HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-02-10; City Council; 8881; Hillside Development RegulationsJ
CIT-DF CARLSBAD - AGENDI3ILL
TITLE: HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS - ZCA-194 - CITY OF CARLSBAD AB# rFgl
MTG. 2/10/87
DEPT. PLN
h hl a3 a
-0 G cd
m
VI 0 z
0 I w
0 7 a [y: e
h a3
4 I hl
2
.. z 0
U E
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the City , APPROVING ZCA-194.
ITEM EXPLANATION
One of the concerns expressed by the Citizen's Committee that
reviewed Carlsbad's Land Use Element was the City's lack of an ordinance to control hillside development. This same concern was also expressed by the Planning Commission. Based on this input the City Council directed staff to work with a Planning Commission subcommittee to develop Hillside Development Regulations for Carlsbad.
Staff reviewed a number of hillside ordinances from other cities with members of the subcommittee. Technical input was also received from civil engineers and landscape architects. Using this information staff and the Planning Commission subcommittee
developed Hillside Development Regulations for Carlsbad. The major aspects of the ordinance includes the following:
requires hillside development permit for any hillside development ; requires a slope analysis and profile on properties with 15% slopes or greater;
limits height and length of straight cut or fill slopes; limits the amount of grading per acre; and provides flexibility for unique circumstances.
0
0
0
0
0
This ordinance establishes strict development standards, but allows flexibility when it can be justified. However, it puts the burden of proof on the applicant to justify any modification to the standards of the ordinance. It also provides a method to guarantee that projects requiring massive grading or large manufactured slopes will be properly mitigated and landscaped.
Some members of the development community felt that the ordinance
was strong, but workable. Others expressed concerns that the standards were too strict, despite the provision for flexibility when it could be justified. The Hillside Development Regulations were unanimously approved by the Planning Commission on December 17, 1986. For more details see the attached staff report and ordinance.
c
Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. rsg/
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that the project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and, therefore, has
issued a Negative Declaration, dated June 11, 1986, which was approved by the Planning Commission on December 17, 1986. Copies of the environmental documents are on file in the Planning Department .
FISCAL IMPACT
No direct fiscal impacts are anticipated. It may require a minor amount of staff time for additional review.
EXHIBITS
1. Ordinance No. 9rA 6 & No. 2. Planning Commission
3. 4. Planning Commission Minutes dated October 15, 1986, November 19, 1986 and December 17, 1986.
Staff Rzport dated December 17, 1986 w/attachments
a
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. 9826
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 21 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL
CODE BY THE REVISION OF TITLE 21, CHAPTER 53, SECTION 120
BY THE AUDITION OF SUBSECTION (E) AND BY THE ADDITION TO
TITLE 21 OF CHAPTER 21.95 TO ESTABLISH HILLSIDE
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD.
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does
ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: That Title 21, Chapter 21.53 of
Municipal code is amended by the addition of Section
to read as follows:
the Carlsbad
21.53.120 (e)
21.53.120(e). No more than 50% of the port on of a site containing 25 to 40% (percent) slopes may be utilized for calculating a1 lowa’ble residential density . Res idential development on slopes with an inclination of 25 to 40% (percent) inclusive shall be designed to minimize the amount of grading necessary to accommodate the project. For projects within the Coastal Zone, the grading provisions of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program shall
apply
SECTION 2: That Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
is amended by the addition of Chapter 21 -95 to read as follows:
//I/
//I/
///I
//i/
///I
///I
///I
I///
//I/
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Chapter 21.95
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Sections :
21.95.010 21.95.020 21.95.030 21.95.040 21.95.050 21.95.060 21.95.070
21.95 .OS0
21.95.090
Purpose and Intent Hillside Mapping Procedures General Restrictions Residential Density Calculations Subdivision of Hillside Lands Development and Design Standards Modification to Development and Design Standards Non-Residential Development Exclusions
21.95.010 Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of
A) Assure hillside alteration will not result in
B)
C) Assure proper design is utilized in grading,
D)
the Hillside Development Regulations are to:
substantial damage or alteration of significant natural resource areas, wildlife habitats or native vegetation areas;
assuring that development density and intensity relates to the slope of the land, and is compatible with hillside preservation.
landscaping and in the development of structures and roadways to preserve the natural appearance of hillsides;
pleasing environment by assuring that hillside development is pleasing to the eye, rich in variety, highly identifiable and reflects the City's cultural and environmental values; E) Assure hillside conditions are properly identified and incorporated into the planning process. F) space/conservation elements of the Carlsbad General Plan. G) Prevent erosion and protect the lagoons from excessive
s il tat ion. H) Encourage creatively designed hillside development requiring a minimal amount of grading. I) Reduce the intensity of development on hillside areas to ensure all development that does occur is compatible with the existing topography.
Preserve the natural appearance of hillsides by
Preserve and enhance a healthful and aesthetically
Implement the intent of the land use and open
21.95.020 Hillside Mapping Procedures. A slope analysis and sloDe Drotiles shall b e illustrated on a constraints maD. and shall abcohpany all development submittals for properties that have any slopes in excess of 15% and an elevation differential greater than 15 feet.
//I/
2.
1
2
3
4
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A) Slope analysis. Slope analysis shall identify the acreage and percentage of each of the following slope categories for each General Plan land use designation and zone of the site:
1) 0 - less than 15% slopes 2) 15 - less than 25% slopes 3) 25 - less than 40% slopes 4) 40% or greater slopes a) Percentage of slope is determined by:
Vertical Distance
x 100 = % Slope (Contour Interval) Horizontal Distance (Distance between Contour Intervals)
B) Slope profiles. A minimum of three slope profiles (slope cross sections) shall be included with the submittal of the slope analysis on the constraints map. Slope profiles shall:
the constraints map, grading or preliminary grading plan and project site map; Show both existing and proposed topography, structures and infrastructures. Proposed topography, structures and infrastructure shall be drawn with a solid heavy line. Existing topography, structures and infrastructure shall be drawn
with a thin or dashed line.
from the project site boundary.
s i te where :
topography is proposed,
proposed, and
uses.
parallel to each other and roughly perpendicular to existing contour lines. The remaining slope profile shall be roughly at a 45% angle to the other slope profiles and existing contour lines. Assurance of accruate hillside mapping. Both the slope analysis and slope profiles shall be stamped and signed by either a registered landscape architect, civil engineer or land surveyor indicating the datum, source and scale of topographic data used in the slope analysis and slope profiles and attesting to the fact that the slope analysis and slope profiles have been accurately calculated and identified, consistent with this section.
1) Be drawn at the same scale and indexed or keyed to
2)
3) Include the slope profile for at least 100 feet
4) Be drawn along those locations of the project
a)
b) the most intense or bulky development is
c) the site is most visable from surrounding land
the greatest alteration of the existing
5) Two of the slope profiles shall be roughly
C)
21.95.030 General Restrictions. No property with a slooe of 15% or more and an elevation differential ereater than 15 feek shall be developed unless a hillside developmezt permit has been issued. An application for a hillside development permit shall be processed and approved concurrently with any other
3,
5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
development permits required by Titles 11, 18, 20, or 21 of this code. The same decision making body or official which has the authority to approve the other development permits required for the project shall have the authority to approve a hillside development
permit. If no permits other than a building or grading permit are required for the project then the Planning Director shall have the authority to approve or deny hillside development permits subject to appeal to the Planning Commission. Such appeal shall be made within ten days after the Planning Director's decision. A hillside development permit shall be approved only if all of the following findings can be made.
1) identified.
2) properly identified.
3) That the development proposal and all applicable development approvals and permits are consistent with the purpose,
intent and requirements of this chapter.
4) portions of the property which are undevelopable pursuant to the provisions of Section 21.53.120 of this code.
5) minimizes disturbance of hillside lands. 6) That the project design substantially conforms to the intent of the concepts illustrated in the Hillside Development Guidelines manual.
That hillside conditions have been properly
That undevelopable areas of the project have been
That no development or grading will occur in those
That the project design and lot configuration
21.95.040 Residential Density Calculation. A) Areas of a site in slopes greater than 40% shall be excluded from residential density calculations consistent with Section 21.53.120 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
B) 25 -40% slopes may be utilized for calculating allowable residential density consistent with Section 21.53.120 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
No more that 50% of the portion of a site containing
21.95.050 Minimum development of hillside lands. The provisions of this chapter shall be applied so as to
1) which was legally existing on the date of the ordinance adopting this chapter. 2) Not preclude the efficient and safe provision of public facilities or services to any parcel identified in subsection (1) and 3) Allow development of at least one single family
dwelling unit per parcel described in subsection (1).
