
estate, personal grooming,
small retail, fast food, gas
station, cleaners, video
rental
relate to “fitting” together the trade areas of
potential sites and making policy decisions
about the amount of gaps and overlaps that
should exist between the trade areas.
a. Local Shopping Center (L): The local
shopping center designation allows
shopping centers that include elements of
the traditional neighborhood center and,
under some circumstances, elements of the traditional community shopping center.
Each local shopping center must contain
the anchor tenants and secondary tenants
that service the daily needs and
convenience of local neighborhoods. These
tenants include retail businesses, small
offices, and a variety of services. The most
common anchor tenant is a supermarket,
although a large drugstore or combination
of supermarket and drugstore may also serve. Secondary tenants can include small
offices (for banks, insurance, real estate
and other services); personal grooming
Page 3
providers (like beauty parlors, barbershops,
and nail salons), laundromats, cleaners,
small retail stores, sit-down and fast food
restaurants, and gas stations, among
others. Typical characteristics of sites for
these centers are given in Table 3:
Guidelines for Shopping Centers.
While all sites with the designation Local
Shopping Center must provide
neighborhood goods and services, they
may be authorized also to have anchor
tenants that are more traditionally
described as community-serving in nature.
These community commercial tenants
typically offer either a larger range of goods
and services and/or a higher degree of
specialization of goods and services. Often
the floor area is greater than is that of
stores that offer neighborhood goods and services and their trade area is larger in
size and includes a larger population.
These tenants may include value
department stores (Le., Target, K-mart),
warehouse/club stores (Le., Home Depot,
Costco), chain apparel stores (i.e., Ross,
Marshall's), a variety of large-volume
specialty-goods stores (Le., Staples, Comp
USA, Good Guys) and multiplex cinemas.
When these types of anchor tenants are
included in the shopping center, additional
types of secondary tenants may also be
included, such as restaurants and specialty
retail goods. Some local shopping centers
may also include quasi-public or public
facilities, such as a city library or U.S. Post
Office.
Local shopping center uses are generally
located within a convenient walking and/or
bicycling distance from intended customers
and should be linked with surrounding
neighborhoods by pedestrian and/or bicycle
access. Landscaped buffers should be
provided around the project site between
neighborhood commercial uses and other
uses to ensure compatibility. All buildings
should be low-rise and should include
architecturaVdesign features to be compat-
ible with the neighborhood. Permitted uses
and building intensities should be
compatible with surrounding land uses.
b. Regional Commercial (R): Regional
commercial centers provide shopping
goods, general merchandise, automobile
sales, apparel, furniture, and home
furnishing in full depth and variety. Two or
more department stores are typically the
major anchors of a regional shopping
center, while other stores supplement and
complement the various department store
lines. New forms of regional centers may
include such developments as outlet
centers with an aggregation of factory
outlet stores where there are no specific
anchor tenants although such centers are
regional and enjoy a strong tourist trade.
' Regional centers draw customers from
outside the City and generate interregional
traffic. For this reason, such centers are
customarily located on a site that is easily
visible as well as accessible from
interchange points between highways and
freeways. Local shopping centers may be
adjunct to regional centers to also serve the
daily convenience needs of customers
utilizing the larger shopping center. A group
of convenience stores, service facilities, business and professional offices are also
often associated with a regional center.
Some of these may be incorporated in the
center itself, or.arranged at the periphery in
the immediate area.
c. TraveVRecreation Commercial (TR):
This category addresses commercial uses
that provide for visitor attractions and
commercial uses that serve the travel and
recreational needs of tourists, residents, as
well as employees of business and
industrial centers. Often such sites are located near major transportation corridors
or recreational and resort areas such as
spas, hotels, beaches or lagoons. Typically
these areas are developed along major
roadways and are accessible to
interregional traffic. Tourist-oriented uses
such as motels and hotels should be
coordinated with compatible accessory uses, should protect the surrounding
properties, should ensure safe traffic
circulation and should promote economically viable tourist-oriented areas of the City.
d. Village 0: The Village addresses land uses located in the heart of "old" Carlsbad
Page 4
in the area commonly referred to as the
"downtown." Permitted land uses may
include retail stores, offices, financial
institutions, restaurants and tourist-serving
facilities. Residential uses can be
intermixed throughout the area. The
Village is designated as a redevelopment
area and is regulated by the Carlsbad
Village Area Redevelopment Plan and the
Village Design Guidelines Manual.
e. Office and Related Commercial (0): This
classification designates areas that are
compatible with and environmentally suited
for office and professional uses, as well as
related commercial uses. This designation
is especially appropriate for medical office
use. Office and related commercial land
use can be used as buffers between retail
commercial areas and residential uses.
111. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND IMPLEMENTING
POLICIES & ACTION PROGRAMS
Commercial
A. GOALS
A. 1
A.2
A.3
A.4
A City that achieves a healthy and
diverse economic base by creating a
climate for economic growth and stability
to attract quality commercial
development to serve the employment,
shopping, recreation, and service needs
of Carlsbad residents.
A City that provides for the development
of compatible, conveniently-located local
shopping centers.
A City that promotes economic develop-
ment strategies, for commercial,
industrial, office and tourist-oriented land
uses.
A City that promotes recreational and
tourist-oriented land uses which serve
visitors, employees of the industrial and
business centers, as well as residents of
the city.
B. OBJECTIVES
B.l To limit the amount of new commercial
land use designations to that which
provides for basic commercial service to
all areas of the City without creating
undue overlaps in trade areas, consistent
with the prime concept and image of the
B.2
8.3
community as a desirable residential,
open space community.
To ensure that all residential areas are
adequately served by commercial areas
in terms of daily shopping needs which
include convenience goods, food, and
personal services. "Adequately served"
means no residential area is outside the
primary trade area of the nearest local shopping center.
To establish and maintain commercial
development standards to address
landscaping, parking, signs, and site and
building design, to ensure that all existing
and future commercial developments are
compatible with surrounding land uses.
C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND
ACTION PROGRAMS
C.1 Applications for the re-designation of land
to shopping center uses shall be
accompanied by a conceptual develop-
ment plan of the site and a market study
that demonstrates the economic viability
of using the land in the way being
requested. Such studies shall give due consideration to existing and future sites
that may compete within shared trade
areas.
Page 5 l?4
c.2 Utilize the following guidelines to
determine the appropriate spatial
distribution of new sites for local
shopping centers and to assign
associated zoning. In some instances it
may not be possible to implement all of
these guidelines fully and some degree
of flexibility in their application may be
required.
1. New master plans and residential
specific plans and other large
development proposals shall
evaluate whether there is a need to
include a local shopping center within
the development, consistent with
these guidelines.
2. Locate local shopping centers so
that, wherever possible, they are
centrally located within their primary
trade areas.
3. As a convention, the primary trade
areas of existing and proposed local
shopping centers may be defined in terms of the time patrons typically
experience traveling to the center.
The range of travel times for local
shopping centers is given in Table 3:
Guidelines for Typical Shopping
Centers. Any city-wide analysis used
to establish the spatial distribution of
centers should consider a typical
travel time, the current or built-out
condition of the City and whether the
travel being modeled occurs ”on
peak” or “off peak” travel hours,
together with other factors that may
be appropriate.
4. Citywide, trade areas of centers
should abut one another as much as
is possible, so as to result in minimal
gaps and overlaps. This assures that
all areas of the City will have
“coverage” by a center, while reducing the propensity for over-
commercializa-tion (See Goal B.l)
5. Generally, local shopping centers
should not be located directly within
the residential neighborhoods they
serve, but, rather, on the peripheries
of the neighborhoods, along or near
major streets or future extensions of
major streets.
6. New sites for local shopping centers
should not be located along El
Camino Real, so as to minimize the
commercialization of this scenic
road-way .
7. The population within the trade area
at buildout should be of a size that
the center would be economically
viable, considering other existing and
future centers.
8. Consider intersection spacing and
other circulation criteria to assure
safe, and functional access to the
center. Good locations will be readily
accessed from principal travel routes
and have several entrances. (Sites
located along primary arterials may
have difficulty meeting this guideline.)
C.3 Build, and operate local shopping centers
in such a way as to complement but not
conflict with adjoining residential areas.
This shall be accomplished by:
1. Controlling lights, signage, and hours
of operation to avoid adversely im-
pacting surrounding uses.
2. Requiring adequate landscaped buffers between commercial and
residential uses.
3. Providing bicycle and pedestrian
links between proposed local
commercial centers and surrounding
residential uses.
C.4 Comprehensively design all commercial
centers to address common ingress and
egress, adequate off-street parking and
loading facilities. Each center should be
easily accessible by pedestrians, bicy-
clists, and automobiles to nearby
residential development.
C.5 Ensure that commercial architecture
emphasizes establishing community
identity while presenting tasteful,
Page 6 195
dignified and visually appealing designs
compatible with their surroundings.
C.6 When "community" tenants (see Table 3,
earlier) are included in a local shopping
center, they must be fully integrated into
the overall function and design of the
center, including the architecture, internal
circulation and landscaping. The
inclusion of such tenants should
complement, not supplant the principal
function of the center, which is to provide
local goods and services.
c.7
C .8
c.9
1. No community "anchor" tenant may be
built as a stand-alone building. It must
share (or appear to share) walls and its
building facade with other tenants in
the center.
2. Neither community "anchor" tenants
nor secondary tenants may feature
corporate architecture or logos
(excluding signs).
Ensure that all commercial development
provides a variety of courtyards and
pedestrian ways, bicycle trails,
landscaped parking lots, and the use of
harmonious architecture in the
construction of buildings.
Permit the phasing of commercial
projects to allow initial development and
expansion in response to demographic
and economic changes. Site designs
should illustrate the ultimate development
of the property and/or demonstrate their
ability to coordinate and integrate with
surrounding development.
Outdoor storage of goods and products
in shopping centers is not allowed.
Temporary exceptions may be allowed
for display and sale of traditional,
seasonal items such as Christmas trees,
pumpkins, and similar merchandise. In
these exceptions, both adequate parking
and safe internal circulation (vehicle,
pedestrian, and bicycle) is to be
maintained.
C.10 Encourage commercial recreation or
tourist destination facilities, as long as
they protect the residential character of
the community and the opportunity of
local residents to enjoy (in a safe,
attractive and convenient manner) the
continued use of the beach, local
transportation, and parking facilities.
C. 1 1 Orient travelhecreation commercial areas
along the 1-5 corridor, in the Village, or
near resorVrecreation areas.
C.12 Revise Section 21.29.030 of the Zoning
Ordinance (Commercial Tourist Zone,
Permitted Uses and Structures) to more
accurately reflect the intent of the
TraveVRecreation Commercial general
plan designation to serve the traveling
public, visitors to the city, as well as
employees of business and industrial
centers.
C.13 Review parking requirements for com-
mercial areas on a periodic basis to
ensure adequate parking and to address
identified parking problems.
C.14 Strip commercial development (defined
as retail development outside of a
shopping center) shall be discouraged in
all areas of the City other than the Village.
C.15 Amend Municipal Code Title 21 (zoning
regulations) to create a new zoning
district appropriate for the Local
Shopping Center land use class. The
new zone should establish allowed land
uses, development standards, together
with design guidelines to assure that
shopping centers meet the objectives
and policies set out herein. Create a new
"planned shopping center" permit that will apply to all new shopping centers and
major remodels of existing shopping
centers, with the City Council as the decision-maker.