Not preclude a reasonable use of a hillside parcel
21.95.060 Hillside Development and Design Standards.
A) All development on slopes of 25% or greater within the
B) Contour grading. Contour grading techniques shall be
Coastal Zone shall comply with the requirements of the Coastal Overlay Zone.
used to provide a variety of both slope percentage and slope direction in a three dimensional undulating pattern similar to existing, adjacent natural terrain. The lines established by the 4.
G
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
toe and top of the graded slope shall also undulate in this fashion. Contour grading shall undulate so that, in no case shall a straight, flat, cut or filled slope face greater than 30
feet in height or 200 feet in length be created. C) Area or extent of grading. Grading of the developable portions of the site shall be kept to a minimum. To define the area or extent of grading, the area in acres, of both cut excavation and fill areas shall be calculated. This calculation shall be noted on the particular cut or fill area. The total areas of cut and fill shall be noted on the grading and preliminary grading plan. Additionally, the areas of cut and
fill as a percentage of the total site area shall be noted in the grading and preliminary grading plan. The areas of cut and fill offsite yet physically attached to onsite cut and fill areas shall also be included in the calculations of cut/fill areas.
percent slopes requiring grading in excess of the grading necessary to provide roadways, utilities, building foundations,
parking areas or recreational areas in conformance with this chapter, shall submit for review specific written findings justifying the reasons for the excess grading, subject to the approval of the decision making body.
to the extent possible, be screened from view behind or under buildings, by landscaping, or by natural topographic features. All manmade slopes shall be landscaped to the satisfaction of the Planning Director prior to occupancy of any structures.
units are stepped down the hillside all parts of structures proposed for development on hilltops and on pads created on
hillsides shall be sufficiently setback from the adjoining downhill slopes so that the visual impact on the surrounding area is eliminated or significantly reduced by the slope. Where public safety can be assured the setback area shall be used for public, common or private open space. Small irregular berming shall be used within the ground level setback to create visual and site interest. Setbacks shall be sufficient to eliminate or significantly reduce any jutting vertical mass which would be visually incompatible with natural hillside landforms.
roads, roadways shall not greatly alter the physical and visual character of a hillside, by creating large "notches" in ridgelines or by defining wide, straight alignments. Roadways shall follow the natural contour of the land and be modulated by sufficient berming, contour grading and landscaping, to create visually interesting and pleasing roadways.
shall generally decrease with an increase in the percent of hillside slope. Multi-level or terraced foundations which fit a structure into the natural slope and form of the hillside shall
be the preferred structural design on the uphill side of the street. Hillside architecture shall incorporate appropriate structure modulation along with floor and roof level transitions
Applications which propose development on 25 - 40
D) Screening graded slopes. Cut or fill slopes shall,
E) View preservation and enhancement. Except where
F) Roadway design. Except for Circulation Element
G) Hillside architecture. The volume of structures
5.
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
25
24
25
26
27
28
to fit a structure and roofline into the natural contours, features and background of the hillside. The length of a structure shall orient parallel with the contour of the hillside. The greater the hillside slope, the longer the structure length to width ratio shall be required. Bulky, rigid, excessively angular, vertical or other obtrusive geometric architecture accessory structures or fences which are not in the same pattern, proportion or scale with the hillside landform shall be discouraged. The dominate roof slope shall follow the dominate slope of the hillside. Exterior, materials and colors shall be harmonious in tone and texture with the hillside and surrounding vegetation. Hose bibs and electrical outlets shall be constructed on the downhill side of all hillside structures.
architecture standards, hilltop architecture should extend and enhance the major features of hilltops, not dominate them. Significant downslope setbacks, small modulated berms, and sensitive landscaping shall be used to appropriately maintain the appearance of a hilltop ridgeline from surrounding viewpoints. Examples of the desired hillside and hilltop architecture can be found in the City of Carlsbad's Design Guidelines Manual and Architectural Review Guidelines.
feasible, maintain all natural drainage patterns and courses. Roofwater collection and drainage dispersal systems shall be provided for all dwelling units that do not drain directly onto a paved surface. If drainage benches are required on a slope their width shall be varied to accommodate landscaping for additional visual screening.
feet in height.
yards shall be calculated. The cut or fill volumes shall be noted on the particular cut or fill. The total volume of cut and fill shall be noted on the grading and preliminary grading plan. 3) Volume of earth moved for cuts and fills shall be minimized. The larger volume of the total cut or total fill volumes divided by the total area in acres that is cut and filled (that is graded) shall equal the volume of hillside grading for this chapter. The relative acceptability of hillside grading volume shall be determined by the following:
H) Hilltop architecture. In addition to the hillside
I> Hillside drainage shall to the maximum extent
J) Slope height and volume of grading cut or fill. 1) Cut or fill slopes shall not be greater than 30
2) The volumes of both the cut and fill in cubic
Cubic Yards of cut or fill grading per acre of cut & fill area (in acres)
Relative Sensitivity of hillside grading volume
0 - 7,999 cubic yds/acre Acceptable I1 11 Potentially Acceptable
11 11 Unacceptable 8,000 - 10,000 > 10,000 11
/I// 6.
s
I .
-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
4) Applications proposing grading volumes which are potentially acceptable (8,000 - 10,000 cu. yds./acre of cut or fill) shall on the preliminary grading plan submit for review specific written findings justifying the reasons for the amount of grading subject to the approval of the Planning Director and City Engineer.
unacceptable (>10,000 cu. yds./acre of cut or fill) shall be
allowed only if they comply with the requirements of Section 21.95.070.
the standards of this section unless a modification to these standards can be justified to the decision making body per the requirements of Section 21.95.070.
5) Applications proposing grading volumes which are
K) All development on hillside areas shall comply with
21.95.070 Modifications to the Development and Design Standards. A) The decision making body may approve a moditication to the Hillside Development and Design Standards of Section 21.95.060 if the proposed development complies with the intent of the Hillside Ordinance and one or more of the following findings can be made:
1) conditions that necessitate corrective work that may require significant amounts of grading. 2) The site requires extensive grading to accommodate a Circulation Element roadway. 3) The proposed modification will result in significantly more open space or undisturbed area than would a strict adherence to the requirements of Section 21.90.060. 4) The site is impacted by unusual geotechnical or soils conditions that necessitate corrective work or a Circulation Element Roadway.
and Design Standards of the Hillside Ordinance shall be accompanied by two preliminary grading plans. One plan shall illustrate how a site would be developed with a strict adherence
to the requirements of Section 21.90.060. The second set shall illustrate the extent and type of the requested modification. This plan shall also be accompanied by any other documentation needed by the decision making body to determine that the proposed modifications will result in a superior project with less adverse environmental impacts.
C) excess of 10,000 cu. yds./acre of cut or fill or a manufactured slope in excess of 30 feet in height, the applicant shall submit a detailed mitigation and landscaping plan prior to approval of the project. This plan shall illustrate the mitigation measures and landscaping utilized to screen the proposed grading. This plan shall also state the estimated cost of the proposed mitigation and landscaping for the portions of the site requesting a modification to the Development and Design Standards. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall deposit, at a financial institution subject to regulation by the state or federal government, a certificate of deposit or
The site has unusual geotechnical or soil
B) Any request for a modification to the Development
If a modification is granted to allow grading in
7.
c
4
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
letter of credit made out to the City of Carlsbad or such other
security which is acceptable to the City. This document shall be for at least twice the estimated cost of the proposed mitigation and landscaping. If the proposed mitigation and landscaping is not installed in a timely manner, in accordance with the approved plans, the Planning Director may authorize the utilization of these funds to do the necessary remedial work. Any funds remaining after the completion of this work shall be returned to the applicant.
21.45.080 Non-Residential Development. Development on land designated for non-residential develoDment shall comDlv with all requirements of this chapter except Subsection 21.95.b6b J. Any non-residential project proposing grading in excess of 10,000 cubic yards per acre or creating slopes in excess of 30 feet in height shall provide both written and graphic exhibits to justify the proposed grading to the satisfaction of the decision making body.
a final discretionary approval, building permit or grading permit
prior to effective date of the ordinance adopting this chapter shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter provided that such permits or approvals have not expired or are not otherwise r evoked.
may be excluded from the requirements of this Chapter by the
decision making body. 1) Areas previously disturbed by authorized grading,
2) Areas where Circulation Element Roadways must be placed and no feasible alternative consistent with this chapter is available; 3) Areas of topographic change less than 15 feet in height and less than 4,000 square feet in area, which are not
a part of the surrounding generalized slope. 4) Small isolated ravines where there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment as determined by the Planning Uirec tor.
City Policy ordinance or standard, the most restrictive policy, ordinance or standard shall apply.
21.95.090 Exclusions. A) Any project that has received
B) The following areas must be fully identified, but
Where any part of this chapter conflicts with any other
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 the Carlsbad Journal within fifteen days after its
adoption.
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
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council held on the 10th day of February 9
1987, and thereafter
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City
Couricil held on the 17th day of February , 1987, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Pettine and Mamaux
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST :
&R4& ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clekk
(SEAL)
9.
... .
L
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. 9827
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 20, OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION OF TITLE 20, CHAPTER 12, SUBSECTION 091 (B) (12) AND THE ADDITION OF TITLE 20, CHAPTER 16,
SUBSECTION OlO(13) TO REQUIRE TENTATIVE MAPS TO COMPLY
WITH THE WQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY 'S HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does
ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: That Title 20, Chapter 12 is amended by the
addition of Subsection 091(12) to read as follows:
20.12.091 (b) (12).
all requirements of the Hillside Development Regulations, Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
That the proposed tentative map complies with
SECTION 2: That Title 20, Chapter 20.16 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Section 20.16.010(13)
to read as follows:
20.16.010(13). The design of the subdivision shall be consistent
with the provisions of Chapter 21.95 of this code relating to Hillside Development. Areas which are determined to be undevelopable pursuant to the applicable provisions of Chapter 21.95 of this code shall be preserved as open space areas.
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 the Carlsbad Journal within fifteen days after its
adopt ion.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council held on the 10th day of February ,
1987 , and thereafter
//I/
//I/
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council held on the 10 th day of February ,
198'7, and thereafter
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City
Council held on the 17th day of February , 1987, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Pettine and Mamaux
NOES: None
13
14
15 i ATTEST:
A
LEGALITY
18
19
2o /I 21
22
23
24
25 11
26
27
28
(SEAL)
2.
'3 I
i
!
I
¶ 2c
21
2;
2?
24
25
26
27
2a
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2570
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAKLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT BY THE REVISION OF TITLE 21, CHAPTER 53, SUBSECTION 120 BY THE ADDITION OF SUBSECTION (D) AND BY THE ADDITION TO TITLE 21 OF CHAPTER 21.95 TO ESTABLISH HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD CASE NO.: ZCA-194
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 15th day of
lctober, the 19th day of November, and the 17th day of December,
L9&6, hold duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law to
:onsider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and
:onsidering all test'imony and arguments, if any, of all persons
lesiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
:elating to the Zone Code Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
:ommission as follows:
L) That the above recitations are true and correct.
i) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing,
Exhibit "A", dated December 17, 1986. attached hereto and the Commission recommends APPROVAL of ZCA-194, according to
made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Xndings:
.) The proposed amendment will preserve the integrity of Carlsbad's hillsides by assuring that development density and intensity relates to the slope of the land.
!). The proposed amendment will promote proper design and grading techniques for hillside developments.
1) The proposed amendment will assure that hillside conditions are properly identified and incorporated into the planning process.
are sensitive to the existing topography. 1) The proposed amendment will assure that proposed developments
rill
I
:
9
4
I
c
1
E
S
1c
u
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5) The project will not cause any significant environmental
Planning Director on June 7, 1986 and recommended for APPROVAl impacts and a Negative Declaration has been issued by the
by the Planning Commission on December 17, 1986.
PASSED, APPROVED AND,ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
PlannLng Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on
the 17th day of December, 1986, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES : Chairman Schlehuber, Commissioners: Hall, Schramm. Marcus & McFadden.
NOES : None.
ABSENT: Commissioners: Holmes & McBane.
ABSTAIN : None.
CLARFS CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION CE SCHLEHUBER, Chairman
LTTEST:
4ICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER ?LANNING DIRECTOR
?C RESO NO. 2570 -2-
.I
I
I
17
le
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
!
-. EXHIRIT "A" December 17, 1986
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 21 OF THE CARLSBAD mICLPAL CODE BY THE REVISION OF TITLE 21, CHAPTER 53, SECTION 120 BY THE ADDITION OF SUBSECTION (D) AND BY THE ADDITION TO TITLE 21 OF CHAPTER 21.95 TO ESTABLISH HILLSIDE DEVUOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD.
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does
rdain as follows:
SECTION 1:. That Title 21, Chapter 21.53 of the Carlsbad
iunicipal code is amended by the addition of Section 21.53.120 (d)
:o read as follows:
:ontaining 25 to 402 (percent) slopes may be uti P ized for 'alculating allowable residential density. Residential developmen 'n slopes with an inclination of 25 to 402 (percent) inclusive hall be designed to minimize the amount of grading necessary to ccommodate the project. For projects within the Coastal Zone, th ,rading provisions of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program shall
21.53.120(d). No more than 50% of the ortion of a site
PPlY.
SECTION 2: That Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
s amended Sy the addition of Chapter 21.95 to read as follows:
I//
Ill
///
If I
/If
fIl
f /I
f I1
f
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
..
..
..
..
Chapter 21.95
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Sections:
21.95.010 Purpose and Intent 21.95.020 Hillside Mapping Procedures 21.95.030 General Restrictions
21.95.050 Subdivision of Hillside Lands
21.95.040 Residential Density Calculations
21.95.060 Development and Design Standards 21.95.070 Modification to Development and Design
21.95.080 Non-Residential Development 21.95.090 Exclusions
Standards
:he Hilla'ide DeveloDment Reeulations are to: 21.95.010 Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of
"" - - .~~ A) Assurerhillside-alteration will not result in
mbstantial damage or alteration of significant natural resource areas, wildlife habitats or native vegetation areas;
sssuring that development density and intensity relates to the ,lope of the land, and is compatible with hillside preservation.
landscaping and in the development of structures and roadways to )reserve the natural appearance of hillsides;
)leasing environment by assuring that hillside development is ,leasing to the eye, rich in variety, highly identifiable and
:eflects the City s cultural and environmental values;
incorporated into the planning process.
;pace/conservation elements of the Carlsbad General Plan.
jiltation.
B) Preserve the natural appearance of hillsides by
C) Assure proper design is utilized in grading,
D) Preserve and enhance a healthful and aesthetically
E) Assure hillside conditions are properly identified anc
F) Implement the intent of the land use and open
G) Prevent erosion and protect the lagoons from excessivf
H) Encourage creatively designed hillsi.de development
requiring a minimal amount of grading. 1) Reduce the intensity of development on hillside areas
:o ensure all development that does occur is compatible with the :xisting topography.
, ~~ ~
and slope profiles shall b
21.95.020 Hillside Mapping Procedures. A slope analysis e illustrated on a constraints map, and ;hall accompany all development submittals for properties that have
any slopes in excess of 15% and an elevation differential greater :hen 15 fret.
2
E
9
10
i 11
$
$ 14
15
!I 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
acreage and percentage of each of the following slope categories for each General Plan land use designation and zone of the site:
A) Slope analysis. Slope analysis shall identify the
1) 0 - less than 15% slopes
2) 15 - less than 25% slopes 3) 25 - less than 40% slopes 4) 40% or greater slopes a) Percentage of slope is determined by:
Vertical Distance
Horizontal Di (Contour Interval) stance x 100 - X Slope
(Distance between Contour Intervals)
(slope cross sections) shall be included with the submittal of the slope analysis on the constraints map. Slope profiles shall:
the constraints map, grading or preliminary grading plan and 1) Be drawn at the same scale and indexed or keyed t
project site map; 2) Show both existing and proposed topography, structures and infrastructures. Proposed topography, structures snd infrastructure shall be drawn with a solid heavy line. Sxisting topography, structures and infrastructure shall be drawn Jith a thin or dashed line.