Page 7
Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 15,2005 Page 3 EXHIBIT 11
2. ZCA 00-07/LCPA 00-1 SlGPA 04-1 8/ZC 04-1 3/LCPA 04-1 6/M P 149 (T)/MP 178(C) -
LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND REZONINGS - Request for: a
recommendation to adopt a Negative Declaration; a recommendation of approval for a
Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendment to add Chapter
21.31 to the Municipal Code, creating the “C-L” (Local Shopping Center) zone; a
recommendation for approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use
designation on 19 properties on three sites to the “L”(Loca1 Shopping Center)
designation; a recommendation for approval of a zone change on 39 properties at seven
sites to apply the new “C-L” zone; a recommendation for approval of an amendment to
the Local Coastal Program to add the “L” designation to the LCP land use map, to
change the designation on said map on 22 properties on three sites to the “L” local
shopping center designation, and to apply the “C-L” zone to the same properties; and
recommendations for approval to amend text and exhibits of the La Costa Master Plan
and Bressi Ranch Master Plan to reference the new “C-L” zone as the underlying zone
for four sites within these master plans.
Mr. Barberio introduced Item 2 and stated Principal Planner Dennis Turner would make the Staff
presentation.
Chairperson Segall opened the Public Hearing on Item 2.
Mr. Turner stated the project creates a new zone in the City that will be applied to number of properties.
He stated that all the actions being presented are recommendations that will be presented to the City
Council in the future. He reviewed the entire topic to be discussed during the hearing and that he would
break the extensive presentation into two portions to allow time for questions. He reviewed the General
Plan policy framework approved by the City Council a couple of years ago and the inventory of land set aside for existing and future shopping centers to be consistent with a 5-minute commute time standard.
He read two paragraphs from the Commercial Policy Section of the Land Use Element and pointed out
that it would be relevant to comments heard during Public Testimony. He stated the importance of the
new zone for new shopping centers and for the redevelopment of existing centers. He stated that it
codifies a General Plan definition and clarifies how centers should operate. He mentioned that there
would be public comments with proposals to change the definition. He discussed the percentage of
redevelopment that would determine the approving body, which would be the Planning Director
(exceptions up to lo%), Planning Commission (up to 49%) or the City Council (50% or more). He stated
there have been simplifications to Table “A” in using only broad categories of uses in lieu of listing
examples. Mr. Turner concluded this portion of his presentation and stated he would be available to
answer any questions.
Chairperson Segall asked if there were any of Staff.
Commissioner Whitton asked for clarification of the percentage of redevelopment and the approving
bodies as to what happens for ones that are 10% to 50%. Mr. Turner answered that the Planning
Commission would make those decisions.
Commissioner Montgomery asked what ability the Planning Commission has during the current meeting
to recommend revisions to Table “A” Uses Permitted in the C-L Zone. Mr. Turner stated the table of uses
could be discussed and there had been a request from San Diego Gas & Electric to address a note
regarding one of the uses. Commissioner Montgomery clarified his question as pertaining to line item
number eight in regards to allowing a “Drug Paraphernalia Store,” and asked it could be stricken from the
table or disallowed. Mr. Turner stated the use is currently allowed in most non-residential zone. It is one
of the numerous uses set out in the existing CUP regulations (Ch 21.42) that are not listed in the
individual zones. He stated that Staff included all such uses to make the table a complete listing. Mr.
Montgomery asked if there were more uses in Ch 21.42 not presented this evening. Mr. Turner stated
the table presented includes all the ones listed in the zone code for this zone. Mr. Turner stated staff had
concerns for uses considered locally unwanted in regards to preclusion or inclusion. He stated that if it is
not included in any zone, it effectively precludes the uses from the entire City and may create future
problems if law allows them. Commissioner Montgomery acknowledged that he understood the
Planning Commission Minutes June 15,2005 Page 4
reasoning, but questioned why it was necessary to list a “Drug Paraphernalia Store” if other uses such as
a tattoo parlor or adult bookstore were not included, and suggested that it be stricken from the table. Mr.
Turner stated Staff would be happy to accommodate the Commission’s recommendation.
Chairperson Segall asked Assistant City Attorney Jane Mobaldi to comment on precluding the use.
Ms. Mobaldi stated she did not see a legal problem with striking the use from the table. She explained
that legal issues arise when you have First Amendment activity, and she does not believe there is any
associated with the “Drug Paraphernalia Store.”
Mr. Turner stated that if the use was stricken from the table in this zone, Ch 21.42 would still allow the
use in some other zones, but the Planning Commission would have the opportunity to address the issue
again when the full CUP Zone Code update package is presented in the future.
Commissioner Whitton concurred with fellow Commissioner Montgomery and would like to have the use
stricken from the table.
Chairperson Segall asked how would you add a use that is wanted, but is not listed in permitted uses.
Mr. Turner stated that the Planning Director could determine if an unlisted use is in keeping with the zone.
Chairperson Segall asked what would happen if the Planning Director was not able to make that
determination. Mr. Turner stated the proponent would need to request a formal zone code amendment
and go through the hearing process.
Commissioner Montgomery asked if the 5-minute travel shopping center map was the basis for
establishing future centers. He stated his concerns that it might be determined there is not enough need
for those major services in a planned sites, and asked what process does the City have to allow other
uses in those areas. Mr. Turner stated the General Plan may be amended up to four times per year in
any of the elements; further stating that the proper way to say a local shopping center does not work at a
planned site and is needed elsewhere would be to complete a land use study, request a General Plan
change and zone change on the site that is not working, and consider another area that would be
appropriate.
Chairperson Segall asked Commissioner Montgomery to concur if he was referring to a whole center and
not the tenants in a center. Commissioner Montgomery concurred.
Commission Baker asked if the section on limitations and uses regarding the manufacture of goods and
the limitation of 5 employees included grocery store bakeries. Mr. Turner stated the limitation of 5
employees for manufacture of goods is concerned with true manufacture and that the business must be
predominately retail. Commissioner Baker asked if there could be confusion and include the manufacture
of food. Mr. Turner stated that manufacture of goods would be considered a use such as machinery or
concrete, not food preparation. This is an existing limitation in the city’s C-I and C-2 zones carried over
into the new C-L zone.
Commissioner Dominguez asked about the residential 5-minute travel criteria for the establishment of
new shopping centers and stated his concerns that it is not applicable when looking at the increase of
travel time in the residential areas. Mr. Turner stated the analysis was based on the future build-out
condition in the City (based on the General Plan Land use and roadway system) and not based on the
current traffic conditions.
Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Turner to address the letter from San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E). Mr.
Turner stated a letter had been received from SDG&E expressing their concerns with reference to the
language located in Table “A” and a note in relation to “PubliclQuasi Public Accessory Utility Buildings.”
Mr. Turner read the definition and explained that SDG&E’s comment was that these facilities are subject
to authority of the Public Utilities Commission and that the City should not require a CUP and did not have
authority to do so. Mr. Turner stated the City Attorney’s office and the SDG&E Attorney concurred that a
CUP should not be required. Mr. Turner stated staff is proposing a change on the addendum provided to
the Commission. The proposal is to keep the same definition and note, but adding language in
underscored type to read as follows, “A CUP shall not be required for those utilities buildings/facilities that
are builtloperated or maintained by a public utility, to the extent that they are regulated by the California
Planning Commission Minutes June 15,2005 Page 5
Public Utilities Commission.” Mr. Turner stated this language had been shared with SDG&E/Sempra
representatives and that it met their concerns.
Assistant City Attorney Jane Mobaldi stated the original language was an attempt to differentiate between
facilities and buildings that are an essential function of the public utility where the City may be preempted
from local regulations by a Public Utilities Code regulation. However, the additional language and
amendment read by Mr. Turner, now clarifies this distinction. Ms. Mobaldi stated she received an email
from the Sempra Energy Attorney who is in consensus with the proposed language.
Chairperson Segall asked if the language needed to be changed to include other regulatory agencies
such as the FCC. Ms. Mobaldi stated the language is appropriate as stated, and that it is extremely
difficult to address all possible scenarios. However, it has now been recognized that there are certain
areas where local regulations may be limited. Chairperson Segall asked if Leucadia Water would fit into
this scenario. Ms. Mobaldi stated it would depend on the type of building, function, and agency and gave an example where the local regulation is not preempted by a certain type of agency. Mr. Turner added
that Staff is recommending adding the revised language in the motion for adoption.
Chairperson Segall stated this would be a second item for discussion and asked if there were any other
questions of staff. Seeing none, he asked Mr. Turner to continue with his presentation.
Mr. Turner discussed the application of the new zone to various property sites. He gave an explanation
of how the sites are zoned and their General Plan designations and discussed the inventory of how local
shopping center lands were created. He explained where the proposed shopping centers would be
located and referenced the 5-minute travel times in relation to existing centers. He discussed Sites 1 and
2-Carlsbad Plaza, and site 3-Plaza Paseo Real. When discussing Site 3 he stated that the General and
Coastal Plan would need to be changed on 2 of the 5 parcels in order to change the zone to C-L.
Commissioner Baker asked why the Plaza Paseo Real center was not designated as C-L when all the
other sites are being changed to the new zone. Mr. Turner clarified that this change is in the General
Plans and would then allow the center to be changed to the C-L Zone.
Mr. Turner then discussed Sites 4-La Costa Plaza and 5-Poinsettia Village. He spoke about the major
tenants and the actions needed to rezone the centers.
Commissioner Montgomery commented that a large church is located on Site 4 and asked if it would be
able to continue in the new zone. Mr. Turner stated the church would be leaving in the near future. Mr.
Turner stated that once this happens, it is the owner’s responsibility to lease in consistency with the new
ordinance and explained that in the new zone there is a limitation of 40% of the total floor space for office
use to ensure the center would still provide intended services to the community. Commissioner
Montgomery stated his concern that this may limit the owner’s flexibility by approving this ordinance and
that the Commission would now be forcing the owner to make adjustments to comply with the regulations
when their building was set up differently. Mr. Turner stated the expectation of approving the zone is that
when it is applied, the center would continue to operate as local shopping center, but subject to the
provisions and it would be the responsibility of the owner and developer to ensure that they comply;
further stating, that if they are not able to comply, and the center is still needed in the designated
inventory, Staff would need to complete a study, land use and zoning changes to find a way to provide
the services to the community. Commissioner Montgomery asked if Staff knew whether or not a portion
of the current office spaces would be required to become retail. Mr. Turner stated the City is not making any proposals for any development on the sites. Commissioner Montgomery reiterated his concerns and
gave an example of an owner who might have the spaces leased as offices and is now inconsistent with
the new zone requirements.
Chairperson Segall asked if the area being discussed includes both the church offices and the sanctuary use. Mr. Turner stated that it does but the office component is considered a part of the “church” land use,
and not an “office” use. Mr. Turner stated he could not speculate as to what would happen once the
church left that portion of the shopping center.
Mr. Barberio added that this raises two issues: 1) if the existing tenant mix would be able continue if they
were there legally under the existing zoning and for some reason the percentage now exceeded the new
Planning Commission Minutes June 15,2005 Page 6
regulation and would it be considered Legal Nonconforming and not force them to vacate and allow them
to continue; 2) if the church vacates the space what tenant would be able to lease the space in a manner
consistent with the new zone and will it limit the owner’s ability to lease to another church or office which
might exceed the 40% restriction.
Mr. Turner stated all uses allowed in the C-F (Community Facilities) Zone are allowed in the C-L with a
CUP, which includes non-profit business, churches or places of worship, day care, and other such uses.
Therefore, another church could legally use the building (with a CUP).