Erom the project site boundary.
site where:
copography is proposed,
Jroposed, and
1ses.
Jarallel to each other and roughly perpendicular to existing :ontour lines. The remaining slope profile shall be roughly at a b5X angle to the other slope profiles and existing contour lines.
B) Slope profiles. A minimum of three slope profiles
3) Include the slope profile for at least 100 feet
4) Be drawn along those locations of the project
a) the greatest alteration of the existing
b) the most intense or bulky development is
c) the site is most visable from surrounding lan
5) Two of the slope profiles shall be roughly
C) Assurance of accruate hillside mapping. Both the slope analysis and slope profiles shall be stamped and signed by either a registered landscape architect, :ivil engineer or land surveyor indicating the datum, source and acale of topographic data used in the slope analysis and slope ~rofiles and attesting to the fact that the slope analysis and slope profiles have been accurately calculated and identified, :omistent with this section.
rlope of 15% Eeet shall be developed unless a hillside development permit has or more and an elevation differential greater than 15
)een issued. An application for a hillside development permit shall be processed and approved concurrently with any other
21.95.030 General Restrictions. No property with a
3.
.. ..
.
!
i
development permits required by Titles 11, 18, 20, or 21 of this code. The same decision making body or official which has the 1 authority to approve the other development permits required for tht
project shall have the authority to approve a hillside development 2 permit. If no permits other than a building or grading permit are
required for the project then the Planning Director shall have the 3 authority to approve or deny hillside development permits subject
to appeal to the Planning Commission. Such appeal shall be made 4 within ten days after the Planning Director's decision. A hillsidt
5 findings can be made. development permit shall be approved only if all of the following
1) That hillside conditions have been properly 6 identified.
7 2) That undevelopable areas of the project have been
3) That the development proposal and all applicable 8 development approvals and permits are consistent with the purpose,
properly identified.
intent and requirements of this chapter.
portions of the property which are undevelopable pursuant to the
9 4) That no development or grading will occur in those
10 provisions of Section 21.53.120 of this code.
11 minimizes disturbance of hillside lands.
12 intent of the concepts illustrated in the Hillside Development
13
5) That the project design and lot configuration
6) That the project design substantially conforms to the
Guidelines manual.
a site in slopes greater than 40% 21.95.040 Residential Density Calculation. A) Areas oi
residential densitv calculations consistent with Section 21.53.120 shall be excluded from
15 of the Carlsbad Muiiicipal Code.
16 25 -40% slopes may be utilized for ca f culating allowable
17 Carlsbad Municipal Code.
B) No more that 50% of the ortion of a site containing
residential density consistent with Section 21.53.120 of the
21.95.050 Minimum development of hillside lands. The of this chapter shall be applied so as to I) Not preclude a reasonable-use of a hillside parcel
chapter.
which was legally existing on the date of the ordinance adopting
2) Not preclude the efficient and safe provision of 2111 Dublic facilities or services to any parcel identified in 11 'subsection (1) and 22
..
3) Allow deVelODment of at least one sinnle family ~ ~~ 11 dwelling unit per parcel bescribed in subsection (i). 23
24 -- I! 21.95.Oti0 Hillside Development and Design Standards.
A) All development on slopes of 25'1 or greater within the
25 Overlay Zone.
26 I used to provide a variety of both slope percentage and slope
direction in a three dimensional undulating pattern similar to 27 1 existing, adjacent natural terrain. The lines established by the
I Coastal Zone shall compiy with the requirements of the Coastal
B) Contour grading. Contour grading techniques shall be
I 4. 28 I/ I
;
4
c
t
*
t
E
1c
13
1;
12
14
15
16
.. ' 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
toe and top of the graded slope shall also undulate in this
shall a straight, flat, cut or filled slope face greater than 30 fashion, Contour grading shall undulate so that, in no case
feet in height or 200 feet in length be created.
developable portions of the site shall be kept to a minimum. To C) Area or extent of grading. Grading of the
define the area or extent of grading, the area in acres, of both cut excavation and fill areas shall be calculated. This calculation shall be noted on the particular cut or fill area. rhe total areas of cut and fill shall be noted on the grading and preliminary grading plan. Additionally, the areas of cut and €ill as a percentage of the total site area shall be noted in the grading and preliminary grading plan. The areas of cut and fill >ffsite yet physically attached to onsite cut and fill areas ,hall also be included in the calculations of cut/fill areas.
,ercent slopes requiring grading in excess of the grading lecessary to provide roadways, utilities, building foundations, )arking areas or recreational areas in conformance with this :hapter, shall submit for review specific written findings iustifying the reasons for the excess grading, subject to the ipproval of the decision making body.
:o the extent possible, be screened from view behind or under wildings, by landscaping, or by natural topographic features. L11 manmade slopes shall be landscaped to the satisfaction of the 'laming Director prior to occupancy of any structures.
lnits are stepped down the hillside all parts of structures broposed for development on hilltops and on pads created on killsides shall be sufficiently setback from the adjoining lownhill slopes so that the visual impact on the surrounding area .s eliminated or significantly reduced by the slope. Where mblic safety can be assured the setback area shall be used for public, common or private open space. Small irregular berming lhall be used within the ground level setback to create visual lnd site'interest. Setbacks shall be sufficient to eliminate or lignificantly reduce any jutting vertical mass which would he risually incompatible with natural hillside landforms.
.oads, roadways shall not greatly alter the physical and visual iharacter of a hillside, by creating large "notches" in .id elines or by defining wide, straight alignments. Roadways ;ha f 1 follow the natural contour of the land and be modulated by iufficient berming, contour grading and landscaping, to create fisually interesting and pleasing roadways.
;hall generally decrease with an increase in the percent of lillside slope. Multi-level or terraced foundations which fit a ,tructure into the natural slope and form of the hillside shall
le the preferred structural design on the uphill side of the itreet. Hillside architecture shall incorporate appropriate :tructure modulation along with floor and roof level transitions
Applications which propose development on 25 - 40
D) Screening graded slopes. Cut or fill slopes shall,
E) View preservation and enhancement. Except where
F) Roadway design. Except for Circulation Element
G) Hillside architecture. The volume of structures
5.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2c
21
22
22
24
25
26
21
2E
features and background of the hillside. The length of a to fit a structure and roofline into the natural contours,
structure shall orient parallel with the contour of the hillside. The greater the hillside slope, the longer the structure length to width ratio shall be required. Bulky, rigid, excessively angular, vertical or other obtrusive geometric architecture accessory structures or fences which are not in the same pattern, proportion or scale with the hillside landform shall be discouraged. The dominate roof slope shall follow the dominate slope of the hillside. Exterior, materials and colors shall be harmonious in tone and texture with the hillside and surrounding vegetation. Hose bibs and electrical outlets shall be constructed on the downhill side of all hillside structures.
architecture standards, hilltop architecture should extend and enhance the major features of hilltops, not dominate them. Significant downslope setbacks, small modulated berms, and sensitive landscaping shall be used to appropriately maintain the appearance of a hilltop ridgeline from surrounding viewpoints. Examples of the desired hillside and hilltop architecture can be found in the City of Carlsbad's Design Guidelines Manual and Architectural Review Guidelines.
feasible, maintain all natural drainage patterns and courses. Roofwater collection and drainage dispersal systems shall be provided for all dwelling units that do not drain directly onto a paved surface. If drainage benches are required on a slope their width shall be varied to accommodate lsndscaping for additional
H) Hilltop architecture. In addition to the hillside
I) Hillside drainage shall to the maximum extent
visual screening. J) Slope height and volume of grading Cut or fill. 1) cut or fill slopes shall not be greater than 30
feet in height.
yards shall be calculated. The cut or fill volumes shall be noted on the particular cut or fill. The total volume of cut and fill shall be noted on the grading and preliminary grading plan. 3) Volume of earth moved for cuts and fills shall be minimized. The larger volume of the total cut or total fill volumes divided by the total area in acres that is cut and filled
this chapter. The relative acceptability of hillside grading (that is graded) shall equal the volume of hillside grading for
volume shall be determined by the following:
2) The volumes of both the cut and fill in cubic
/I//
Cubic Yards
grading per of cut or fill
acre of cut & fill area (in acres)
Relative Sensitivity of hillside grading vo 1 ume
8,000 - 10,000 " > 10,000 ,I I1 Unacceptable
0 - 7,999 cubic yfs/a$re Acceptable
I,
Potentially Acceptable
6.
4
!
t
2
s
1(
11
1:
1:
14
1:
1Z
17
1E
1s
2c
21
22
22
24
25
26
27
20
potentially acceptable (8,000 - 10,000 cu. yds./acre of cut or
fill) shall on the preliminary grading plan submit for review specific written findings justifying the reasons for the amount of grading subject to the approval of the Planning Director and City Engineer.
unacceptable (>10,000 CU. yds./acre of cut or fill) shall be allowed only if they comply with all of the requirements of
Section 21.95.070.
the standards of this section unless a modification to these standards can be justified to the decision making body per the requirements of Section 21.95.070.
4) Applications proposing grading volumes which are
5) Applications proposing grading volumes which are
K) All development on hillside areas shall comply with
standards. A) Th e decision makine body mav amrove a 21.95.070 Modifications to the Development and DesiRn
nodification to the Hillside Development anh Design Standards of Section 21.95.060 if the proposed development com6l:es with the intent of the Hillside Ordinance and one or more of the following Eindings can be made:
londitions that necessitate corrective work that may require significant amounts of grading.
sccommodate a Circulation Element roadway. 2) The site requires extensive grading to
zignificantly more open space or undisturbed area than would a 3) The proposed modification will result in
ztrict adherence to the requirements of Section 21.90.060.
soils conditions that necessitate corrective work or a :irculation Element Roadway.
tnd Design Standards of the Hillside Ordinance shall be tccompanied by two preliminary grading plans. illustrate how a site would be developed with a One str Pan ct adherence
:o the requirements of Section 21.00.060. The second set shall Lllustrate the extent and type of the requested modification. :his plan shall also be accompanied by my other documentation leeded by the decision making body to determine that the proposed lodifications will resulc in a superior project with less adverse mvironmental impacts.
txcess of 10,000 cu. yds./acre of cut or fill or a manufactured #lope in excess of 30 feet in height, the applicant shall submit
I detailed mitigation and landscaping plan prior to approval of :he project. This plan shall illustrate the mitigation measures tnd landscaping utilized to screen the proposed grading. This Plan shall also state the estimated cost of the proposed litigation and landscaping for the portions of the site :equesting a modification to the Development and Design itandards. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant #hall deposit, at a financial institution subject to regulacion )y the state or federal government, a certificate of deposit or
1) The site has unusual geotechnical or soil
4) The site is impacted by unusual geotechnical or
B) Any request for a modification to the Development
C) If a modification is granted to allow grading in
7.
I
I
2
1
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
letter of credit made out to the City of Carlsbad or such other security which is acceptable to the City. This document shall be
and landscaping. If the proposed mitigation and landscaping is for at least twice the estimated cost of the proposed mitigation
not installed in a timely manner, in accordance with the approved plans, the Planning Director may authorize the utilization of
remaining after the completion of this work shall be returned to these funds to do the necessary remedial work. Any funds
the applicant.
land designated for non-residential develoDment shall comolv with 21.95.080 Non-Residential Development. Development on
all requiktents of this chapter except Subsection 21.95.666 J. Any non-residential project proposing gradtng in excess of 10,000 cubic yards per acre or creating slopes in excess of 30 feet in height shall provide both written and graphic exhibits to justify the proposed grading to the satisfaction of the decision making body.
~~
21.95.090 Exclusions. A) Any project that has receive
P final discretionary approval, building permit or grading permit ?rior to effective date of the ordinance adopting this chapter shall be exempt from the. provisions of this chapter provided that such uermits or amrovals have not exDired or are not otherwise revoked.
nay be excluded from the requirements of this Chapter by the
..
B) The following areas must be fully identified, but
iecision making body. 1) Areas previously disturbed by authorized
2) Areas where Circulation Element Roadways must :fading,
>e placed and no feasible alternative consistent with this :hapter is available;
in height and less than 4,000 square feet in area, which are not
t part of the surrounding generalized slope.
lubstantial evidence that the project will have a significant !ffect on the environment as determined by the Planning )irector.
:ity Policy ordinance or standard, the most restrictive policy, )rdinance or standard shall apply.
3) Areas of topographic change less than 15 feet
4) Small isolated ravines where there is no
Where any part of this chapter conflicts with any other
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective
:hirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify
:o the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at
.east once in the Carlsbad Journal within fifteen days after its
tdop t ion.
8.
i
1
I
1 \I
4
C
E
7
E
9
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2*
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the
:arlsbad City Council held on the day of P
986, and thereafter
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City
ouncil held on the day of , 1986, by
he following vote, to wit:
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
PPROVED AS TO FORI AND LEG lALITY
INCENT F. BIONDO, JR., City Attorney
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
rTEST :
LETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
3EAL)
9.
I
I
I
!
1(
1:
1:
1:
14
If
le
17
1E
1s
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
>
>
1
2
I
L
i
i
(
1
c
C
c
X
C
A
B 1
I
'I
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2636
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT
TO THE CAKLSBAD SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY THE REVISION OF
OF SUBSECTION (11) AND THE REVISION OF TITLE 20. CHAPTER
TITLE 20, CHAPTER 12, SUBSECTION 091(B) i3Y THE ADDITION
REQUIRE TENTATIVE MAPS TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE CITY'S HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
16, -SUBSECTION .olb BY THE ADDITION OF SUBSECTIO~ (13)-TO
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 15th day of
Ictober, the 19th day of November, and the 17th day of December,
1986, hold duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law to
:onsider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and
:onsidering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons
lesiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
.elating to the Zone Code Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
:ommission as follows:
,) That the above recitations are true and correct.
i) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission recommends APPROVAL of an amendment to the
December 17, 19&6, attached hereto and made a part hereof, subdivision Ordinance, according to Exhibit "B", dated
based on the following findings:
'indings:
The proposed amendment will ensure that proposed tentative maps comply withh all requirements of the Hillside Development Regulations, Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The proposed amendment will ensure that design of
21.95 in regards to open space areas. subdivisions are consistent with the provisions of Chapter
The project will not cause any significant environmental
Planning Director on June 7, 1986 and recommended for APPROVAL impacts and a Negative Declaration has been issued by the
by the Planning Commission on December 17, 1986.
;
I
I
1
!
1(
11
1;
12
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 17th day of December, 1986, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES : Chairman Schlehuber, Commissioners: Hall,
NOES : None.
ABSENT: Commissioners: Holmes & McBane.
ABSTAIN: None.
Schramm, Marcus & McFadden.
CLARENCE SCHLEHUBER, Chairman CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
iTTEST :
'LANNING DIRECTOR lICHAEL J. HOLZHILLER
PC RES0 NO. 2636 -2-
/I
EXHIBIT "B"
December 17, 1986
!.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CODE BY THE ADDITION OF TITLE 20, CHAPTER 12, SUBSECTION
2
091(61(11) AND THE ADDITION OF TITLE 20. CHAPTER 16. 3
CALIFOKNIA, AMENDING TITLE 20, OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL
4
5
6
7
8
9
SUBSECTION 010(13) TO REQUIRE TENTATIVE'MAPS- T6"coMhy WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY'S HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, doe
ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: That Title ?O, Chapter 12 is amended by the
addition of Subsection 091(11) to read a8 follows:
20.12.091 (b) (11). That the proposed tentative ma complies with
21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
10
13
12
11
all requirements of the Hillside Development Regu P ations, Chapter
SECTION 2: That Title 20, Chapter 20.16 of the Carlsbad
14
15
16
17
18
19 I
Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Section 20.16.010(13)
to read as follows:
of Chapter 21.95 of this code relating to
design of the subdivision shall be consistent
Hillside Development. Areas which are determined to be undevelopable pursuant to the applicable provisions of Chapter 21.95 of this code shall be preserved as open space areas.
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 the Carlsbad Journal within fifteen days after its
adoption.
20
21
22
23
24 INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council held on the day of ,
1986. and thereafter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 , : . 'a
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 held on the day of
1986, and thereafter
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meting of said City
Council held on the day of , 1987, b
the following vote, to wit:
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
IINCENT F. BIONDO, JR., City Attorney
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
4TTEST :
2.