Commissioner Baker asked how the Commission could force an owner to convert a building to comply
with the new zone that was legally built in the current zone. Ms. Mobaldi stated the analysis of the Legal
Nonconforming Use Statute discussed in the ordinance states that when a use is abandoned and whether
or not trying to intensify or expand and cannot do so, it becomes nonconforming. Ms. Mobaldi continued
that if the particular use were discontinued, then the shopping center would be required to comply with
the new regulations. Commissioner Baker stated her concerns that if the building was legally built for
office use in the existing zone that it seems unreasonable to require the owner to reconstruct to be in
compliance with the new zone. Ms. Mobaldi stated that there are regulations regarding Legal
Nonconforming Buildings and Legal Nonconforming Uses and that both would need to be reviewed;
however, the general analysis is that this situation is looked at if the use has been discontinued and if the
owner has had a certain amount of time to amortize the investment in the building, and would then
determine if the owner would be required to tear down a building immediately.
Mr. Barberio stated the new zone allows for up to 40% leasable square footage to be used as offices and
is a zoning standard. He stated that this might be a case where the offices in the center might exceed the
allowed percentage and where it may be considering a variance to that standard to continue the
use of operation. The church space was not originally constructed for office use and was converted by
the chapel over a period of time. Mr. Barberio speculated that the space does not exceed the 40%, but
when taking the combination with other tenants that might be office related and then the limit may be
close to exceeding and in need of review.
Commissioner Montgomery asked about the second story office use of the center in regards to the
amount allowed and stated his concern about passing and forcing something inappropriate on an owner.
Commissioner Heineman mentioned that much of the northern end of the shopping center is escrow
offices and real estate and stated his concerns that it may create a problem as both the northern and
southern end are mostly offices.
Mr. Turner shared the discussion of the stakeholders group when developing the ordinance and how the
group concurred that 40% was a reasonable amount for office space use in a local neighborhood
shopping enter.
Commissioner Cardosa asked about the existing drive-thru restaurants in the centers and how they are
no longer permitted in the C-L Zone. He asked how does ordinance apply to those businesses. Mr.
Turner stated they would be considered Legal Non-Conforming Uses and structures and would not be
able to expand or redo the buildings if they contained drive-thru use; however, they are permitted as they
stand and are grandfathered by the previous ordinance. Commissioner Cardosa clarified that if they want
to make a change in square footage of the building, would the ordinance deny the use of their existing
drive-thru. Mr. Turner stated they would need to remedy the non-conformance in order to expand. Mr.
Turner stated that this principle applies anywhere within the City, when there is a non-conforming
building, an amortization schedule applies to remove the nonconformance. It sets numerous years
depending on the type of structure.
Chairperson Segall asked if this would start once the ordinance was passed. Mr. Turner stated that
whenever a code becomes applicable to a piece of property that creates the nonconformity, theoretically
the clock would start. Mr. Turner stated that he cannot recall a time when the City has enforced a nonconforming building to comply and that the times are usually the life of the building.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that in this situation it is considered more of a non-conforming use than
nonconforming building, and that the space was originally retail that has been modified to accommodate
off ices.
Planning Commission Minutes June 15,2005 Page 7
Commissioner Cardosa asked if the El Pollo Loco drive -thru decided to change their direction and resell
their marketable building as another drive-thru is it no longer useable as a drive-thru. Mr. Mobaldi concurred. Mr. Cardosa stated that this impacts the value of the restaurants by changing their use.
Commissioner Whitton stated the southern end of the shopping center was previously retail shops and
other uses and that the chapel slowly took space once the other retail shops vacated. He stated they
could be perfect office and retail spaces depending on how you place partitions in the area. Mr. Turner
stated that internal tenants are able to change how a space functions and Staff is not concerned about
tenant improvements and they do not trigger a Site Development Plan amendment.
Chairperson Segall asked if the El Pollo Loco drive-thru changes and becomes a McDonalds would it be
allowed. Mr. Mobaldi asked the Commission to provide Staff time to research the code and provide an
answer later in the meeting.
Commissioner Montgomery asked why drive-thru restaurants are precluded in the local shopping centers.
Mr. Turner stated drive-thru policies citywide would require a whole separate discussion. Mr. Barberio
added that this was a decision made in all Commercial Zones by the City Council citywide. He further
stated that it is not the application of the new zone causing the nonconforming.
Mr. Turner discussed one additional issue raised in the letter from Donahue Schriber regarding the
applicability of the Commercial Visitor Serving Overlay Zone to this site. This is the one shopping center
of the group to which the overlay zone applies and places some constraints on uses and development
standards. The question in the letter was if it would it not be appropriate, since a Site Development Plan
is required, to lift the overly zone from this particular property. The applicability of the overly zone to this
site and throughout the city is a different discussion and Staff is not prepared to make any
recommendations to this site. It would deserve a comprehensive look and is a separate question outside
the realm of this particular discussion.
Mr. Turner discussed the Site 6-Tamarack Shopping Center and who are the principal tenants. He then
discussed the remaining sites. He explained that 4 sites are included in Master Plans and discussed
Master Plan zoning can be customized or tailored to fit the needs of the particular plan.
Commissioner Dominguez asked why the pie shop and gas station directly across the street from site 6
were not included in the new zoning change. Mr. Turner stated these properties do not function or meet
the requirements for a local shopping center as they are operated separately with different owners. Mr.
Turner stated this was the reason they were not included in the analysis and new zone. Mr. Turner stated
the sites have T-R (Travel-Recreation) General Plan designation and these types of areas and properties
would be reviewed in the future by Staff to determine the appropriate zoning.
Mr. Turner continued his presentation regarding updates and changes to several Master Plans. He
reviewed all the actions Staff is recommending, concluded his presentation and stated he would be
available to answer any questions.
Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Turner to discuss the Robertson Ranch and certain other properties that
were not included in the discussion of the existing local shopping centers. Mr. Turner discussed why the
properties were not included and that Staff is not recommending changes on these sites at this time, as
further study is needed on some. Mr. Turner stated a need for a shopping center was determined for either Robertson Ranch or Sunny Creek, but was not property specific and both were not needed. He
stated the Robertson Ranch Plan will be a master Plan and the C-L zone will be addressed in the Master
Plan, but not tonight. Mr. Turner stated two designations might change, depending on which property
develops first. Chairperson Segall asked what would happen if one develops before the other and both
have proposed shopping centers. Mr. Turner reiterated Staff is expecting Robertson Ranch to propose a
local shopping center, and there is also an application pending for one at Sunny Creek. Mr. Turner stated
that the number of homes in the area may not support both shopping centers and that it will be
determined by market forces and the needs of residents as to whether 2 centers that will be kept.
Chairperson Segall asked when stating that two centers are not needed in the area, but the market forces
may require both and if this could happen. Mr. Turner stated that this situation could happen.
Planning Commission Minutes June 15,2005 Page 8
Chairperson Segall asked if the City could, by virtue of the Commission approving the plan, not allow both
when the market forces might require both. Mr. Turner stated that both could exist under the zone.
Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Turner to discuss why Bobbies in the Village was not included in the
rezoning .
Mr. Turner stated that it is small center and does not have the full range of services to be considered a
local shopping center and it is designated “Village” in the General Plan, not “L”. Only “L” sites are getting
the center zone.
Chairperson Segall asked if there were any other questions of staff.
Ms. Mobaldi gave the explanation of nonconforming uses stating that if a use is vacated then the owner
must comply with the new code. She stated if you have a subsequent use that is not expanding or intensifying on the existing use, then perhaps the use would be able to continue. She stated this would
be until such time as the use was abandoned, vacated or the owner tried to do something more intensive
or expansive. She stated that with regard to the amortization periods, which may not be applicable in this
situation, that there is not a specific period stated in the code for an office building in a C Zone; however,
the ones that are specified are for buildings in R Zones, manufacture buildings in C Zones and she is not
able to give a specific time for this issue. She stated it is ultimately up to the Planning Commission to
determine whether or not a building’s use is being expanded or altered.
Chairperson Segall referenced his previous question regarding El Pollo Loco changing to McDonald’s and
compared it to the church that vacates and another church moves into the space and if this would be
allowed. Ms. Mobaldi stated there is a specific provision in the code for drive-thru restaurants, and even
though another drive-thru may not be anymore expansive than the previous, it may be allowed until the use is abandoned. Chairperson Segall asked if this is what happened with the KFC in the downtown area
or if it was under a different set of laws. Ms. Mobaldi stated this was the same user and it was not
abandoned, but they only modified their building and did not intensify on the definition of additional floor
area or vacating a use.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that when Chairperson Segall asked about the FCC that he was stating that the
Planning Commission would not be able to deny a cell site if they comply with FCC regulations. She
further stated the City is not preempted from issuing a CUP, or having one required, but that the
Telecommunication Acts States that the City cannot use a finding of electromagnetic frequency emissions
for denying that permit, assuming they are in compliance with FCC regulations. She stated this is
distinguishable when referring to the Public Utilities Code that provides that local jurisdictions cannot tell
the utility company where it can locate, with or without a CUP.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if it was in regards to a superior authority, such as the Public Utilities
Commission, if there were any other entities that have the similar preemption authority. Ms. Mobaldi
stated that in some situations there is that possibility, such as the Air Pollution Control, where primarily
they are regulatory bodies by the state and would depend on a particular act or legislation that empowers
the agency and whether or not there is expressed preemption or implied preemption.
Chairperson Segall asked if a church vacates its area in the shopping center and another church takes its
place, would it be allowed under a CUP. Ms. Mobaldi stated a church is an allowed use with a CUP and
is a different use from that of the 40% office space us. She stated a church is not considered to be an
office use.
Chairperson Segall asked if there were any other questions of staff. Seeing none, he asked if any
members of the public wished to speak on the item and opened Public Testimony.
Scott Malloy, BIA, 9201 Spectrum Center Boulevard, San Diego, stated concerns about the
grandfathering in situations of existing centers that are extremely different than what is required in the
new zone. He asked what happens when the center would like to change and if they would be required
to come up to the new standards throughout the center or is it only required to the area subject to change. He stated that after speaking with Mr. Turner, it was clarified that it is the area subject to change, such as
one area of the building, and that the entire center does not have to changes. He also stated concerns
Planning Commission Minutes June 15,2005 Page 9
on how this change will interface with the Master Plan communities in terms of what they have in
development standards and tailoring and that it complies with the new zone as well as still providing them
the ability to eliminate or add to the requirements of the zone creating a smooth transition.
Ron Rouse, 11988 El Camino Real, #200, San Diego, stated he is representing Donohue Schriber,
national shopping center owner/developer, in regards to their ownership to the dominant portions of retail
in the Poinsettia Plaza. He stated their concerned with the definition of the local shopping center with
distinction between the purposes of the center to provide services versus the range of tenants that are
assembled to provide the services. He stated it is felt the language inadvertently confuses the two and
the language they provided indicates examples of the kinds of tenants that provide the locally needed
goods and services such to include grocery, drug and other combinations of tenants that would provide
those services. He stated it is important to Donohue Shriber, because they do not own the office space,
the church at the south end of the center; further stating that the grocery store is generally also owned
separately and may not be replaced by a different grocery store if the current decided to vacate.
Commissioner Montgomery asked Mr. Rouse’s thoughts on the impacts on his client in regards to the
possibility of being limited to leasing to tenants that have uses over a certain percentage point and
affecting his ownership. Mr. Rouse stated he had not specifically discussed this issue with his client and
not sure if he will articulate how they would view this situation; however, he stated this is why they
suggested the change in the language to allow flexibility in terms of selecting from among the tenants that
might be interested in providing the local goods and services on the retail side. Mr. Rouse stated that in
regards to the office space limitation, any property owner in the retail business would like to have the
maximum flexibility and though it provide some constraint, Donohue Shriber is committed to necessity based retailing.