MEMORANDUM
DATE : DECEMBER 17, 1986
TO : PLANNING COMMISSXON
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: ZCA-194 - CITY OF CARLSBAD - Hillside Development
Regulations
Attached is a copy of the Hillside Development Regulations
incorporating a number of minor text changes to clarify the
intent of the Ordinance, eliminate conflicting statements and
make the ordinance more workable. All of the proposed revisions
have been underlined to facilitate the Planning Commission’s
review of this document.
The only significant change was the addition of subsection C to
Section 21.95.070 of the Ordinance. This section deals with
modifications to the Development and Design Standards to allow
grading in excess of 10,000 cubic yards ‘per acre or the creation
of manufactured slopes in excess of 30 feet. The new wording
requires preparation of a detailed mitigation and landscape plan
prior to approval of the project. In addition, it requires the
applicant to deposit at a local bank a Certificate of Deposit or
Letter of Credit made out to the City of Carlsbad prior to
issuance of a grading permit. This document must be for at least
twice the estimated cost of the proposed mitigation and
landscaping. If the proposed mitigation and landscaping is not
installed in a timely manner in accordance with the approved plan
the Planning Director may utilize these funds to do the necessary
remedial work. Any funds remaining after the completion of this
work shall be returned to the applicant.
The purpose of this section is to ensure that the City has some
method to guarantee that the mitigation and landscaping of
projects requiring massive amounts of grading or large
manufactured slopes is carried out in a timely manner according
to the approved plans. At the present time the Engineering
Department requires all projects to post a bond for their public
improvements and grading. However, it is a very difficult and
time consuming process to call these bonds. The Certificate of
Deposit or Letter of Credit in a local bank would enable the City
to have funds immediately available to do any necessary remedial
work. Staff believes that this section is very important as it
guarantees that any massive slopes created by a project will be
mitigated and landscaped. If the developer does not perform, the
City has ready access to funds to assure the problem will be
remedied.
as
Staff has reviewed the revisions to the Hillside Development
Regulations with representatives of the development community.
Although they did not particularly like certain sections of the
ordinance, they felt that it was a workable ordinance.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the revised
Hillside Development Regulations. They establish strict
development standards, but allow for flexibility when it can be
justified. However, it puts the burden of proof on the applicant
to justify any modifications to the standards of the Ordinance.
It also provides a method to guarantee that projects requiring
massive grading or large manufactured slopes will be properly
mitigated and landscaped.
MH:bn
Attachments
-2-
' December 16, 1986
TO: Planning Department
Att: Mike Howes, Senior Planner
FROM : City Attorney
PROPOSED HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Thank you for your memorandum of November 26, 1986 regarding the
above referenced matter and attaching a draft of this proposed
ordinance. I appreciate your having taken the time to underline
the revisions. My comments on these revisions follow:
1. Section 21.95.070(C). I would suggest allowing the
acceptance of other security acceptable to the City prior to
the issuance of a grading permit. Therefore, I would change
this sentence to read:
"Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the
applicant shall deposit, at a financial institution
subject to regulation by the state or federal
government, a certificate of deposit or letter of
credit made payable to the City of Carlsbad or such other security which is acceptable to the City. This security shall be in an amount at least twice that of the estimated cost of the proposed mitigation and landscaping..."
2. Section 21.95.090(B)(4). Change this subparagraph to read:
"Small isolated ravines where there is no substantial
evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment as determined by the planning d i rector .
I appreciate your having forwarded this proposed ordinance for review. Should you have any questions regarding the above,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
F- RONALD R. BALL
Assistant City Attorney
rmh
3
MI N UTE\-
/
\
October 15, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6
COMM ISSlON ERS
I
%I
I
Commissioner Marcus stated that she agreed with Mr.
ere was generally no parking pr
situation where the cars park
would be very rare. She state
re was the adequate parking w
ng patio area outside as this
t to the establishment.
Chairman Sch
of the homeo
Commission r
5th, and Cond any concerns
nded that the
Commissioner McBane p and stated there were references to uld be deleted.
Commissioner Hall re was a misnumbering of th oval. Mr. Howes
indicated that st
ned therein:
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO A Ir TO ALLOW A DANCE FLOOR A Y
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED T
AL BETWEEN ALGA ROAD AND DO
RECESS
The Planning Conmission recessed at 7:07 p.m. and
reconvened at 7:17 p.m., with all members present with
the exception of Commissioner McFadden.
5) ZCA-194 - CITY OF CARLSBAD - An amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance to add the
Hillside Development Regulations for the development
on hillside areas.
Mike Howes, Senior Planner, gave the background of the
item. He thanked Comnissioners Schramn, Hall and Holmes
for the assistance as part of the Hillside Subcommittee in
the formation of the Hillside Development Regulations.
He stated that ideas were taken also from other
jurisdictions who have these regulations in their
ordinances. Most of the ordinances which were reviewed
were directed towards large lot single-family development.
Staff has created an ordinance which they feel can apply
to both single-family and nulti-family and to a certain extent to non-residential development. Further, the
ordinance was submitted to other departments, professional engineers and landscape architects to obtain their review
and comments. Constructive comments from the
professionals were incorporated into the ordinance. The ordinance does provide the flexibility to allow
modifications when they are warranted. However, with any
modification, the burden of proof will be put on the
developer to justify the request for modiflcation.
Schlehuber
Hal 1 Marcus
McBane
Holmes
Schramm
\
MIN UTLS L *
I,
!
!
October 15, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Howes called attention to a memo from staff making a
number of minor changes to the ordinance which clarified the
wording of the ordinance. He introduced Lance Schulte who
will be giving the presentation in further detail.
Chairman Schlehuber also called attention to a letter received from Rick Engineering on this matter.
Lance Schulte, Assistant Planner, stated that the ordinance requires an applicant to map certain slope conditions on the project. The categories required to be mapped are 0 to 15% slope; 15% to 25% slope: 25% up to 40% slope: and greater than 40% slopes.
minimum of three slope profiles to show what the ground will look like in profile.
property that has a slope of greater than 15% and that slope
is higher than 15 feet in height. The ordinance also requires that four findings of approval be met before a
development of a hillside could be made.
Mr. Schulte continued stating that the ordinance calls out for no residential density to be granted to areas within a
project that are greater than 40% slopes. It defines that only 50% of potential density credit be allowed on slopes
between 25% - 40% consistent with the recently adopted
growth management program.
subdivision ordinance to make sure that unbuildable sites
are not developed.
Mr. Schulte itemized the ten development standards
established by the ordinance.
standards, staff feels that the standard regarding the
volume of grading, cut and fill, is probably the most
important because it establlshes the acceptability of
hillside landform change - the degree that the natural
hillside would be changed.
Mr. Schulte concluded by stating that recognizing that all
slopes and development are not the same, Section 070 of the
ordinance allows for the modification of the development
standards if three standards are met: (1) unusual
geotechnical or soils condition that would require sensitive
grading; (2) circulation on the roadways, such as major
arterials, that would require extensive grading to meet all City design standards; and (3) signiflcantly more open space
would be provided with the modification of standards then
would be a strict interpretation of the ordinance. To
receive a modification, the applicant must show and justify
such a modification.
Chairman Schlehuber stated that the presentation was very
detalled, and noted that it was not all contalned in the
staff report and requested that it be submitted to the
Commission in writing.
Chairman Schlehuber declared the public hearing opened at
7:27 p.m. and issued the invitation to speak.
Don Woodward, 5100 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, addressed the Commission and stated his preference to have a flat pad that has a grade that would naturally drain, with balance on
site so that there be no necessity to do any grading.
grading ordlnance is a necessary evil and a function of communities who have a varying topography such as Carlsbad.
They are also required to produce a
The ordinance would be applicable to
It provides consistency with the
He stated that of the ten
A
33
I, MINUTES
Mr. Woodward stated that he felt that the proposed ordinance does not give the required flexibility that should be adhered to in any kind of a governmental requirement. The criteria is here, but when you become overly restrictive, you preclude what might really be beneficial in terms of land use concepts, etc. He felt
that the ordinance should be written differently, with more flexibility.
Bob Ladwig, Rick Engineering, addressed the Comnission and
reviewed a letter he submitted to the Commission outlining
minor changes that could be made in the language of the
ordinance to make it a positive ordinance rather than a
negative ordinance. He pointed out that Paragraph (E) on Page 4 of the ordinance refers to setbacks on top of slopes. wants to build a project and may have a unit that may be over the edge of the slope. at the top of the slope, and he felt that maybe that would be allowed by the ordinance; however, it is not clear
whether this can be done the way the ordinance presently reads.
Mr. Howes stated that that portion was put in basically to address projects that are built on top of a slope that do not step down a slope. This portion, however, does not
prohibit a project from stepping down the side of a slope.
Mr. Ladwig felt that that detail should show up in one of the cross sections that would be drawn through the project, showing the existing and future grades and the units on the slope.
Commissioner Hall felt that there needs to be some
language in the ordinance that spells this out more
clearly. Mr. Howes stated that staff could accomplish some wording to the fact that projects that are built on
top of the slope and do not step down the slide of a slope be setback from the edge of the slope.
Chairman Schlehuber requested that the drawings attached
to the Ordinance be included as part of the ordinance
itself and that a drawing be included on this particular
portion.
Mr. Ladwig pointed out that he did not have a chance to
review the ten standards, and other data presented by Mr. Schulte tonight. He continued reviewing the letter he submitted to the Comnission. wording could be changed to make it a positive ordlnance rather than a negative ordinance.
Mr. Ladwig referred to Page 6, line 15 1/2, that the phrase "one or more of the following" be added to the sentence. qualify for any of the modifications, is that the person
have a circulation element road in the property. The way it is written, it is very specific that a person has to
have all three of them. circulation element. Mr. Howes stated that there was no problem with putting in that wording.
Mr. Ladwia Dointed out a correction to Paae 6. Line 21.
He stated that there are conditions where one
There may be a IO-foot break
Staff indicated that this could be done.
He pointed out ways that the
He explained that the only way one could
Yet one happens to be a major
h word ;'accompli e If should b "accompanied". Staff Enhcated that WOU?~ ge correcte3.
c
October 1 , 1986 PLANN
MINUTES
COMMISSION Page 9
COMMISSIONERS \
Chairman Schlehuber indicated his preference to continue
Agenda Item No. 5 at this time to later on in the meeting
to give the public an opportunity to review additional
documents submitted on this matter and be able to comment
on them.
Mr. Ladwig made one further comment on the concern that
staff has regarding the quantity of yardage removal of
slopes. He stated that the damage done to native land is
done when one removes the first six inches. Whether one
goes 10 or 20 feet further down in some cases does not
make much difference. Staff needs to focus more on
landscaping, drainage away from slopes, and slope
protection as a positive thing, rather than concentrating
on the number of yards. He thought that more concern
should be placed on what you do to replace what was there
as far as protection to the surface than the amount of
yardage that you are moving.
The Planning Commission continued Agenda Item No. 5 to the
last agenda item on the calendar of this meeting.
..
_._A
I.
1
L’ Ij
MINUTES
Meeting of: PLANNING COMMISSION
Time of Meeting: 6:OO p.m.
Date of Meeting: November 19, 1986
Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers
COMMISSIONERS
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Schlehuber called the Meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairman Schlehuber.
INTRODUCTIONS:
Chairman Schlehuber introduced the new clerk, Betty Buckner,
and the new Assistant City Attorney, Ron Ball.
ROLL CALL:
Present - Chairman Schlehuber, Commissioners McFadden,
Holmes, Schramm, Marcus, and McBane
Absent - Commissioner Hall
Staff Members Present:
Martin Orenyak, Community Development Director
Gary Wayne, Senior Planner
Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst
Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney
Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
There were no comments from the audience.
AGENDA ADDITIONS, DELETIONS OR ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED:
At the request of staff, Agenda Item No. 4 (ZCA-194 - CITY OF
CARLSBAD - Hillside Development Regulations) was continued to
December 17 to allow time for changes to be made to the
ordinance and circulate said changes for review.
PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES:
Chairman Schlehuber reviewed the Planning Commission
procedures, shown on the transparency, for the benefit of the
audience.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Schlehuber
Marcus
McBane
Holmes
Schramm
McFadden
h T
c
MINUTES
Meeting of: PLANNING COnnISSION
Time of Meeting: 6:OO p.m. Date of HOeting:
Place of Meeting:
hCmbeK 17, 1986
City Council Chambers
\\
COMMISSIONERS ’
CALL To ORDKR:
Chairmu! Schlehuber callod the Meeting to order at 6:OO p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairnun Schlohubar.
ROLL CALL:
Present - Chairnun Schlehubar. Coamissioners McPadden,
Hall, Schr.mm, and Marcus
Absent - Comnissioners Hohs and McBane
Staff MWO~KS Present:
Mich.01 fil~illeK. Planning Director
Charles Crimm, Assistant Planning Director
Chris Salamone, Redeveloprrmnt Director Mike Howes, Senior PlaMOK
Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney
Lloyd Hubbs, City Enginaor David Hawer, Assistant City hgineer Clyde Wickham. Associate Engineer
Bobbie Hoder, Senior HonPg8ment holyst
Chairmu! Schlehuber reviewed the Planning Comnission procedures. shown on the transparency. for tho benefit of the audienc8.
COEMENTS FROM THE AUDIWCB ON ITEMS NOT LISTED IN THE AGENDA:
There wero no comts from the audience.
AGENDA ADDITIONS. DELETIONS OR ITWS TO BE CONTINUED:
There were no agenda additions, deletions OK items to be
continued.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
The Planning Commission unanimously approved the following
Consant Item:
1) ROI-178 - CITY OF CARLSBAD - Request for a Planning
Comnission Determination regarding a possible zone code
amendamnt to pewit more than one satellite dish on lots
in the M an P-H zones.
CONTINLW PUBLIC HEARING:
2) ZCA-194 - CITY OF CARLSBAD - Hillside Development Rog~lationr
Mike Howor, Senior Plannor, reviewad tho background of the
Hillside &V8lOpwnt regulations and statad that the currant
revision containod only minor text chgu with the exception of subsection C to Section 21.95.070 which deals with the
detailed landscape and mitigation plan on grading in excess
of 10,000 cubic foet par acre or on man-made slopes in excess
of 30 foet in height.
lotter of credit for twice the mount with a financial institution for the proposed mitigation OK hndscnping of
buffered grading or excessivo slopes.
He further statod that it ah0
KequirOS the applicant to post a certificate Of daposit OK
If the devsloper doer
Schlehuber
Marcus Hall
Schranun
Mc Fadden
\
37
.
c
*I MINUTES
PLANNING CMISSION
December 17, 1986 Page 2 \ COMMISSIONERS
not perform, the City has ready access to funds to assure the
problem will be remedied.
Mr. Howes directed the Commissioners attention to the handout and stated that all proposed revisions to the ordinance were
underlined with heavy black pen. He further stated that
staff recommands approval of the proposed regulation because,
although the requirements are stringent. it allows
flexibility when justified.
the burden of proof on the developor.
Conmissioner Marcus questioned the legality of the double bond amount and Attorney Ball responded by saying that
although there has been a lot of legislation regarding bond
requirements, it has mostly been in relation to large
developments and subdivisiona, and to his knowledge there are
no statutory requirements regarding bonds not to exceed a
certain amount when it relates to ensuring that developers
fulfill their landscape requirements.
Chairman Schlehuber requested Mr. Howes to review the wording
of the proposed last-minute revisions for the benefit of
those persons in the audience who did not have copies of the
handout.
Mr. Howes read the proposed revision to 21.95.070 (C) with regard to the placement of a bond at a financial institution
and said that this paragraph originally stated that the bond
be placed at a local financial institution but that the City
Attorney's office recommanded the paragraph be changed to read "...at a financial institution subject to regulation by the state or federal government. ..".
Hr. Howes then read the proposed revision to 21.95.090 (B)(4)
which allows for an exclusion of small isolated ravines
"...where there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant effect on the environment..." and stated that this wording clarification had also been
recommended by the City Attorney's office.
Chairman Schlehuber then requested Mr. Howes to review the
proposed revision to 21.95.060 (E). Mr. Howes read the new
wording which was added to the section regarding view
preservation and enhancement, i.e. "EXceDt where units are Stepped down the hillside, all parts of structures proposed
for development on hilltops and on pads created on hillsides
shall be sufficiently setback from the adjoining downhill
slopes so that the visual impact on the surrounding area is
eliminated or significantly reduced by the slope."