Laura Paiz, Ralph’s Grocery Company, 1100 W. Artesia, Compton, stated her concerns of the subjective
nature of the definition of the major anchor tenants. She asked what the phrase meant when it states “it
normally will have as a major anchor tenant.” She stated the other concern related to this is the length of
time for studies that may be required to secure an exception to that language. She stated they would like
to see a modification of the language to something less restrictive of the definition.
Larry Tucker, Grant Tucker Properties, One Upper Newport Place, Newport Beach, stated his concerns
about a fundamental policy issue that the City Council has already decided, but that he thinks it should be
reexamined. He asked what happens when an anchor tenant “goes dark” such as Albertsons and asked
who will replace them. He asked what will happen with the facility when you need to go through a hearing
process and a finding is needed to ensure it is consistent with a Local Shopping Center Zone definition as
it exists. He stated that it is unrealistic and unreasonable to require an owner with a vacant building to
have to go to a General Plan Amendment to no longer be a local shopping center. He stated how difficult
the process has become and will possibly become more frustrating as the owner is sitting with a vacant
building and trying to negotiate with the City. He complimented Mr. Turner on the job and is appreciative
of how he has been forthright with everyone.
Jack Shubin, North Coast Calvary Chapel, 7188 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, stated Mr. Turner has done
a great job and enjoyed working with him in the stakeholders meetings. He stated that their CUP has
been approved to build a new church, but wanted to confirm that they can stay as an existing tenant as
long as they continue to renew their CUP. He commented on the discussion in regards to them vacating
their space and if they would lease to another church and stated have not decided anything as this point,
but would like to maintain that option to lease to another church.
Chairperson Segall asked if there were any other questions. Seeing none, he closed Public Testimony,
and asked Staff to respond.
Mr. Turner responded to Mr. Malloy’s concerns regarding grandfathering stating that existing uses would
be grandfathered when the zone change becomes applicable. Mr. Turner stated that this also applies to
Mr. Shubin’s situation and that the church is grandfathered, but is subject to a CUP with renewal. Mr.
Turner stated that in regards to another church occupying if the existing church vacates, it would be an
allowed use and they would need to their own CUP; however, they might be able to use the same CUP if
the existing building configuration or uses did not change and would be reviewed on a case-by-case
basis.
Planning Commission Minutes June 15,2005 Page 10
Mr. Turner responded to Mr. Malloy’s concerns on the Master Plan communities and the use of the zone
and stated he confirms Mr. Malloy’s understanding that the zones created as standard zones are often
used as a base zone from which tailored zoning in created in a Master Plan. He stated the tailored
zoning could have different use mixes, development standards than articulated in the plan itself. He
stated that in this situation with the new C-L zone, Staff has proposed some things that make standards
more flexible.
Mr. Turner responded to Mr. Rouse’s concerns and stated that the City’s position is not so different in
regards the option of bringing together other tenant mixes in the zone that could collectively provide the
goods and services without a major grocery store. Mr. Turner read the language in Section 21.31.020 as
follows: “Therefore, it normally will have as major anchor tenants a major grocery store and a drug store
or such combination of establishment that function to provide equivalent goods and services.” Mr. Turner
then gave examples of separate entities that would be able to provide the services. Mr. Turner stated
Staff is concerned with Donahue Schriber’s suggestion of simply listing examples of tenants in shopping
centers. Such a list could result in a tenant mix that may not provide the full range of services needed if,
for example a PetsMart or Gym were to take the place of a grocery or drug store.
Mr. Turner stated the issue being discussed is in concert with Mr. Tucker’s concern. However, it has
more to do with questioning the adopted policy framework of the General Plan than how the new C-L
zone implements that policy. The policy framework was previously adopted by the City Council following
substantial input from the community, consultants, and surveys over several years. If parties now feel the
general plan policy framework ends to be revisited, it ought to be done in a forum other than one
concerned with of zone that is only trying to implement the currently adopted policy.
Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Turner if when reading the definition for local shopping center he
inadvertently omitted an important word “or” when he read “a grocery store, or drug store.” Chairperson
Segall wanted to clarify if the definition is requiring a grocery store and/or drug store. Mr. Turner read
what was written in the Staff Report and said that is what he intended to say, yes the word “or” should
have been included. Chairperson Segall also asked how this differs from what Mr. Rouse is proposing.
Mr. Turner stated that “and/or” is saying that you have to provide the full ranges of services that are
typically provided by a drug store “and/or” grocery store, but that other establishments that provide the
functional equivalent were okay.
Mr. Barberio stated that Staff is not disagreeing with Mr. Rouse and that it may be necessary for
clarification to add the phase “or such combinations of other establishments that would be the functional
equivalent of a grocery store, and or a drug store” to the sentence. He stated that adding “other” would
allow a combination of uses such as a meat market and produce store that could, in combination, meet
the requirements and intent. Mr. Barberio stated that such an amendment to the language might resolve
the Stakeholder’s concerns on the definition.
Commission Whitton stated that when he reads the definition and the intent, as it currently written, it is
purposely trying to limit the size of an entity by Donahue Schriber in a mix of uses creating a
neighborhood store. He stated that if you open the area as suggested, then it is possible to have a large
box store that could allow all services under one roof and not create what was originally intended.
Commissioner Montgomery stated that the descriptions of the Land Use Element in the General Plan is
where it could be described in detail as suggested by Mr. Barberio with the word “other,” and further
defining in the code that a series of other establishment can take that place. Mr. Turner concurred.
Commissioner Montgomery asked if a large anchor tenant vacates the center and there is not a market
force for the services intended, would the owner need to go through an extensive process to lease to
Staples, Good Guys or something different. Mr. Turner stated that he was unsure if they would have to
go through an extensive process if there are no physical changes to the center if it is only a change of
tenants; however, Staff would need to review the uses to ensure intentions of the plan are still being met
although this could possibly be handled over the counter. Commissioner Montgomery asked if it would
still be allowed, unless they do not meet as a combination, all the local services required in the plan. Mr.
Turner stated that it might be possible for a center to bring in a tenant mix that does not comply, if there
are no intensive improvements or expansions triggering a SDP review, but noncompliance would be
captured later if the SDP had to be reviewed when a remodel or expansion of the center was requested.
Planning Commission Minutes June 15,2005 Page 11
Mr. Turner acknowledged all the Stakeholders who met with him over several months and their
willingness to work on the new zone. He stated that he learned a lot about the particular industry and
hopes that it is reflected in comprises worked into the final product.
Mr. Turner responded to Mr. Tucker’s concerns about the project application process and clarified that,
although it is not in the zone, the old regulations apply if a new application is found to be complete prior to
the new zone becoming effective. He stated if you change the application and are not found to be
complete, or modify as an existing development, then the new zone rules pertain.
Mr. Barberio stated there are some zones where that specific language is included regarding applicability
and would be happy to add this to the language for this zone. He stated that if an application is on file
and deemed complete before the new ordinance is effective, then the new ordinance does not apply.
Commissioner Baker stated that “complete” is the key word. Mr. Barberio concurred.
Ms. Mobaldi suggested that the Commission add whatever language is appropriate and later address
particular issue raised by the public in accordance with the language that has been approved, rather than
making representations during the hearing on any individual case without all the facts.
Commissioner Montgomery asked Mr. Turner to address Mr. Malloy’s concerns regarding specifically
regarding setback, building locations, and modifications that would occur in a portion of an existing center
and if the entire would be subject to establish to the new zone. Mr. Turner stated if a shopping is located
in the new zone and has existing buildings in the new setback area, they would not have to tear down the
existing building and would be accepted as a legal nonconforming structure; however, if they would like to
construct something new on that part of the site, then they would be subject to the zone regulations.
Chairperson Segall asked if there were any other comments or questions for Staff.
Ms. Mobaldi gave the Commission the proposed and suggested changes. She Stated the first
recommended change would be in Table A for Uses Permitted in the C-L Zone and that number eight,
“Drug Paraphernalia Store,” should be deleted.
Chairperson Segall asked the Commissioners if they concurred with this change, and all Commissioners
were in agreement.
Ms. Mobaldi stated the second recommended change would be in Section 21.31.020 of the ordinance
pertaining to the definition of Local Shopping Center regarding amendment to the second to last sentence
and addition of the word “other,” and should read as follows, “Therefore, it normally will have as major
anchor tenants a grocery storey and/or drug store or such combination of other establishments that
function to provide equivalent goods and services, plus other, secondary tenants.”
Chairperson Segall asked the Commissioners if they concurred with this change, and all Commissioners
were in agreement.
Ms. Mobaldi stated the third recommended change would be on the errata sheet that was received for
Section 21.31.030 pertaining to Permitted Uses, Note 3 referencing Public/Quasi Public Accessory Utility
Buildings and Facilities and the addition of the following sentence to the end of Note 3 to read as follows,
“A CUP shall not be required for those utility buildings/facilities that are built, operated, or maintained by a
public utility to the extent that they are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission.”
Chairperson Segall asked the Commissioners if they concurred with this change, and all Commissioners
were in agreement.
Mr. Turner commented that Staff will ensure the recommendations and changes are included to other
zone amendments with this particular language, since others will be heard in the future.
Ms. Mobaldi stated the final amendment would be the addition of language to the ordinance to read as
follows, “A Site Development Plan application that was deemed complete prior to the effective date of the
ordinance would 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.”
Planning Commission Minutes June 15,2005 Page 12
Chairperson Segall asked the Commissioners if they concurred with this change, and all Commissioners
were in agreement.
Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Turner if this language would also be included in future zone amendments
to be heard by the Commission. Mr. Turner concurred.
Chairperson Segall asked if there were any other concerns that the Commission would like to incorporate
before a motion was made to approve Agenda Item 3. No additional comments or concerns were made.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Montgomery, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 591 6 recommending
adoption of a Negative Declaration; and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions
No. 5917, 5918, 5919, 5920, 5921, 5922 and 5923 recommending approval of
Zone Code Amendment ZCA 00-07, Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA
00-15, General Plan Amendment GPA 04-18, Zone Change ZC 04-13, Local
Coastal Program LCPA 04-16, Master Plan Amendment MP 149(T), and Master
Plan Amendment 178(C), based upon the findings contained therein, including
the Errata sheet for Item 2 Local Shopping Center Zone and rezoning,
specifically Item 3 adding the language “A CUP shall not be required for those
utilities and facilities that are built, operated or maintained by public utility to the
extent they are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission, also
adding language in Section 21.31.020 stating towards the end of the paragraph
“Therefore, it normally will have as major anchor tenants a grocery store and or
drug store and or such combination of ‘other’ establishments that function to
provide equivalent goods and services,” also deleting Table A Uses Permitted in
a C-L Zone the” Drug Paraphernalia Store” and finally adding wordage stating “A
Site Development Plan application deemed complete prior to the effective date of
approval of the Local Shopping Center Zone/Rezoning Ordinance and the
additional language specified by the Assistant City Attorney.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Whitton thanked Mr. Turner for his presentation and work on the project. He also stated
that the language and recommendation were necessary.
Commissioners Dominguez, Cardoa, and Heineman, concurred with fellow Commissioner Whitton.
Commissioner Baker thanked Mr. Turner and all the members of the public who participated in the
Stakeholders meetings.
Commissioner Montgomery thanked Mr. Turner for his presentation and work on the project. He stated
that he did agree with the intent of having more retail and purposes in every zone, however he stated his
concerns that it is applied to everything and force nonconforming uses and wonders what the outcome
will be in the future.
Chairperson Segall concurred with his fellow Commissioners. He thanked Mr. Turner for his ability to get
community involvement in the process and hopes to continue to see future activities that have a united
community.
VOTE: 7-0
AYES:
NOES: None
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Montgomery, Heineman, and Whitton
Chairperson Segall closed the Public Hearing on Item 2 and asked Mr. Barberio to introduce the next
item.
EXHIBIT 12
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW FOUNDED 1873
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRlPPS LLP
RONALD W. ROUSE, PARTNER
DIRECT DIAL NUMBER 858.720.6326
DIRECT Fw NUMBER 858.523.4307
EMAIL ADDRESS rrouse@luce.com
OUR FILE NO. 331 19-00001
June 14,2005 .
LI Lamino Real Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92130
858.720.6300 858.720.6306 fax
www.Iuce.com
DELIVERED VIA MESSENGER
c/o Mr. Dennis Turner, Planning Department
Chairman Jefiey Segall and Members of the Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad ’Jillage Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: June 15,2005 Planning Commission Agenda Item No. 2
Local Shopping Center Zone
Dear Chairman and Commission Members:
We are legal counsel for Donahue Schriber, the primary owner of the Poinsettia Plaza Shopping
Center (west of Interstate Ysouth of Poinsettia) which is proposed for a general plan amendment
and rezone to the new “C-L” zoned designation for local serving shopping centers. Donahue
Schriber is a sigrificant shopping center owner/developer in Southern California, as well as
nationally, recognizing the importance of locally serving, necessity based retailing.
While recognizing the goal of the City to refine its zoning ordinances to implement the “L”
General Plan designation, Donahue Schriber is concerned that the new “C-L” zone definition of
“local shopping center” in Section 2 1.3 1.020 of the proposed ordinance is overly restrictive as
drafted, with respect to the combination of tenant establishments that function to provide the
daily necessities and convenience goods and services needed by the surrounding neighborhood
communities.
As the Staff Report is very lengthy and complex, Donahue Schriber has endeavored to simplify
its specific request for Planning Commission action.
Definition of Local Shopping Center (Section 21.3 1.020).
Donahue Schriber. proposes a clarifying amendment to the definition of local shopping center as
shown on Attachment “A” hereto. The purpose of the revised language is to avoid the inference
that a local shopping center have a grocery or drug store in order to provide the daily
necessities and convenience goods and services needed by the locally served neighborhood. The
proposed substitute language clarifies that a grocery store, drug store or other combination of
CARMEL VALLEY~DEL MAR Los ANGELES SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO
n
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW * FOUNDED 1873
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON 81 SCRIPPS LLP
Chairman Jefkey Segall and Members of the Planning Commission
June 14,2005
Page 2
‘4
tenants that function to provide the daily necessities and convenience goods and services
likewise meet the htent and purposes of the local shopping center zone designation.
The proposed substitution of language is appropriate and necessary to accurately reflect the
intended scope of the local shopping center, and avoid any inference that a local shopping center
is not in compliance if it does not include a stand alone grocery store or drug store, as long as it
has a combination of other tenants providing the daily necessities and convenience goods and
services needed by the local neighborhood. The focus should be on providing the appropriate
range of daily necessities, goods and services. The proposed substitute language clarifies that
grocery stores, drug stores or other combination of tenants are consistent with the local shopping
center designation as long as the combination of tenants provide the requisite goods and services.
Donahue Schriber asks that the substituted sentence, set forth in Attachment “A” be included in
the proposed Ordinance.
CommerciaWisitor-Overlay Zone.
At the time the City adopted the “CommercialNisitor-Serving Overlay Zone”, it included the
Poinsettia Plaza. With the proposed “C-L” zone, inconsistencies would exist between the
development standards in the commercial/visitor overlay and the proposed “C-L” zoning
ordinance. As the proposed “C-L” zoning ordinance comprehensively regulates the shopping
center uses of Poixettia Plaza, Donahue Schriber requests that the Poinsettia Plaza be deleted
from the commercial/visitor-overlay zone.
Please incorporate this letter into the administrative record.
~~
v*-
of
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP
Attorneys for Donahue Schriber
RWR/jdb
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Dennis Turner, Planning Department
Jane Mobaldi, Esq./City Attorney’s Office
2078614.1
EXHIBIT 13 -
Jill D. Larson
Senior Counsel
101 Ash Street
San Diego. CA 92101
Tel: 619-696-4364
Fax: 619-696-4488
jdlarson9sempra.com
June 10,2005
Sent via facsimile (760) 602-8559
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
Attn: Dennis Turner
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008 i
Re: Proposed Amendment to Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, LCPA 04-16,
Local Shopping Center Zone ZCA 00-07
DearMr. Turner:
San Diego Gas & Electric (“SDG&E”) submits this letter in response to the City of
Carlsbad’s (“City,’) notice to amend its General Plan, Zone Code (“Code”) and Local Coastal
Program (“LCP”), particularly the proposed LCP Amendment 04-1 6, Local Shopping Center
Zone, ZCA 00-07. SDG&E is a utility regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission
(“CPUC’7) that provides electric and gas services to customers throughout San Diego County.
Although the focus of the proposed amendment is on local shopping centers, it contains
problematic provisions that attempt to impose processes and approvals on SDG&E that are
outside the City’s authority. For example, Section 21.3 1.030-Permitted Uses-restricts public
utility uses in a manner that potentially compromise SDG&E’s ability to provide safe and
reliable power to its customers. Specifically, Subsection B states that “uses and structures
permitted by conditional use permit, as indicated in Table A, shall be subject to the provisions of
Chapters 21.42 (Conditional Uses) and 21 SO (variances - Conditional Use Permits).” Table A
entitled ‘‘Uses Permitted in the C-L Zone” lists public/quasi-public accessory utility
buildingdfacilities as a use that is permitted only with approval of a conditional use permit.
Footnote 3 of Table A defines publidquasi-public accessory utility buildingdfacilities as,
“Public/quasi-public accessory utility buildingdfacilities include, but are not limited
to.. .transmissionldistribution electrical substations, operating centers, gas meteringhegulating
station.. .with the necessary accessory equipment incidental thereto.”
Essentially the Code dictates that all utility uses cannot be considered a “Permitted Use”
and that all utility facilities require a Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”). SDG&E objects to any
change that restricts its ability to provide safe and reliable power to the North Coast area,
especially to shopping centers. SDG&E is particularly concerned about its gas and electric
-
facilities on the property refer, ,J to as Encina East, as well as other exl,.dg and possible fbture
facilities in the Carlsbad coastal area. As part of the City’s effort to support local shopping
centers, the City should support SDG&E’s efforts to expeditiously provide the business owners
and customers with needed power. Instead, the City continues to attempt to govern utilities at
the local level rather than defer to the CPUC, the entity that regulates utilities on a statewide
basis. SDG&E suggests that the City remove the reference to “accessory utility
buildings/facilities” in Table A, or revise footnote 3) under Table A to chi@ that the
requirement for a CUP does not apply to those utility buildingdfacilities that are built, operated
and maintained by a public utility regulated by the CPUC.
Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 762, the CPUC haijurisdiction to regulate
improvements, additions, expansions or changes in existing plants, structures, equipment,
facilities or other physical property of any public utility to promote the security or convenience
of its employees or the public.
In San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. City of Carlsbad (1998) 64 Cal.App.4& 785, the
Fourth District Appellate Court confirmed that California Constitution Article XI& 3 8 and
Public Utilities Code section 701 et seq. preempted the City of Carlsbad’s floodplain ordinance
that required SDG&E to obtain a permit to deposit sand from its dredging operations. The court
found that the City’s requirement that SDG&E obtain a special use permit placed a significant
physical and economic burden on the operation and maintenance of SDG&E’s facilities. (Id at
803 .) It further stated that the ordinance went beyond Carlsbad’s police power into a field that
was significantly and filly occupied by the state in such a manner as to indicate clearly that a
paramount state concern would not tolerate hrther or additional local action.
California has compelling arguments for regulating projects and activities of statewide
concern even to the extent that state regulation preempts local rules and ordinances. The
California Constitution authorizes counties and cities to make and enforce, within their limits, all
local police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with the general laws
or the Constitution. “Local legislation in conflict with general law is void. Conflicts exist if the
ordinance duplicates, contradicts, or enters an area fblly occupied by general law, either
expressly or by legislative implication.” (See, Cal. Const., Art. XI, $7; Morehurt v. County of
Santa Barhara (1994) 7 Cal.4~ 725.) Ifthe subject matter or field of the legislation has been
hlly occupied by the state, there is no room for supplementary or complementary local‘
legislation, even if the subject was otherwise one properly characterized as a municipal affair.
(Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 40 Cal.3d 277; People ex. rel. Deukmejian v. County of
Mendicino (1984) 36 Cal.3d 476,484.) Public utility activities involving, among other things,
the safety, siting and construction of electric or gas utility facilities are matters of statewide
concern. (See, e.g., Polkv. City ofLosAngeles (1945) 26 Cal.2d 519.)
To the extent that the CPUC has been granted authority to regulate public utilities, it has
exclusive jurisdiction to do so. (See, Southern California Gas Co. v. Public Utilities
Commission, supra 24 W.3d at pp. 656-657; Town of Woohid& v. PG&E, supra 83 Cal.P.U.C.
418.) In this regard, Article XU Section 8 of the California Constitution provides in pertinent
part “[a] city, county or other public body may not regulate matters over which the Legislature
grants regulatory power to the Commission.” (Emphasis added) All of the foregoing law
illustrates that the CPUC has exclusive jurisdiction over essential maintenance activities and
faciIities of public utilities. This is exactly why the City lacks the authority to require a
conditional use permit or any Other discretionary permit for SDG&E activities. -
SDG&E appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments and
believes it is in the best interest of the City of Carlsbad to support SDG&E in its efforts to
comply with the CPUC and expeditiously provide power to the greater Carlsbad area.
Attorney for San DiegQ Gas & Electric
cc: FrankUrtasun
Don Parent
Ruth Love
Shannon Turek
EXHIBIT 14
San Diepo Gas L Electric
8330 Century Park Court San Diego. CA 92123-1530
A &Sempra Energy utility’
June 13,2005
Mr. Jeff Segal, Chairman
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Dear Mr. Segal:
Subject: Prowsed Amendment to Carlsbad Local Coastal Propram, LCPA 04-16,
Local ShoDDing Center Zone ZCA 00-07
San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) is charged with providing safe and reliable gas and
electric services to its customers in the greater San Diego and South Orange Counties. SDG&E
takes this responsibility very seriously and strives to provide these services in a safe and reliable
manner in accordance with the rules and regulations established by the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC), the State agency that oversees utilities on a statewide basis.
Such statewide oversight ensures design consistency in highly technical systems that
connect across dozens, if not hundreds of governmental boundaries as well as utility company
service territories. The CPUC’s “superior authority” also ensures that infrastructure projects ’
necessary to maintain service to all customers are not hindered by local ordinances that do not
take into consideration the utilities mandate to provide service across local boundaries.
The proposed amendments to Carlsbad’s Local Shopping CenterZone and Rezonings,
LCPA 04- 16 and other recent City Code changes, are of concern to SDG&E as they impose
processes and approvals on the utility which are outside the City’s authority. SDG&E suggests
that the City remove the reference to ‘Laccessory utility buildings/facilities” in Table A, or revise
footnote 3) under Table A to clarify that the requirement for a conditional use permit does not
apply to utility buildingdfacilities that are built, operated and maintained by a public utility
regulated by the CPUC.
Recently, SDG&E attorney Jill Larson submitted comments (copy attached) to the City in
response to the notice to amend portions of its General Plan. In her remarks, Ms. Larson details
the conflicts between the proposed Code modifications and California law.
SDG&E would appreciate the opportunity to discuss the proposed amendments with you
further and believes it is in the best interest of the City of Carlsbad to support SDG&E in its
efforts to provide power to the greater San Diego County region in compliance with CPUC
regulations.
Don hent
Public Affairs Manager
(858) 650-6149
cc: Don Neu, Assistant Planning Director
Jill Larson, Attorney for SDG&E
Enclosure
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
214-430-14 214-430-15 214-430-16 214-430-17 214-430-18 214-430-19 214-430-20 214-430-21 214-430-22 214-430-23 214-430-24 214-430-25 214-430-26
This space is for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
. TS/C TS/C TS/C TS/C TS/C TSlC TSlC TS/C TS/C TSlC TSlC TSlC TS/C
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the
printer of Proof of Publication of
North Count 7 Times
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Formerly known as the B1
Times-Advocate and which n
adjudicated newspapers of g
the Superior Court of the C
State of California, for the C
the City of Escondido, Cc
171349, for the County of
notice of which the annexed
in type not smaller than I
published in each regular ant
newspaper and not in any SL
the following dates, to-wit:
.,j
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you that the City Council of the City of Catlabad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chamber 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Cdsbad, California, at 6Ml pm. on lhcdday August 2,2005, to coruider .doption of a Negative Ded.ntiol appmval of a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program WP) amendment to add Chapter 21 -31 to the Municipal Code, cnadn the “C-L” (Local Shopping Center) zone; appmval of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use deaignation on 19 properties a three sites to the “L”(L0cal Shopping Center) designation; appmval of a zone changc on 39 pmperties at seven sites to apply the ncw “C-I zone; appmval of an amendment to the Local Coastal %gram to add the “L”
on 22 properties on three sites to the “L” locd shopping center designation, and to apply the “C-L” zone to the same properties; and appmval to amend text and exhibits of the La Costa Master Plan and B& Ranch Master Plan
to reference the ncw “C-L” zone as the underlying zone fbr four sites withiin these master plans.
Those persons wishmg to speak on thls proposal arc cordially invited to attend the public heanne, Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and aiter July 29,2005. If you have any questions, please call Dennis Turner in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4609
If you challenge the Negative Declaration, Zone Code Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Zone Change, General pkn Amendment, and/
or Master Plan Amendments in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the pubhc hearing described in this notice
or in wntten correspondence delivered to the City of Carlabad, Athl: City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Cadsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the publlc hearing
CASE FILE: ZCA OO-O7/LCPA Oo-l5/GPAO418/ZC 04-13/LCPA04-16/MP 149 (TIIMP 178(C) m llo~uoll
designation to the LCP land use map, to change the bignation on said map mplng-r-nlng
T&ym ; rzz
i -0rr
July 22”d, 2005
I certify (or declare) under pe
the foregoing is true and correc n ULD CASENM ~OCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND WONINGS -
Site No. ocr’l Ru To Lcp To zonc To
Dated at SAN MARCOS Calif Carlrbad Plaza North Carlrbad Plaza Nonh Carlabad Flaza North Carlabad Plaza North Carlabad Plaza North Carlrtad Plaza North
G2 GI c-2 c-2 c-2
c-L c-L c-L c-L c-L GL
GL GL
167-030-29 167-030-32 167-030-48 167-030-50 l67-0S0-74 167-030-75
I
c-2
G2-QIR-P-Q C-2-Q This 26th Day of July, 20( -
2 -
3-a 3-a
3 3 3
-
-
CAW plaza south cartrbadplszasouth
L L c-L c-L
GL c-L c-L
- L ‘L
L L L
R-P-Q R-P-Q
R-EM3-Q C-2-Q
2 I5-05069 RM RM
L L L
no chg no chg no chg
215-050-72 C 215-050-75 215-050-76
La costa plaza (Albmsons) La costa Plaza (Albewons) La Cmta Plaza (Albmmns) La Costa Plaza (Albns) La hta Plaza (Albewons) La Cwta Plaza (Albns) La Costa plaza @lb&Om) La Costa Pkza (Albns)
C-1-Q C-I-Q C-I-Q C-I-Q C-I-Q C-I-Q C-I-Q C-I-Q
c-L c-L c-L c-L c-L c-L c-L c-L
c-L GL GL C-L c-L c-L GL GL c-L c-L c-L c-L c-L
no chg
no chg no chg
:: 3
:3
4
Jane Olson
NORTH COUNTY
Legal Advertis
U
L L L L L L L L L L L L L
Poinuettia Vh5 (Ralphs) Poinucttia Vi (Ralph) Poinucttia Vi (Ralph) Poinucttia vi (~alph~) Poinucnia VI (Ralph) Poindv- Pointacnia vi m{ PoiidV~(RaIphS ~iwenia vi Poiitacttia Vi Poinuenia wage Bk{ minuetti? vigc (RaIphs) Poineettia Vi (Ralphs)
Un-named center (Vona) Un-named cmta (Vons) Un-named center (Vans) Un-named center (Vona)
L L L L L L L L L L L L L
L L L L
T-R/L T-RIL T-R/L T-R/L T-R/L T-R/L T-R/L TWL T-R/L T-R/L T-R/L T-R/L T-R/L
L L L L
C-2-Q c-2-Q C-2-Q C-2-Q C-2-Q C-2-Q C-2-Q G2-Q G2-Q G2-Q G2-Q C-2-Q C-2-Q
5
~
c-L c-L c-L GL
c-L
-
L’ L L L
GI GI CI GI
206-050-16
206-050-18 206-050-20 N
Sunnv Creek commercial 209-090-11 I - L no chu c-2
no chg MChg
no 43
no chs
-
-
no chg
no chg no chg no chg no chg
-
no43
255-031-20
223-060.32
Pc
Pc La Costa Town Square (MP 149)
Rancho Iacosta (MP 149) (Savan) Rancho LaCmta (MP 149) (SavOn) 223-06028 223060-29 I 1 Pc Pc
213-190-01 213-190-02 21 3-l9C-03 213-191-01 213-191-02
L L L L L
no chg no chg no chg no chg
no 43
Pc Pc Pc Pc Pc Belai Ranch (PA 15 partial) Bred Ranch (PA 15 partial)
C.2 - General Cnmmrcial
C1- Neighborhood Commercial R-P-Q - Res/ Professional R-D-M - Rcs Density Medium PC - Planned Communitv
C =General Commercial TS -Travel Smicea N - Neighborhood Commercial L = Lccal Shopping Center
L - Local Shopping Center R.M - Residenaal Medium Dmsity
T-R -Travel Rarencion
Q (Sufi) - Wifid Development Overlay
For sites 8-1 I the “zone change“ IS effected through amendments fo the respxtive Planned Community master plans, which plans use tailored zoning that IS based upon and references underlying, standard mes. The reference to the underlying me is being changed within thr master plans.
giavit of ~u6lkatwn
Affidavit of Publication of I ClTY OF CARLSBAD
1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR.
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-73 14
ATTN: MARCIA LONG
STATE OF CALIFORNIA] ss.
County of San Diego}
The Ilndersigned, declares under
penalty of perjury under the laws of the
resident of the County of San Diego.
was a citlzen of rhe United States, over the age of
party to, nor interested in the above entitled
State of California: That .... She is a
THAT .... She is and at all times herein mentioned
twenty-one years, and that .......... She is not a
matter; that ..__She is ................................ Chief
Clerk for the publisher of .....................
The Snn 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 dissenunation of local news and
intelligence of a general character, and which
ncwspapcr at all the times herein mentioned had
and still has a bona fide subscrlption 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
Sail 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:
JULE' 22, 2005
Legal Classified Advertisement
Ad # 9889285
Ordered by: MARCIA LONG
ClTY OF CARLBBM ClTYcoUNcIL
ZC 04-13; GPA 04-18; LCPA 04-16; MP 1m; M? tP8(CJ TAMOFARticTtDRCWERWS
Jam Free Printing
Use Averye TEMPLATE 5160g
CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST
6225 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
SAN DlEGUlTO SCHOOL DlST
701 ENClNlTAS BLVD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENClNlTAS 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
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD
CARLSBAD CA 92011
CITY OF CARLSBAD
RECREATION
- www.avery.com
1 -800-GO-AVERY -
SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DlST
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SANMARCOS CA 92069 ENClNlTAS CA 92024
ENCINITAS SCHOOL DlST
101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD
LEUCADIA WASTE WATER DlST
TIM JOCHEN 1966 OLIVENHAIN RD
1960 LA COSTA AVE ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OLIVENHAIN WATER DlST
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
VALLECITOS WATER DlST
201 VALLECITOS DE OR0
SANMARCOS CA 92069
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STE 100 STE B
9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340 SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SD COUNTY PLANNING
5201 RUFFIN RD
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST SANDAG
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR STE 800
SAN DIEGO CA 92123 401 B STREET
SANDIEGO CA 92101
ATTN TED ANASIS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT
AUTHORITY
PO BOX 82776
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DR SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776 SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING PROJECT PLANNER
DEPT- PROJECT ENGINEER DENNIS TURNER
Jam Free Printing
Use Avery* TEMPLATE 5160@
www.avery.com
1-800-GO-AVERY
MASUE TRUST
POBOX 3165
MITCHELL LAND & IMPROVEMENT co
C/O DW MITCHELL
29 19 GARDENA AVE
SIGNALHILL CA 90755
DONAHUE SCHRIBER REALTY Gw
LP C/O RITE AID #5621
200 BAKER ST E #lo0
COSTAMESA CA 92626 HARRISBURG PA I7105
THE VONS COMPANIES INC
PLAZA PASEO REAL ASSOC LLC
C/O AMY CORWIN
801 GRAND AVE
DES MOINES IA 50309
GRANT TUCKER PROPERTIES
PO BOX 7974
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
POST MASTER
SOUTH CARLSBAD POST OFFICE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES INC
STORE NO 6720 C/O HUGHES INVESTMENTS GRP LP
C/O ALBERTSON’S PROP TAX DEPT MANAGER C/O DELOITTE/TOUCHE LLP
PO BOX 20 PO BOX 8700 2235 FARADAY AVE #O
BOISE ID 83726 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658 CARLSBAD CA 92008
VANDERBURG LIVING TR 08-22-90 DONAHUE SCHRIBER REALTY
RALPHS GROCERY CO
1100 W ARTESIA BLVD
COMPTON CA 90220
DAYTON CORP
C/O CPTS
1371 OAKLAND BLVD #200
WALNUTCREEK CA 94596
CALVARY CHAPEL NORTH COAST
7 188 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92011
HINDS THOMAS F & MARY JANE
9720 WILSHIRE BLVD #204
BEVERLY HILLS CA 902 12
AZALEA INC
C/O HUGHES INVESTMENTS
MANAGER
PO BOX 8700
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658
LIVING TRUST 12-26-96
MOORSTEEN KAY TR
C/O EPROPERTY TAX DEPT 401
PO BOX 4900
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85261
AMERICAN DRUG STORES INC <LF> so LLC
C/O MEISSNER JACQUEIT - IMS
NEW WEST PETROLEUM S D 2 INC
1831 16THST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814 SAN DIEGO CA 92123 8525 GIBBS DR #200
LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE LLC
8799 BALBOA AVE #270
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
PLAZA PASEO REAL ASSCS LLC
C/O AMY CORWIN
801 GRAND AVE
DESMOINES IA 50309
LOS COCHES VILLAGES LLC
C/O CRAIG W CLARK
4 180 LA JOLLA VILLAGE DR #405
LA JOLLA CA 92037
SUNNYCREEK PLAZA LLC
5850 AVENIDA ENCINAS ##A
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SANTEE ACQUISITION LP
C/O WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK
PO BOX 7788
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658
CARLBAD FUEL CORP
355 REDONDO AVE
LONGBEACH CA 90814
BRUCE ROBERT E TRUST 04-29-95
BRUCE PHYLLIS A TRUST 04-29-95
6272 SILVERWOOD DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647
LNR BRESSI COMMERCIAL INC
C/O LENNAR PARTNERS
4350 VON KAFWAN AVE #200
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
BRESSI HOLDINGS LLC
C/O HEALTH CARE GROUP
9619 CHESAPEAKE DR #lo3
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
AWAV-09-008- C worhanewww
PAYLESS DRUG STORES
NORTHWEST INC
STORE #5622
PO BOX 3 165
HARRISBURG PA 17105
VONS COMPANIES INC <LF> KELLY
RICHARD C TR ET AL
MANAGER
PO BOX 8700
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658
C/O HUGHES INVESTMENTS-
BRESSIGARDENLANE LLC
C/O LENNAR HOMES
25 ENTERPRISE STE 500
ALISAVIEJO CA 92656
VANDERBURG REAL EST HOLDINGS LP
C/O EQUILON REAL EST ADMN
12700 NORTHBOROUGH NOB 100
HOUSTON TX 77067
Jam Free Printing
Use Avee TEMPLATE 5160@ Lcp
DALE OR DONNA SCHREIBER
71 63 ARGONAUTA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PERRY A LAMB
890 MERE PT RD
BRUNSWICK ME 04011
JOHN LAMB
1446 DEVLIN DR
LOS ANGELES CA 90069
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
7575 METROPOLITAN DR STE 103
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
1330 BRDWY STE I I00
OAKLAND CA 94612
DEPT OF ENERGY
61 1 RYAN PLZ DR STE 400
ARLINGTON TX 7601 1-4005
DEPT OF FOOD 8 AGRICULTURE
1220 N ST RM 100
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPT OF JUSTICE
110 WEST A ST RM 700
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
LAKESHORE GARDENS
7201 AVE ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 9201)
OFF OF PLANNING & RESEARCH
PO BOX 3044
SACRAMENTO CA 95812-3044
- www.avery.com
1 -800-GO-AVERY -
FLOYD ASHBY
PO BOX 232580
ENClNlTAS CA 92023-2580
LESLIE ESPOSITO
1893 AMELFI DR
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
2800 COTTAGE WY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
CHANNEL ISLANDS NAT'L PARK
1901 SPINNAKER DR
SAN BUENA VENTURA CA 93001
COUNTY OF SD SUPERVISOR
1600 PACIFIC HWY RM 335
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
DEPT OF ENERGY
901 MARKET ST STE 350
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103
DEPT OF FORESTRY
PO BOX 944246
SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
1120 N ST RM 5504
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
IANlKAl LANE PARK
6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
S D CO PLANNING & LAND USE DEPT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
5201 RUFFIN RD STE B-5
GEORGE BOLTON
6583 BLACKRAIL RD
CARLSBAD CA 92001
CYRIUMARY GIBSON
12142 ARGYLE DR
LOS ALAMITOS CA 90702
BUSINESS, TRANS & HSG AGENCY
980 NINTH ST STE 2450
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
CITY OF ENClNlTAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
DEPT OF DEFENSE
PO BOX 271 1
LOS ANGELES CA 90053
DEPT OF FISH & GAME
PO BOX 944246
SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460
DEPT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEV
450 GOLDEN GATE AVE
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
FED AVIATION ADMIN WESTERN REG
PO BOX 92007
LOS ANGELES CA 90009
MARINE RESOURCES REG, DR 8 G
4665 LAMPSON AVE STE J
LOS ALAMITOS CA 90720-5139
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERV & DEV COM
50 CALIFORNIA ST STE 2600
SAN FRANCISCO CA 9411 1-4704
Jam Free Printing
Use Avety@ TEMPLATE 5160* Lcp
SANDAG-EXEC DIRECTOR
I ST INT'L PLZ 401 "6" ST STE 800
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
100 HOWE AVE STE I00 S
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202
U S BUREAU OF LAND MGMT
2800 COTTAGE WAY STE RM W1834
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
USDA - RURAL DEVELOPMENT
430 "G" ST DEPT 4169
DAVIS CA 95616
- www.avery.com
1 -800-GO-AVERY -
SDGE
8315 CENTURY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-
TABATA FARMS
PO BOX 1338
CARLSBAD CA 9201 8-1 338
U S BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BRD
PO BOX 100
SACRAMENTO CA 95801
@ AVERYQ moa
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
100 HOWE AVE STE 1005
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202
U S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
333 MARKET ST STE 702
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105-2197
U S FISH &WILDLIFE SERVICE
2800 COTTAGE WAY STE W-2605
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-1888
Jam Free Printing
Use Avery@ TEMPLATE 5160@
SANTA FE LA COSTA LLC
C/O HARK1 PAREKH
9484 BLACK MOUNTAIN RD #F
SAN DIEGO CA 92126
GREAT WESTERN BANK <LF>
VANDERBURG LIVING TRUST 08-22-90 C/O HUGHES INVESTMENTS-MANAGER
PO BOX 8700
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658
John C. Nolan
GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN
3750 University Ave. Ste 250
Riverside, CA 92501
- www.avery.com
1-800-GO-AVERY -
KELLY RICHARD C TR & KELLY
C/O CHEVRON TEXACO PROPERTY
PO BOX 1392
BAKERSFIELD CA 93302
MAKE LEVEQUE ROBERT P TR GREYSTONE HOMES 1525 FARADAY AVE STE 300 TAX D
CARLSBAD CA 92008
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you 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:OO p.m. on Tuesday, {DATE}, to consider adoption of a Negative Declaration; approval of a
Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendment to add Chapter 21.31 to
the Municipal Code, creating the “C-L” (Local Shopping Center) zone; approval of a General
Plan Amendment to change the land use designation on 19 properties on three sites to the
“L”(Loca1 Shopping Center) designation; approval of a zone change on 39 properties at seven
sites to apply the new “C-L” zone; approval of an amendment to the Local Coastal Program to
add the “L” designation to the LCP land use map, to change the designation on said map on 22
properties on three sites to the “L” local shopping center designation, and to apply the “C-L”
zone to the same properties; and approval to amend text and exhibits of the La Costa Master
Plan and Bressi Ranch Master Plan to reference the new ‘IC-L” zone as the underlying zone for
four sites within these master plans.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after {DATE}. If you have any
questions, please call Dennis Turner in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4609.
If you challenge the Negative Declaration, Zone Code Amendment, Local Coastal Program
Amendment, Zone Change, General Plan Amendment, and/or Master Plan Amendments 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,
Attn: City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public
hearing.
CASE FILE: ZCA 00-07/LCPA 00-1 WGPA 04-1 8/ZC 04-1 3/LCPA 04-1 6/MP 149 (T)/MP
178(C)
CASE NAME: LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE AND REZONINGS
PUBLISH: NORTH COUNTY TIMES {DATE}
UNION-TRIBUNE {DATE)
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
ZC 04-13; GPA 04-18; LCPA 04-16; MP 149(T); MP 178(C)
TABLE OF AFFECTED PROPERTIES
Site
No. APN Property/Shopping Center
Name
LCP
From
1
2
LCP
To
Carlsbad Plaza North
Carlsbad Plaza North
Carlsbad Plaza North
Carlsbad Plaza North
Carlsbad Plaza North
Carlsbad Plaza North
Carlsbad Plaza South
Gen'l Plan
From
3-a
Gen'l Plan
To
Carlsbad Plaza South
Plaza Paseo Real (Vons)
Zone
From
3-a
3
3
3
Zone
To
Plaza Paseo Real (Vons)
Plaza Paseo Real (Vons)
Plaza Paseo Real (Vons)
Plaza Paseo Real Nons)
_----.-___-_----_____------------------.
4
5
6
167-030-29
167-030-32
167-030-48
167-030-50
167-030-74
167-030-75
La Costa Plaza (Albertsons)
La Costa Plaza (Albertsons)
La Costa Plaza (Albertsons)
La Costa Plaza (Albertsons)
La Costa Plaza (Albertsons)
La Costa Plaza (Albertsons)
La Costa Plaza (Albertsons)
La Costa Plaza (Albertsons)
Pointsettia Village (Ralphs)
Pointsettia Village (Ralphs)
Pointsettia Village (Ralphs)
Pointsettia Village (Ralphs)
Pointsettia Village (Ralphs)
Pointsettia Village (Ralphs)
Pointsettia Village (Ralphs)
Pointsettia Village (Ralphs)
Pointsettia Village (Ralphs)
Pointsettia Village (Ralphs)
Pointsettia Village (Ralphs)
Pointsettia Village (Ralphs)
Pointsettia Village (Ralphs)
Un-named center (Vons)
Un-named center (Vons)
Un-named center (Vons)
Un-named center Nons)
c-2 c- 1
c-2
c-2
c-2
c-2
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
L
L
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
c-L
__-_----__
C-2-QI
R-P-Q
C-2-Q
R-P-Q
R-P-Q
RDM-C
R-P-QI
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C- 1 -Q
C-1-Q
C-1-Q
C-1-Q
C-I-Q
C-1-Q
C- 1 -Q
C- 1 -Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
C-2-Q
c-1
c-1
c-1 c- 1
- - - - - - - - .
167-030-76
167-030-77
215-050-69
2 15-050-70
215-050-72
2 15-050-75
215-050-76
L
L
RM
RM
L
L
L
2 16-5 80-0 1
2 16-580-02
2 16-5 80-03
216-580-04
2 16-580-05
2 16-580-06
2 1 6-5 80 -07
2 1 6-5 80-0 8
2 14-430-14
2 14-430-15
2 14-430-16
2 14-430- 17
214-430-18
2 14-430-1 9
214-430-20
214-430-21
214-430-22
2 14-430-23
2 14-43 0-24
2 14-430-25
214-430-26
206-050-1 6
206-050-17
206-050-18
206-050-20
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
T-R/L
T-R/L
T-R/L
T-WL
T-WL
T-R/L
T-R/L
T-R/L
T-WL
T-WL
T-R/L
T-R/L
T-WL
L
L
L
L
TSIC-
TSIC
TSIC
TSIC
TSIC
TSIC
TSIC
TSIC
TSIC
TSIC
TSIC
TS/C
TSIC
N
N
N
N
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
-
7 ~Sunnv Creek commercial 209-090-1 1 L c-2 c-L no chg
Page 1 of2
Site Property/Shopping Center LCP LCP Gen’lPlan Gen’lPlan
No. Name From To From To
PC ZoningMaster Plans
Zone Zone
From To
~LOS Coches Village (Henry’s) ’ (MP 149)
La Costa Town Square (MP
149)
lo
(SavOn)
Bressi Ranch (PA 15 partial)
Rancho La Costa (MP 149)
(SavOn)
Rancho La Costa (MP 149)
-
223-060-28
L no chg PC
L no chg PC
L no chg PC
L no chg PC
L no chg PC
L no chg PC
I
1 1
223-060-29 1 -
Bressi Ranch (PA 15 partial)
Bressi Ranch (PA 15 partial)
Bressi Ranch (PA 15 partial)
Bressi Ranch PA 15 uartial)
213-190- 01 1
213-190- 02
213-190- 03
213-191- 01
213-191- 02
- I L I nochg I PC
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
no chg
LCP Land Use Classifications General Plan Classifications Zoning Classifications
C = General Commercial
TS = Travel Services
N = Neighborhood Commercial
L = Local Shopping Center
L = Local Shopping Center
R-M = Residential Medium Density
T-R = Travel Recreation
C-2 = General Commercial
C- 1 = Neighborhood Commercial
R-P-Q = Res/ Professional
R-D-M = Res Density Medium
P-C = Planned Community
Q (suffix) = Qualified Development Overlay
For sites 8-1 1 the “zone change” is effected through amendments to the respective Planned Community
master plans, which plans use tailored zoning that is based upon and references underlymg, standard
zones. The reference to the underlying zone is being changed within the master plans.
Page 2 of 2
Shopping Center Re-Zoning
Local Shopping Center ZoneLocal Shopping Center Zoneand Rezoningsand RezoningsCity Council City Council Meeting of August 2, 2004Meeting of August 2, 2004
OverviewOverviewProject has two principal parts:Project has two principal parts:1.1.Create new CCreate new C--L zoneL zone--ZCA 00ZCA 00--0707--LCPA 00LCPA 00--15152. Apply it to properties on 11 sites2. Apply it to properties on 11 sites––GPA 04GPA 04--1818––ZC 04ZC 04--1313––LCPA 04LCPA 04--1616––MP 149(T) (La Costa)MP 149(T) (La Costa)––MP 178(C) (Bressi Ranch)MP 178(C) (Bressi Ranch)
I. New “CI. New “C--L” ZoneL” ZoneQQNew zone implements policy framework New zone implements policy framework created with “L” GP designationcreated with “L” GP designation••Replaces CReplaces C--1/C1/C--2 zone2 zone••Codifies def. of Local Shopping CenterCodifies def. of Local Shopping Center••Requires a SDP (approved by Council for new Requires a SDP (approved by Council for new centers and major remodels)centers and major remodels)••New SDP finding: Center operates as a local New SDP finding: Center operates as a local shopping center (as defined)shopping center (as defined)••New “Table A” format for usesNew “Table A” format for uses••Development standards/SDP requirementsDevelopment standards/SDP requirements
II. Background on GPII. Background on GPQQLocal shopping center policy framework Local shopping center policy framework (What type of shopping needed?)(What type of shopping needed?)••Merged old “N” and “C” GP uses.Merged old “N” and “C” GP uses.––MustMustprovide local goods and services (provide local goods and services (typtyp: : grocery/drugstore anchor tenants, restaurant, grocery/drugstore anchor tenants, restaurant, grooming, small retail, cleaners, video, small office, grooming, small retail, cleaners, video, small office, gas station, etc)gas station, etc)––MayMayhave “community” tenants (typ: value dept store, volume specialty, home improvement, theater, etc.)••Carefully crafted inventory of sitesCarefully crafted inventory of sites––55--minute travel timesminute travel times
III. Application of “CIII. Application of “C--L” L” to Propertiesto PropertiesQQ11 sites11 sitesQQ48 parcels48 parcelsQQEach site has “L” general plan Each site has “L” general plan designation and is part of the local designation and is part of the local shopping center land inventory shopping center land inventory ••(Need to add a couple of parcels to some (Need to add a couple of parcels to some sites)sites)
Location MapLocation MapMARRON RDFRONTAGE RDE L C A M IN O
R E A L
HOSP WYSITECITY OF OCEANSIDE#1#2Carlsbad Plaza (North and South)Carlsbad Plaza (North and South)
Carlsbad Plaza No. and So.Carlsbad Plaza No. and So.NorthNorthNorthNorthSouthSouth
Carlsbad Plaza Carlsbad Plaza NorthNorthproposed actions:proposed actions:Change zoning on 6 propertiesChange zoning on 6 propertiesCC--LLCC--11167167--030030--3232CC--LLCC--22167167--030030--7575CC--LLCC--22167167--030030--7474CC--LLCC--22167167--030030--5050CC--LLCC--22167167--030030--4848CC--LLCC--22167167--030030--2929ToToFromFromAPNAPN
Carlsbad Plaza Carlsbad Plaza SouthSouthproposed actionsproposed actionsChange zoning on 2 propertiesChange zoning on 2 propertiesCC--LLCC--2Q2Q167167--030030--7777CC--LLCC--2Q/RPQ2Q/RPQ167167--030030--7676ToToFromFromAPNAPN
E L C A M IN O R E A L
DOVE LNAVIARAPKWYALGA RDPOINSETTIALNMIMOSA DRSITE#3Location MapLocation MapPlaza Paseo RealPlaza Paseo Real
Plaza Paseo RealPlaza Paseo Real
E L C A M IN O R E A L
DOVE LNAVIARAPKWYALGA RDPOINSETTIALNMIMOSA DRSITE#3aPost OfficePost OfficeLibraryLibraryLocation MapLocation MapPlaza Paseo RealPlaza Paseo Real
Plaza Paseo RealPlaza Paseo Realproposed actionsproposed actionsChange Change General PlanGeneral Plandesignation on 2 propertiesdesignation on 2 propertiesLLRMRM215215--050050--7070LLRMRM215215--050050--6969ToToFromFromAPNAPNChange Change LCP LCP designation on these propertiesdesignation on these propertiesLLCC215215--050050--7070LLCC215215--050050--6969ToToFromFromAPNAPN
Plaza Paseo RealPlaza Paseo Realproposed actions (cont.)proposed actions (cont.)Change Change zoningzoningon all 5 propertieson all 5 propertiesCC--LLCC--2 Q2 Q215215--050050--7676CC--LLRR--PP--Q/CQ/C--22--QQ215215--050050--7575CC--LLRDMRDM--QQ215215--050050--7272CC--LLRR--PQPQ215215--050050--7070CC--LLRR--PP--QQ215215--050050--6969ToToFromFromAPNAPN
E L C A M IN O R E A L
LA COSTA AVEBATIQUITOSLAGOONLEVANTE STSITE#4Location MapLocation MapLa Costa PlazaLa Costa Plaza
La Costa PlazaLa Costa Plaza
La Costa Plaza La Costa Plaza Proposed ActionsProposed ActionsChange zoning on all 8 propertiesChange zoning on all 8 propertiesCC--LLCC--11--QQ216216--580580--0808CC--LLCC--11--QQ216216--580580--0707CC--LLCC--11--QQ216216--580580--0606CC--LLCC--11--QQ216216--580580--0505CC--LLCC--11--QQ216216--580580--0404CC--LLCC--11--QQ216216--580580--0303CC--LLCC--11--QQ216216--580580--0202CC--LLCC--11--QQ216216--580580--0101ToToFromFromAPNAPN
Location MapLocation MapIN T E R S T A T E 5
POINSETTIA LNC A R L S B A D B LV D
S D N RSITEAVENIDA ENCINASP A C IF IC O C E A N#5Poinsettia VillagePoinsettia Village
Poinsettia VillagePoinsettia Village
Poinsettia VillagePoinsettia Villageproposed actionsproposed actionsChange Change General PlanGeneral Plandesignation on all 13 propertiesdesignation on all 13 propertiesLLTT--RR/L/L214214--430430--14 to 2614 to 26ToToFromFromAPNAPNChange Change LCP LCP designation on these propertiesdesignation on these propertiesLLTS/CTS/C214214--430430--14 to 2614 to 26ToToFromFromAPNAPN
Poinsettia VillagePoinsettia Villageproposed actions (cont.)proposed actions (cont.)Change Change zoning zoning on these propertieson these propertiesCC--LLCC--22--QQ214214--430430--14 to 2614 to 26ToToFromFromAPNAPNSite is also subject to Commercial/VisitorSite is also subject to Commercial/Visitor--Serving Serving Overlay Zone Overlay Zone ––Owners have requested to be Owners have requested to be deleted. (P.C./staff feel request is outside current deleted. (P.C./staff feel request is outside current project proposal)project proposal)
Location MapLocation MapIN T E R S T A T E 5TAMARACK AVEA D A M S S T CHINQUAPIN AVEJE F F E R S O N S TSITE#6“Tamarack” Center“Tamarack” Center
“Tamarack” Center“Tamarack” Center
“Tamarack” Center“Tamarack” Centerproposed actionsproposed actionsChange Change LCPLCPdesignation on all 4 propertiesdesignation on all 4 propertiesLLNN206206--050050--1717LLNN206206--050050--1616LLNN206206--050050--2020LLNN206206--050050--1818ToToFromFromAPNAPNChange Change zoning zoning on these propertieson these propertiesCC--LLCC--11206206--050050--1717CC--LLCC--11206206--050050--1616CC--LLCC--11206206--050050--2020CC--LLCC--11206206--050050--1818ToToFromFromAPNAPN
Location MapLocation MapEL CAMINO REALCOLLEGEBLVDSITERANCHO CARLSBADGOLF COURSEFERMI CT
#7Plaza at Sunny CreekPlaza at Sunny Creek
Plaza at Sunny CreekPlaza at Sunny Creek
Plaza at Sunny CreekPlaza at Sunny Creekproposed actionproposed actionChange zoning on this propertyChange zoning on this propertyCC--LLCC--22209209--090090--1111ToToFromFromAPNAPN
Sites Within Master PlansSites Within Master PlansQQMaster plans all have PMaster plans all have P--C zoningC zoningQQTailored zoning within master plans is usually Tailored zoning within master plans is usually created using standard zones as the base, but created using standard zones as the base, but with custom uses and development standardswith custom uses and development standardsQQThe proposal: Change La Costa and Bressi Ranch The proposal: Change La Costa and Bressi Ranch MPs to reference the new “CMPs to reference the new “C--L” zone in lieu of L” zone in lieu of existing references to other base zones (I.e.: “Cexisting references to other base zones (I.e.: “C--1”, “C1”, “C--2”) for local shopping center sites or mixed2”) for local shopping center sites or mixed--use areas referencing combinations of zonesuse areas referencing combinations of zones
La Costa Master Plan (MP La Costa Master Plan (MP 149)149)QQUpdates text and tables to establish that ‘CUpdates text and tables to establish that ‘C--L” zone is to be used in neighborhoods SEL” zone is to be used in neighborhoods SE--13, SE13, SE--14, and SE14, and SE--1515QQThree sites have “L” general plan Three sites have “L” general plan designationdesignation
Location MapLocation MapCAMINO DE LOS COCHESRANCHO SANTA FE RDCALLEBARCELONAC A L L E A C E R V O
SITE#8Los Coches VillageLos Coches Village
Los Coches VillageLos Coches Village
Location MapLocation MapRANCHO SANTA FE RDLA COSTA AVELEVANTESTCAMINODE LOSCOCHESESFERASTSITE#9SITE#109. La Costa Town Square / 10. Rancho La Costa9. La Costa Town Square / 10. Rancho La Costa
La Costa Town SquareLa Costa Town Square
Rancho La CostaRancho La Costa
Bressi Ranch Master PlanBressi Ranch Master PlanReplaces old “CReplaces old “C--2” references with new 2” references with new “C“C--L” in text and tablesL” in text and tables••PA 15 (mixedPA 15 (mixed--use village center) (“use village center) (“CC--22/RD/RD--M/CF” becomes “M/CF” becomes “CC--LL/RD/RD--M/ CF”)M/ CF”)
Location MapLocation MapGATEWAY RDVILLAGE GREEN DRGARDENLANE WYEL FUERTE STPOINSETTIA LNEL CAMINO REALALICANTE RDPALOMARAIRPORTRDSITE#11Bressi Ranch Town CenterBressi Ranch Town Center
Bressi Ranch Town CenterBressi Ranch Town Center
IV. Recommended Actions:IV. Recommended Actions:QQAdopt Resolution 2005Adopt Resolution 2005--241241••Adopting NDAdopting ND••GPA on certain sitesGPA on certain sites••Local Coastal Program Amends (2)Local Coastal Program Amends (2)QQIntroduce Ordinances:Introduce Ordinances:••NS 765 NS 765 ––Creating new CCreating new C--L ZoneL Zone••NS 766 NS 766 ––Changing zoning on sitesChanging zoning on sites••NS 767 NS 767 ––Amending La Costa MPAmending La Costa MP••NS 768 NS 768 ––Amending Bressi Ranch MPAmending Bressi Ranch MP
Questions?Questions?