Conmissioner Mcladden inquired about the need for the
stipulation regarding one single family dwelling unit per
parcel as set forth in 21.95.050 (3).
explained that this stipulation had born added to the
ordinance becauso of several cases now pending before the
Suprema Court regarding "reasonable use." phrase, it would subject thm Ordinance to the argument that reaaonable use had been precluded by the adoption of this
ordinance.
Chairman Schlehuber aeclared tho public hearing opened and issued the invitation to speak.
Robert Galloway. Kaufman and Broad Dovelopwnt Group, 11601
Wilshire Boulevard. Los Angoles. addressed the Commission and
inquired as to how this ordinance would affect the Kelly
He also stated that it places
Attorney Ball
Without this
MINUTES
pmINc CWISSION
December 17, 1986 Page 3
COMMISSIONERS
Ranch developnnnt and the roadbed for Cannon Road.
that they wore experiencing a multitude of problems with
settling and that the balance of the grading would not fit
the new ordinance. that questions regarding a particular project and not the
ordinance itself should not be addressed in public forum but
rather should be answered by staff and the City Attorney's
office. addressing the Commission was to go on record that the developers of Kelly Ranch desired to complete the first phase under the old regulations and have the new ordinance apply to
the second phase.
Larry Cleummns. HPI Development Company, 7707 El Camino Real,
Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that ha felt
the master plan and the coastal plan already address land use and that this additional layer (the hillside ordinance) inhibits construction on flat land. He further stated that
there are no findings to support the reduction of density.
Chairman Schlehubar replied that he does not see density on
hillsides as a problem. Mr. Clemmons then stated that by removing the planning tool of density transfer, this ordinance, in affect. eliminates the open space provided for
in the master plan.
Doug Avis, Beiri-Avis, 11300 Sorrento Valley Boulevard, Sur Diego, addressod the Commission and stated that the hillsido
ordinance will lower the density throughout the City of
Carlsbad. Specifically, he feels that RL property, because
of its topography, receives double jeopardy under the
hillsido ordinance and Hr. Avis asked for consideration to
exclude RL property from the density calculation.
Kim Post, 5451 Avenida Encinas, a civil engineer for VTN in Carlsbad and an eight year resident of La Costa. addressed
the Conmission and stated that he has been watching the
hillside developmont within the city and feels that the
ordinance is too rigid and that interpretation, from a civil engineer standpoint, could be a problem. that the ordinance allows flexibility for exceptional cases
and he would like to see an interim ordinance put through the
process of US. before the final hillside ordinance is
adopted.
Chairman Schlehuber referred to 21.95.070 which allows flexibility for exceptional geotechnical or soil conditions.
There being no other person in the audience desiring to
address the Commission, Chairman Schlehuber declared the
public hearing closed.
Commissioner Mcladden inquired as to whether staff feels that our current hillside street standards are flexible enough to
proceed with the hillside ordinance as written.
Hausor, Assistant City Engineer, rosponded by saying that Engineering is in the process of making revisions to tho City
standards to allow for more variance ability and stated that
this ptojoct is approximately two-thirds completo.
Commissioner Ncladden then inquired regarding Finding 112
which specifies that the proper design and grading techniques will be wed for hillside development. finding is incomplete becauso it door not address the phasing of grading or exact placement of final pad elevation.
He stated
Chairman Schlehuber responded by saying
Hr. Galloway further stated that his purpose of
He does not feel
David
She feels that this
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 17. 1986 Page 4
COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Hauser stated that phased grading would normally be a
consideration at the tima of a tentative map. there was no official policy setting forth plus or minus
limits on pad elevation but that the policy reads
"...substantial conformance to the tentative map..." which
leaves the final interpretation to the discretion of the City
Engineer. When a specific determination is required, it is
brought before the Planning Commisrion for review and
approval.
He added that
Commissioner Mcladden expressed particular concern to the infill areas and Mr. Hauser stated that around infill areas,
smaller variations are allowed.
The Planning Coamission approved the adoption of Rasolution No. 2570 to establish hillside developmont regulations for
the City of Carlsbad and, basod on the public testimony and findings, the amendment of Finding 2) to read "will promote"
in lieu of "will ensure that".
The Planning Commission approved the adoption of Resolution No. 2636 to require tentative nupa to comply with the
requirements of the City's hillside development regulations.
The Planning Commission made a minute motion to recomwrnd
to the City Council that the Engineering Department study the issue of (1) what should be the plus or minus pad
elevations on hillsides, and (2) whether there should or should not be phased grading.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
3) SNC-25 - CITY OF CMUsBAD - R8quest for a street name
change of Elm Avenue from its eastern terminus to the ocean to Carlsbad Village Drive.
Chris Salomone, Redevelopment Director, gave a brief history
of the above item and stated that the Carlsbad Merchants
Association has petitioned the Redevelopment Office to
process a street name change in an effort to increase
awareness of the Village area. City Council on November 12, 1986 and, due to the several
options available, Council referred the matter to the Design
Review Board and the Planning Commission for consideration.
Mr. Salamone continued by stating that the project will affect approximately 120 businesses and that the downtown
merchants had conducted several polls which have strongly
favored the name change.
The Design Review Board has recommanded that the name change
apply to Elm Avenue in its entirety, from the ocean to the
eastern terminus. and th8t the change coincide with completion of the streetscope project which vi11 occur in approximately 12-18 months. eliminate any negative economic impact to local businesses
cawed by alterations to signage. letterheads, yellow page
advertising, and other printed matter.
Chairman Schlehubar declared the public hearing opened and
issued the invitation to speak.
Bob Bixler. Bob's Clock Shop, 1055 Elm Avenue, addressed the Commission and stated that no business in the Big Bear Center
The item was presented to the
This 12-18 month period should
Schlehuber
Marcus
Hall Schram McFadden
Schlehuber
Marcus
Hall
Schrarmn McFadden
Schlehuber
Marcus
Hall Schranm McFadden
Carlsbad Journal
Decreed A legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of Sun Diego County
Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to
North Coast Publishers, Inc. corporate offices: P.O. Box 878, Encinitas, CA 92024
(61 9) 753-6543
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss,
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 principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal a newspaper of general circulation,
published twice weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which
newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and
which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying
subscribers, and which newspaper has been established, printed and published at regular intervals in
the said City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year next
preceding the date of publication of the notice
hereinafter referred to; and 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 dates, to-wit: -- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ZCA-184 i
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that 4 the City Council of the City ofCarls- bad will hold a public hearing a? the City Council Chambers. 1200 , Elm Avenue, Carlsbad. California, at 600 P.M. on Tuesday, February 1%. 1987, to conrider an applieation for an amendment to the Subdivi- sion Ordinance and Zoning Ordi- nance to add the Hillside Develop ment Regulations for the develop menton hillside areas. If you have any queations, please call the Planning Department at 436-1161. If you challenge the Zone Code Amendment in court, you rrmy be limited to raising only those iuuer you or someone else raised at Le public hearing described in thl$ notlce, or in written corrslpon- 1 dence delivered to the City of CarIs- bad at or prior to the public hear-
ina Applicant City of Carlsbad CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL CJ 3122: Javunry Za 1987
i
January 28, ............. 19.. 87 .
............................... 19
................................. 19 ....
......... 19.. ..
............................... 19
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct. Executed at Carlsbad, Count of San Diego, State of California on the J8th
day of _Januarv,
1
$202 2M 7 86
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ZCA- 1 9 4
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO P.M.,
on Tuesday, February 10, 1987, to consider an application for an amendment to the
Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance to add the Hillside Development Regulations
for the development on hillside areas.
If you have any questions, please call the Planning Department at 438-1161.
If you challenge the Zone Code Amendment in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,
or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the
public hearing.
APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
PUBLISH: January 28, 1987 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
c .
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - '
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission
hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers,
of the City of Carlsbad will
1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad,
California, at 6:OO p.m. on Wednesday, October 15, 1986, to consider approval of
an amendment to the Subdivision ordinance and Zoning Ordinance to add the
Hillside Development Regulations for the development on hillside areas.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend
the public hearing. If you have any questions please call the Planning
Department at 438-1 16 1.
If you challenge the Zone code Amendment in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in
this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at
or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: ZCA-194
APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLISH: October 4, 1986
CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION