HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 94-01; Development Agreements ZCA/LCPA; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (13)-
h h t
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY - PETE WILSON, Gowmor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SAN DIEGO COAST AREA
3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1125
(619) 521-8036
- \- I--%,-% e,, ~ TO: COMMISSIONERS AND INTERESTED PERSONS L -. 9. . .-.A - b- . . _. "l FROM: CHARLES DAMM, SOUTH COAST DISTRICT DIRECTOR
DEBORAH N. LEE, ASSISTANT DISTRICT DIRECTOR, SAN DIEGO AREA OFFICE
BILL PONDER, COASTAL PLANNER, SAN DIEGO AREA OFFICE
SUBJECT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON MAJOR AMENDMENT 2-95 TO THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD'S LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (For Public Hearing and Possible
Action at the Meeting of October 10-13, 1995)
SYNOPSIS
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT REOUEST
The subject amendment request amends the certified Carlsbad LCP Implementation Plan to incorporate a chapter on "Development Agreements" within the six segments and revises the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan, an implementation plan document regarding approximately 423 acres on the north side of Palomar Airport Road and east of Paseo Del Norte associated with the Mello I1 segment, to realign the flower fields trail/pedestrian promenade and amend corresponding standards and exhibits.
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending approval, as submitted, of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan amendment and denial of the implementation plan amendment relating to development agreements, as submitted, and then its subsequent approval if modified. The amendment has been classified as a major amendment because there are some technical clarifications which need to be made in the Development Agreements chapter. The suggested modifications require that
development agreements cannot be approved unless found consistent with the
local coastal program. The suaaested modi f i cations for the devel opment
agreements amendment are o n Paae 4.
The aDoroDri ate resol uti ons and motions mav be found on Paaes 4-6. he Carl sbad Ranch SDec ific Plan beain on Paae 6 . Findings fo r denial of the "Devel oDment for aDDrova1 of the implementation Dlan amendment to t
Aareements" imDlementation Dlan amendment bea in on Paae 8 .
9Dproval of the development agreements a mendment. if modified. bea in on Paa? 9.
Fi ndi rigs
Findings fo r
BACKGROUN D
The Carlsbad Local Coastal Program consists of six geographic segments. Pursuant to Sections 30170(f) and 30171 of the Public Resources Code, the Coastal Commission prepared and approved two portions of the LCP, the Mello I
_? c.
I Carlsbad LCPA No. 2-95 Page 2
and I1 segments in 1980 and 1981, respectively.
found several provisions of the Mello I and I1 segments unacceptable and declined to adopt the LCP implementing ordinances for the LCP. In October,
1985, the Commission approved major amendments related to steep slope
protection and agricultural preservation to the Mello I and II segments, which resolved the major differences between the City and the Coastal Commission. The City then adopted the Mello I and I1 segments and began working toward certification of all segments of its local coastal program. Since the 1985 action, the Commission has approved many major amendments to the City of
Car 1 s bad LCP.
However, the City of Carlsbad
The Commission certified the Land Use Plan portion of the Agua Hedionda segment in 1982. In addition, two new segments were annexed to the City, the West Batiqui tos Lagoon/Sammis Properties segment and the East Batiqui tos LagoonIHunt Properties segment. The West Batiqui tos LagoonISammi s Properties
LCP was certified in 1985. certified in 1988. LCP was effectively certified and the Redevelopment Agency began issuing coastal development permits for that segment only in 1988.
The East Batiquitos LagoonIHunt Properties LCP was
In 1987, a resubmitted Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area
ADD1 TIONAL INFO RMATION
f
Further information on the City of Carlsbad LCP amendment #2-95 may be obtained from Bill Ponder, Coastal Planner, at (619) 521-8036.
Carlsbad LCPA No. 2-95 Page 3
PART I. OVERVIEW
A. Local Coasta 1 Proqram Historv-All Seaments.
The City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP) consists of six geographic segments: 1,100 acres; the Carlsbad Mello I LCP segment with 2,000 acres; the Carlsbad Mello I1 LCP segment which includes approximately 5,300 acres; the West Batiqui tos Lagoon/Sammi s Properties LCP segment with 200 acres; the East Batiqui tos Lagoon/Hunt Properties LCP segment with 1,000 acres and the Vi 1 lage
Area Redevelopment segment with approximately 100 acres.
the Agua Hedionda Lagoon LCP segment comprised of approximately
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 30170(f) and 30171, the Coastal Commission was required.to prepare and approve an LCP for identified portions
of the City. to as the Mello I and Mello I1 segments. The Mello I and Mello I1 LCP segments were approved by the Coastal Commission in September 1980 and June 1981, respectively.
the City and approved by the Coastal Commission on July 1, 1982.
This resulted in the two Carlsbad LCP segments commonly referred
The Agua Hedionda segment Land Use Plan was prepared by
The Mello I, Mello I1 and Agua Hedionda segments of the Carlsbad LCP cover the majority of the City's coastal zone. which involve the greatest number of coastal resource issues and have been the subject of the most controversy over the past years. Among those issues involved in the review of the land use plans of these segments were preservation of agricultural lands, protection of steep-sloping hillsides and wetland habitats and the provision of adequate visitor-serving facilities. Preservation of the scenic resources of the area was another issue raised in the review of these land use plans. As mentioned, the City had found the policies of the certified Mello I and I1 segments regarding preservation of agri cul ture and steep-slopi ng hi 11 si des to be unacceptabl e. therefore did not apply these provisions in the review of local projects.
In the summer of 1985, the City submitted two amendment requests to the Commission and, in October of 1985, the Commission certified amendments 1-85 and 2-85 to the Mello I and Mello I1 segments, respectively. These (major) amendments to the LCP involved changes to the agricultural preservation, steep
slope protection and housing policies of the Mello I and I1 segments of the
LCP. After certification of these amendments, the City adopted the Mello I
and I1 LCP segments.
The West Batiqui tos Lagoon/Sammi s Properties segment was certified in 1985
along with a coastal development permit for a project comprising the majority
of the uplands within that plan segment (Batiquitos Lagoon Educational
Park-Sammi s) .
They are also the segments of the LCP
The City
The plan area of the Village Area Redevelopment segment was formerly part of the Mello I1 segment of the LCP. In August of 1984, the Commission approved the segmentation of this 100-acre area from the remainder of the Mello I1 LCP segment and, at the same time, approved the submitted land use plan for the area. In March of 1988, the Commission approved the Implementation Program
Carlsbad LCPA No. 2-95 Page 4
for the Village Area Redevelopment segment of the LCP. post-certi fi cation maps occurred in December and the City assumed permit authority for this LCP segment on December 14, 1988. LagoonIHunt Properties LCP was certified in 1988.
In addition to the review process for the six LCP segments mentioned, the City has also submitted at various times, packages of land use plan amendments to the certified LUP segments, including these segments, in an effort to resolve existing inconsistencies between the City's General Plan, Zoning Maps and the Local Coastal Program. After all such inconsistencies are resolved, the City plans to submit, for the Commission's review, the various ordinances and post-certification maps for implementation of the LCP. At that time, or perhaps earlier, the City may prepare and submit a single LCP document that
incorporates all of the' LCP segments as certified by the Commission and any subsequent LCP amendments. After review and approval of these documents by
the Commission, the City would assume permit authority for all LCP segments.
A review of the
The East Batiquitos
B. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of review for implementation plans; or their amendments, is found in Section 30513 of the Coastal Act. Pursuant to Section 30513 of the Coastal Act, the Commission may only reject zoning ordinances or other implementing actions, as well as their amendments, on the grounds that they do not conform with, or are inadequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified land use plan. The Commission shall take action by a majority vote of the Commissioners present.
C. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City has held Planning Commission and City Council meetings with regard to the components of the subject amendment request. All of those local hearings were duly noticed to the public. distributed to all known interested parties.
Notice of the subject amendment has been
PART 11. LOC AL COASTAL PROGRAM SUBMITTAL - RESOLUTIO NS
Following a public hearing, staff recommends the Commission adopt the following resolutions and findings. resolution and a staff recommendation are provided just prior to each resolution.
The appropriate motion to i troduce the
sbad Ranch A.
!!!mmtu
RESOLUTION I (Resolution to approve certjfication of the Car Specific P1 an Amendment, as submitted)
I move that the Commission reject the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment, as submitted.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends a W vote and the adoption of the following resolution
Carl sbad LCPA No. 2-95 Page 5
and findings.
present is needed to pass the-motion. An affirmative vote by the majority of the Commissioners
The Commission hereby =Droves certification of the amendment to the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan on the grounds that the amendment conforms with and is adequate to carry out the provisions of the certified land use plan. available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts which the approval would have on the environment.
There are no feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures
B. RESOLU TION 11 (Resolution to deny certification of the Development Agre'ements chapter, as submitted)
WTION I1
I move that the Commission reject the Development Agreements chapter, as submitted.
Staff RecommendatioQ
Staff recommends a YES vote and the adoption of the following resolution
and findings.
present is needed to pass the motion.
Resolution IL
The Commission hereby denies certification of the amendment to the City of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program on the grounds that the amendment does
not conform with, and is inadequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified land use plan. mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts which the approval would have on the envi ronment:
An affirmative vote by the majority of the Commissioners
There are feasible alternatives or feasible
C. RESOLUTION I11 (Resolution to approve certification of the Development Agreements chapter, if modified)
MOTION I11
I move that the Commission approve the Development Agreements chapter, if modified.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends a YES vote and the adoption of the following resolution and findings. present fs needed to pass the motion. An affirmative vote by the majority of the Commissioners
Carlsbad LCPA No. 2-95 Page 6
Resolution I11
The Commission hereby certifies the amendment to the City of Carlsbad's
Local Coastal Program on the grounds that the amendment, as modified,
conforms with, and is adequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified land use plan. mi tigation measures available which would substantially lessen any
significant adverse impacts which the approval would have on the environment.
There are no feasible alternatives or feasible
PART 111. SUGGES TED MODIFICATIONS (under1 i ni ng i ndi cates where added ordinance 1 anguage Is recommended to be added to Chapter 21.70lDevelopment Agreements of
the City's Zoning Code and strike-out indicates ordinance language recommended
for deletion)
1. In Chapter 21.70 of the City's Zoning Code, Section 21.70.080(b)(l)
regarding the Decision by the City Council shall be revised to read:
(b) The city counci 1 shall not approve. the development agreement
unless it finds that the agreement:
(1) Is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan. the certified local
coastal Drouram and any applicable specific plan [...I
2. In Chapter 21.70 of the City's Zoning Code, the second paragraph of
Section 21.70.090 regarding Approval of Development Agreements shall be revised to read:
For projects located within the coastal zone, fHd pnv B~D roved
development agreement dHd11 /Mi IICtB~CICffCtfiJCld~f il ldlldtdl
~d~~iidid~/dllif$ldd~~~~ddt/i~/i~fCtddff shall be reviewed bv the
Commission for conformance with apDlicable Ca lif o rni a Coastal
provisions of the local coastal proa ram. If the pro visions of the
develoment aareement are not found to be co nsistent with the
certified local coasta 1 proaram. the development aureement shall be
revised bv the C itv to be co nsistent with the local coasta 1 proaram gr it must first be sub mitted to the Ca lifornia Coastal Co mm ission
for review and am roval as a local coastal proaram amendment.
tiaitdi i~tsgrilnid~cad~c~iist/ tsddtdriseJsis~~c~fi~c~~ii~ iwtwet i6i~~~iitdIiCIInddiI~c~i~td~i~di~~iin~iQd~ifst~idiQBddidi
PART IV. +FIND1 NGS FO R APPROVAL OF THE CARLSBAD RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDME NT AS SUBMITTED
A. AMENDMENT DE SCR I PTION
The Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan (CRSP) serves as both the land use plan and implementing mechanism for the 423 acre Carltas property. The Specific Plan
.
Carlsbad LCPA No. 2-95
Page 7
consists of both a text and diagrams which specify the following in detail: (1) distribution and location of land uses; (2) infrastructure; (3) development standards; (4) implementation measures and (5) a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the General Plan. The Carlsbad Ranch is located on the north side of Palomar Airport Road, east of Paseo Del Norte, south of future Cannon Road, and west of future Kelly Road in south Carlsbad.
6. FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION
a) Puruose a nd Intent of the Ordinance. The purpose and intent of the Specific Plan is to define the distribution and location of land use, infrastructure, development standards, and implementation measures for 113 acres of Carlsbad Ranch, with the remaining acreage to remain in agriculture and open space.
b) t&&r Provisions of the Ordinance . The Specific Plan provides development and design standards with respect to the development of the site. The Specific Plan is divided into 17 lots with development standards and
design guidelines separated into the following areas: (1) Office, Corporate
Headquarters and Research and Development Parcels , (2) Vi 1 lage Center, (3)
Paseo Center, (4) Open Space Areas and (5) Non-Residential Reserve. The focal point of the development is a pedestrian-oriented village center linked to the other development sites along a main ridge road. The vi 1 lage center is proposed to serve a mix of community and business uses and mixed use buildings
are encouraged.
at the southern end of the site and is proposed as a major landmark for
Carlsbad. Office buildings are planned around the periphery of the village
center. Regarding open space areas, a public putting course and driving range
is proposed on Parcel 11 (24.5 acres); approximately 39 acres of land near the
southwestern corner of the site is presently designated as open space and would remain in floriculture as long as feasible.
A 280-room hotel is proposed at the most prominent location
The remainder of the property is currently designated Non-Residential Reserve and is proposed-to be held in agricultural use through the buildout of the Specific Plan. compati bi 1 i ty with the adjacent agricultural and/or recreational uses. The Specific Plan also contains goals, objectives, and policies that will assist
in guiding and directing development within the Carlsbad Ranch.
The standards address development of the lots as well as
c) Adeawv of Ordinance to ImD lement t he Certified LUP. The standard of
review for LCP implementation submittals or amendments is their consistency
with and ability to carry out the provisions of the certified LUP. In the
case of the subject LCP amendment, the concept underlying the Specific Plan is to concentrate urban uses within a limited area so that the majority of the site can continue to be used for agricultural use, which is the theme endorsed
by the certified Mello I1 LCP.
The proposed amendment is to revise the pedestrian trail through the flower
fields required in the approved Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. includes modifying the alignment and width of the pedestrian trail to
correspond to an existing agricultural road located north of the approved
The amendment
Carlsbad LCPA No. 2-95 Page 8
pedestrian trail, eliminating the proposed non-agricul tural landscaping, reducing the viewpoint at what was previously the eastern terminus for the trail to be consistent in size with the other viewpoints along Armada Drive,
and adding an alternative access point north of the new alignment.
The proposed amendment primari ly serves to realign the pedestrian trai 1
through the flower fields to follow along an existing agricultural road which
has been historically used by the public to walk through the fields. The revised trail will serve the same functions as the originally approved trail which were to provide a pedestrian link between the Village Center and the Paseo Center, and will afford visitors a close-up opportunity to enjoy the flower fields. Other than corrections to text and exhibits which specifically reference the previous design of the pedestrian trail, no other sections of
the previously certified LCP are affected.
The proposed amendment is more environmentally sensitive than the original ly approved design for the following reasons: agri cultural operations by el imi nati ng non-agri cul tural landscaping and barriers to farm equipment: it eliminates the conversion of agricultural acreage to non-agri cul tural uses ; it maintains maximum fl exi bi 1 i ty for future agricultural operations; it reduces potential dust generation by minimizing the amount of bare dirt; it reduces water usage and it maintains the character and visual amenity of the flower fields. Based on the above, the Commission finds that the amendment can be found consistent with the agricultural preservation and public access provisions of both the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan and the Mello I1 LCP.
it facilitates the ongoing
PART V. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS CHAPTER. AS
SU BM I TT ED
A. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION
The City of Carlsbad Implementation Program (IP) takes the form of the City's
Zoning Code. The proposed IP amendment to all six segments of the City's LCP
is to add Chapter 21.70, Development Agreements, of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code to the implementation plan for the City's LCP. The amendment would also
change all references in the existing ordinance from "Land Use Planning
Manager" to "P1 anni ng Di rector" and add additional requirements for
development agreements.
B. .FI NDINGS FOR CERTI F I CAT I ON
a> PurDose a nd Intent of the 0 rdinance. zoning amendment is for the City to have procedures and requirements in place for the consideration of a development agreement. A development agreement is a contract between a developer and the City under which the City agrees that a project can proceed under the policies, rules, and regulations in effect at the time the development agreement was entered into. In this way, a developer is able to obtain protection against a subsequently enacted amendment to the general plan, zoning ordinance or other land-use regulation, whether enacted
The purpose and intent of the
Carl sbad LCPA No. 2-95
Page 9
by the legislative body or by the voters through an initiative.
Government Code Section 65865 allows local governments to enter into an agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of the property. governments upon the request of an applicant to establish procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements upon the fi 1 ing of an application.
California
It also requires local
b) &L ior Provisions of the Ordinance. Chapter 21.70 of the zoning code contains provisions for development agreements. The chapter can presently only be used by projects providing housing for persons of low and moderate income. The most significant change proposed as part of this amendment is to
delete existing ordinance references to projects providing affordable housing and replace them with text making the development agreements chapter
applicable to any project requesting such an agreement. The proposed revisions to the development agreements chapter enable the City to comply with
the California Government Code as it allows for the consideration of
development agreements upon the request of a project applicant.
c) Adequacy o f Ordinance to Imolement the Certified LUP. The standard of review for LCP imp1 ementation submittal s or amendments is their consistency with and ability to carry out the provisions of the certified LUP. In the
case of the subject LCP amendment, the City's zoning code along with
applicable specific plans in the Mello 11, East Batiquitos Lagoon and West Batiquitos Lagoon LCP segments serve as the Implementation Program for the six LCP segments.
the City's administration of its land use regulations rather than directly
proposing a specific zoning code revision.
This amendment is somewhat different in that it addresses more
The amendment has been classified as a major amendment because there are some technical clarifications which need to be made in the development agreements
chapter. For instance, a standard of review for approving and/or denying any
development agreement should be its consi stency with the City' s certi fi ed local coastal program. As presently written, Section 21.70.080(b)(l) fails to recognize that a development agreement has to be found consistent with the applicable local coastal program. The present ordinance, as currently written, only requires that the City shall not approve a development agreement unless it finds that the agreement is consistent with general plan and applicable specific plan provisions. Additionally, the ordinance as currently written fails to include provisions for the California Coastal Commission to review development agreements within the coastal zone. Without the assurance
to review such agreements for consistency with land use plan provisions, the
Commission can not find the amendment consistent with the certified land use
plan.
The Commission needs to be a party in reviewing any development agreements to ensure that such agreements will not result in adverse impacts to public
access or coastal resources within the coastal zone. While the changes are administrative in nature, given that conformance with the certified LCP is not
a specified standard of review and there is no codified process for Coastal Commission review of any approved development agreements within the coastal
Carlsbad LCPA No. 2-95
Page 10
zone, the Commission finds the implementation amendment cannot be found
consistent because it could a1 low. development proposals to be permitted which
were inconsistent with the certified land use plan or LCP.
PART VI. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS CHAPTER
IF MODIFIED
The Commission finds that Amendment 2-95 to the Implementation Program of the Mello I1 segment of the Carlsbad LCP may be found adequate to carry out the provisions of the certified land use plan, if modified in accordance with the following suggested modifications. denial of the Development Agreements chapter, the Commission is concerned that the chapter as presently written does not specify that a standard of review for approving and/or denying any development agreement should be its consistency with the City's certified local coastal program. As presently written, Section 21.70.080(b)(l) fails to recognize that a development agreement has to be found consistent with the applicable local coastal program. agreement unless it finds that the agreement is consistent with general plan and applicable specific plan provisions. Suggested Modification #1 adds this acknowl edgement to the ordinance.
As stated previously in the findings for
It only requires that the City shall not approve a development
Additionally, the ordinance as currently written fails to include provisions for the California Coastal Commission to review development agreements within the coastal zone. Without the assurance to review such agreements for consistency with land use plan provisions, the Commission can not find the amendment consistent with the certified land use plan. Suggested Modification #2 requires that, for projects requiring development agreements located within the coastal zone, the development agreement shall be reviewed by the California Coastal Commission for conformance with applicable provisions of
the local coastal program. If the provisions of the development agreement are not found consistent with the local coastal program, the development agreement shall be revised by the City to be consistent with the local coastal program or it must first be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for review and approval as a local coastal program amendment. In this way, the Commission will be able to review the development agreement for conformity with the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program. With the suggested modifications, the Commission finds that the amendment may be certi fi ed.
PART VII. CONSISTENCY WITH THE CALI FORNIA ENVIRONMF NTAL OUALITY ACT (CEO A1
Section 21080.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exempts
local government from the requirement of preparing an environmental impact
report (EIR) in connection with its local coastal program. Instead, the CEQA
responsibilities are assigned to the Coastal Commission and the Commission's
LCP review and approval program has been found by the Resources Agency to be
functionally equivalent to the EIR process. the Commission is relieved of the responsibility to prepare an EIR for each LCP .
Thus, under CEQA Section 21080.5,
Carlsbad LCPA No. 2-95
Page 11
Nevertheless, the Commission is required in an LCP submittal or, as in this
case, an LCP amendment submittal, to find that the LCP, or LCP, as amended,
does conform with CEQA provisions'. The zoning amendment to all six segments
of the City's LCP proposes changes to the City's zoning code to incorporate
provisions for development.agreements. The attached suggested modifications
ensure that the review of such agreements will ensure conformity with the certi fi ed LCP, resul ti ng in development proceeding in an appropriate and
environmentally sound manner. As such, the amendment is not expected to result in any significant adverse impacts on the environment and future
projects associated with any development agreements would be subject to
separate CEQA review.
The Mello I1 zoning amendment proposes the realignment of an approved pedestrian trai 1 in the Carl sbad Ranch Speci fi c P1 an.
has been found to be more protective of agricultural lands than the previous
alignment and will not result in a decrease of public access within the
Carlsbad Ranch site. Thus, the Commission finds that the approval of the
Mello I1 LCP amendment will not result in any significant adverse impacts to
coastal resources.
The proposed a1 ignment
EXHIEIT “X”
JULY 19, 1995
21.70.005
Secdotu:
21.70.005
21.70.010
21.70.020
21.70.030
21.70.040
21.70.050
21.70.060
2 1.70.MO
21.70.080
21.70.090
. 21.70.100
2 1.70.1 10
2 1.70. t20
21.70.130
2 1.70.140
21.70.150
21.70.160
21.70.170
21.70.180
2 1.70.190
Chapter 21.70
DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENTS
Authority for adoption-
AppUcability.
Forms and Lnformmtioa.
Feuandreimburscments, .
QuPlidcadon as m eppllcant
Propascd form of agrement
Review of appUcadoa.
Transmittal to plnnning
commicrioa
Planning commission report.
Dcdsfon by city cod
Approval of development
agreements.
Required aotlct.
Ameadment and CanceIIatioa of
agreement by mum cownt
Recordntion.
Periodic review.
Proctdurt for periodic review.
Modiacation or termination.
No damaga on termination.
No vcsting of rlghtr
Resenation or rights
Imgulvftp in Pr-m
21.70.005 Authority for adoptjob-
Applicibdity.
This chapter is adopted under tbe authority of Gov-
ernment Code Sectioas 65864 - 65869.5. This
chapter shall be applicable to any project for which
an applicant equcs~ considcrarioa of a devetopment
apement. cod. NS-302 3 1,1995: Od. 9643 3 1
(part), 1982)
21.70.010 Forms and infomation.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter,
the planning director shall prescribe the fonn for
each application, notice and documcat provided or
required under this chapter for tbc prepamion and
implementation of development agreements.
(b) The planning director my quim an appli-
cant to submit such information and supporting dau
as tbe pt&g ktor considcn necessary to pro-
cess the applicatioa. (Ord. NS-302 9 2. 1995: M
1261 o 54 (part), 1983; otd 9643 o I (part), 1982)
21.70.020 Fees mid reimbursements.
(a) A fee established by city council resolution
shall be paid by the applicant at the time of filing
the application.
(b) Nothing in this chapter shall retieve the appli-
cant from the obligation to pay any other fee for a
city approval, pennit or entitlemcnt required by this
.C&.
(c) Jl~e city may quire the applicant to agree
to pay the city’s costs in negotiating, p~paring and .
pnxcssing the dcveloprncnt agr#mcOS includiag the
fees and expcnscs of special counsel and any other
consuftants engaged by the city in connectioa with
the developracnt agrument (ord. NS-302 3,
1995: Ord. 9643 9 1 (part), 1982)
21.70.030 QualUkadon as an appllcsnt
Only a qualified applicant may file an application
to enter into a development agreement. A qualified
applicant is a person who has legal or equitable
interest in the 4 property which is the subject of
the development agreement Applicant inchdrs
authorized agent The plaaning director shall require
an appiicaat to submit proof of his interest in the
real property and of the authority of the agent to act
for the applicant Before pnwssing the application
the plaaning direcfor shall obtain the opinion of the
city anomey as to the sufficiency of the applicant’s
inteest in the real property to enter into the agree-
ment. (Ord. NS-302 3 4, 1995: Ord. 1261 § 54
(part), 1983; Ord 9643 8 1 (part), 1982) .
21.70.040 Praposcd form of agrement.
Each application shall be accompanied by the
fonn of development agreement proposed by the
applicant unless the city manager. in consultation
with the planning
77 1
-
2 1.70.040
A
I
mines to provide the applicant with the form of a
development apemeat Tbe city council may adopt
by resolution a standard form of development ape-
ment. The applicant may choose to use the standard
form and include specific proposals for changes in
or additions to the language of the standard form.
The proposed agreement shall contain ail the ele-
menu rquired by Government Code Section
65865.2 and may include any other provisions per-
mitted by law, including rtqukmcnts that the appli-
cant provide sufficient security approved by the city
attorney to ensure provision of public facilities.
(W. NS-302 3 5, 1995: ord. 9643 9 1 (part), 1982)
21.70.050 Review of nppLIcadon.
(a) The planning kcor shall review the appli-
cation and may reject it if it is incomplete or inaccu-
ra~c for pmcessing. If he finds that the application
is complete. he shall acccpc it for filing.
(b) The planning director shall rtview the appli-
cation and proposed agncmcnt and shall prrpart a
report and recommendation to the planning commis-
sion on the agreement.
(c) The planning director shall forward a copy of
the application and proposed agrecmcnt to the city
attorney for review. The city attorney shall prepare
a report and recommendation to the planning com-
mission on the agreement
(d) "le planning director shall forward a copy of
the application, proposed agreement. and a fiscal
impact analysis. for projects purporting to provide
economic benefits to the city, to the finance director
for review. The finance director shall prepare a
report and recommendatioa to the planning commis-
sion on the agnement and fiscal impact analysis.
1983; Ord. 9643 9 1 (part). 1982) ,
(Od. NS-302 0 6, 199s: ord 1261 5 54 (part),
21.70.060 Transmittal to planning
commission.
The planning director shall transmit the applica-
tion to the planning commission for a public hearing
when all the necessary repons and recommendations
are completed. Notice of the public hearing shall be
given as provided in this chapter. The application
(cdbd 5-93
for a development agrement may be considcrcd
concurrtntly with other discretionary permits for the
project. (Ord. NS-302 4 7, 1995: Ord. 1261 9 54
(part), 1983; otd. 9643 9 1 (part), 1982)
21.70.070 Planning commission report.
After a public hearing, the planning commission
shall consider the application and prepare a report
and recommendation for the city council. The report
and recommendation shall include findings on the
marten stated in Section 21.70.08qb). This report
and recommendation sbail be forwarded to the city
clerk who shall set the martcr for public hearing
before the city council. (Ord. 9643 5 1 (part), 1982)
21.70.080 Moa by city coundL
(a) After the city cod completes the public
hearing, it may approve, modify or disapprove the
development agrecmt It may refer mattcn not
previously considered by the planning commission
during its hearing back to the planning commission
for report and recommendation. The planning com-
mission need not hold a public hearing on matters
refemd back to it by the city council.
(b) The city council shall not approve the devel-
opmcnt agreement unless it finds that the agreement:
(1) Is consistent with the objectives, policies,
general land uses and pmgrams specified in the
general plan and any applicable specific plan;
(2) Is compatible with the uses authorized in and
the regulations pmscribed for the land use district in
which the real property is located and all other
provisions of Title 21 of this code:
(3) Is in conformity with public convenience,
general welfare and good land-use practices:
(4) Will not be detrimental to the health, safety
and general welfare:
(5) Will not adversely affect the orderly develop
ment of property or the preservation of property
values;
(6) Is consistent with the provisions of Govern-
ment Code Sections 6S864 - 65869.5;
(7) Where applicable, ensues provision of public
facilities in a manner consistent with the general
'
'
plan; hr
I
772
2 1.70.080
(8) When applicable, is consistent with tbe provi-
sions of Etle u) of this code.
(9) Will result in the provision of economic,
environmental, recdonal, culm or social bene-
fits to the city which would not be attainable with-
out approval of the agreement (Ord. NS-302 09 8.
9, 199s; Ord. 9643 9 1 (part), 1982)
21.70.090 Approval of development
agreements.
If the city codncil approves thc dcvelopmcat
apment, it shall adopt an ordinance approving the
agreement and directing the mayor to extcutc the
agntmcnt after the effective date of the ordinance
on behalf of the city. Before execution, each agree-
ment shall be approved as to form by the city attor-
ney.
For projects located within the coastal zone, the
development agreement shall not become effective
until a local coastal program amendment or coastal
development pcrmif whichever is applicable, has
bcen granted by the California Coastal Commission
or its successor in intenst. (M. NS-302 9 10,
1995: Ord. 9643 9 1 (part), 1982)
21.70.100 Rquircd notice.
(a) Notice of public hearing required by this
chapter shall be given by both mcthods provided in
Section 21.54.060 of this code.
(b) The notice requhmcnt referred to in subsec-
tion (a) is declaratory of existing law (Government
Code Sections 65867, 65090 and 65091). If state
law prescribes a different notice quircment, notice
shall be given in that manner.
(c) The failure of any penon to receive notice
rquired by law or t&se regulations docs not affect
the authority of the city to enter into a development
agreement. (Ord. NS-302 9 11, 1995: Od. 9643 9
1 (part), 1982)
21.70.110 krtguhity in procetdingr.
No action. inaction or recommendation ngarding
the pmpostd developmcnt apment shall k held
void or invalid or be set aside by a court by reason
of any error, irregularity, informality, neglect or
omission as to any mattcr pertaining to petition,
applidon, notice, finding, mod, hearing, report,
recommendation or any matten of procedure what-
ever, unless after an examination of the en& case,
including the evidence. the COW is of the opinion
that the em complained of was prejudicial and that
by reasou of the error the complaining party sus-
tained and suffered substantial injury, and that a
different result would have been prubable if the
emr had not occumd or existed. There is no pn-
sumption that emr is prejudicial or that injury was
done if error is shown. (Ord. 9643 9 1 (part), 1982)
21.70.120 Amendment Pad cancelladon of
agreement by mutual conscnt.
(a) Either party may propose an amendment to
or cancelldon in whole or in part of the develop
ment agnxmcnt previously entered into. The amend-
ment or cancellation permitted by this section must
be by mutual consent of the pames.
(b) The procedure for proposing and adoption of
an arncndmcnt to or cancellation in whole or in part
of the development agnemcnt is the same as the
procc.duc for entering into an agreement in the fmt
instance. However, where the city initiates the pro-
pod amendment to or cancellatioa in whole or in
part of the development agreemenk it shall tirst give
notice to the property owner of its intention to initi-
ate such proceedings at least thirty days in advance
of the giving of public notice of the hearing to
consider the amendment or cancellation. (Ord. 9643
5 1 (Part), 1982)
21.70.130 Recordation.
(a) Within ten days after the city enters into the
development agrtemenf the city clerk shall have the
agreement motdcd with the county mordcr.
(b) If the parties to the agreement or their succes-
sors in inrtmt amend or cancel the agrement as
provided in Government Code Section 65868, or if
the city termiuaw or mOdifies the apement as
provided in Government Code Section 65865.1 for
failure of the applicant to comply in good faith with
the terms or conditions of the agreement the city
773
-
2 1.70.130
clerk shall have notice of such action recorded with
the county recorder. (Ord 9643 5 1 (part), 1982)
21.70.140 Periodic rtview.
(a) ?he city council shall review the development
agreement every twelve months from the dare the
agreement is entered into.
(b) The time for review may be shortened either
by agreement beween the parties or by initiation in
one or more of the following ways:
(1) Recommendation of the planning director,
(2) Resolution of intention by the planning com-
(3) Resolution of intention of the city council.
(c) The planning dircctor shall begin the review
proceeding by giving written notice that the city
council intends to undertake a periodic review of tbe
development agreement to the property owner. He
shdl give the notice at Iwt ten day8 in advance of
the time at which the matter will be considered by
the council.
(d) The city council may nfer the matter to tbe
planning commission for review and ncommenda-
tion. (Ord. NS-302 04 12. 13,199s; Ord. 1261 9 54
(part), 1983; Ord. 9643 5 1 (part), 1982)
21.70.150 Prdure lor periodic review.
(a) The city council or the pIanning commission,
if the mancr has been referred, shall conduct a pub
lic review hearing at which the property owner must
demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms
of the agcement. The burden of pmof on this issue
is upon the property owner.
(b) The city council shall detefinine upon the
basis of substantial evidence whether or not the
property owner has, for the period under nview,
complied in god faith with the term and condi-
tions of the agreement
(c) If the city council find, and determines on
the basis of substantial evidence that the property
owner has complied in good faith with the tern
and conditions of the agreement during the period
under nview, no other action is nccusary.
(d) Lf the city council finds and determines on
the basis of substantial evidence that the applicant
mission;
774
has not complied in good faith with the terms and
conditions of the agreement during the period under
review, the council may initia~~ proceedings to
mod@ or terminate the agreement. (Ord. 9643 4 1
(part), 1982)
21.70.160 MadiFlcatlon or termination.
(a) Lf upon a finding under Section 21.70.15qd)
the council determines to modify or terminate the
agrrcment, the council shall give notice to’tht prop
erty owner of its intention so to do. The notice shall
state:
(1) The time and place of the hearing;
(2) A statemcut as to whether or not the council
proposes to tcnninate or to made the development
agreement;
(3) Other information which the council consid-
ers necessary to inform the property owner of the
nature of the ptocadings.
Such notice my be given at the conclusion of the
hearing held according to Section 21.70.150.
(b) At the time and place set for the hwing on
modification or tcnninatioa, the pmptrty.owner
shall be given an opportunity to be heard The coun-
cil may nfer the matter back to the planning com-
mission for furrher proaxdings or for report and
recommendation. The council my impose those
conditions to the action it takes as it considers nee
essaq to protect the interts~ of the city. The deci-
sion of the city council is final. (Ord. 9643 9 1
(part), 1982)
21.70.170 No damages on termination.
In no event shall the applicant or his SUCCCSSO~
in intertst be entitled to any damages against the
city upon termination of the agreement. (Ord. 9643
0 1 (part), 1982)
21.70.180 No vesdng of rights.
Approval and constnrction of a portion or phase
of a development pursuant to the agreement shall
not vest any rights to construct the remainder or any
other portion of the developmcnt nor cnate any
vested rights to the approval thereof if the ape-
!
i
ment is taminatcd as provided in thij chapter. (Ord.
9643 3 1 (part). 1982)
..
2 1.70.180
I
..
774- 1 (C~LM s.9n 3
21.70.190 Reenation of rights...
The city council reserves the right to terminate
or modi@ any development agreement afier a
public hearing if such termination or modiflca-
tion is ttaMnablc and qcccsary to protm the
public health. safety or wclfirc. (Ord. 9643 5 I
(pan). 1982)
77s
2 1.70. I90
CARLSBAD RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
SP 207
Originai Approvals:
Planning Commission Resolution #3480, January 6. 1993
City Council Ordinance # NS 227, March 16, 1993 ...
LCPA 90-08
PARCEL 1 AND 2 (GIA) RECONFIGURATION
Revise parcel configuration to allow a vocational school campus permitted by the approved
realigning the northern end of Road "A" allowing Parcels 1 and 2 to be on the west side of
the road, reducing the length and increasing the width of the three parcels in the central
portion of the development area, reducing the acreage of the development parcel closest to
Palomar Airport Road, and adjusting several agricultural parcels to accommodate the above
changes while not reducing the total acreage reserved for agricultural uses.
Specific Plan to be located entirely on one side of Road "A." Amendment included:
Approved by:
Planning Director, August 1993
(Administratively approved minor amendment)
SP 207(A)
LEGOLAND AMENDMENT
Approved by:
(Pending)
;.; ........ , ... .:,a;.- .. ..
.. .. .....
...
.. .. ... .... ..
.. .. . '. ..
.. .... '. . .. ..
., . .
SP 207(B)/LCPA 90-08(A)
PEDESTRIAN TRAIL REALIGNMENT
Revise pedestrian trail through the flower fields. Amendment included: modifying the
alignment and width of the trail to more closely approximate the existing agricultural road,
eliminating proposed non-agricultural landscaping, reducing the viewpoint at what was
previously the eastern terminus of the trail. and adding an alternative access point north of
the new alignment.
Approved by:
(Administratively approved minor amendment)
Planning Director,
....... ...
CARLSBAD RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PLAN TEXT AND EXHIBIT CHANGES *
SP 207(B)
PAGE CHANGE
25
27
39
40
45
52
61
62
112
128
Delete reference to "formal elements." "Formal elements" refers to the double row of
trees included in the originally approved landscaping of the trail. Extensive landscaping
was initially proposed to keep visitors on the trail and out of the crops. However, in
1995. CB Ranch Enterprises managed the flower field visitor operations. hosting over
200,000 people, and determined that extensive barriers were not necessary.
Elimination of the non-agricultural landscaping is more agricultural-friendly and will
preserve the natural characteristic of !he flower fields - a dramatic visual display when
the flower fields are in bloom.
Figure 10 - Illustrative Plan. Need to show new alignment. (Note: The new Specific
Plan which incorporates Legoland does not include an illustrative plan, so this revised
exhibit will'not be permanent.)
Revise Policy 4-8. Revised to clarify that the trail will serve a dual function as an
agricultural road and will allow for farm equipment to utilize it.
Delete reference to "double row of trees" along
discussion above.
Figure 15 - Storm Water Management Concept.
agricultural roads do not effect drainage of fields.
the pedestrian trail. See page 25
Delete reference to trail. Existing
Figure 16 -'Circulation Plan. Revise pedestrian path through the flower fields to reflect
the proposed realignment.
Delete reference to farm vehicle access, landscaping and swales.
Figure 21 - Pedestrian Walk Illustrative Plan. Replace with revised cross section.
Figure 47 - Paseo Center Design Guidelines. Delete reference to landscaping in the
flower fields.
Figure 51 - Landscape Concept. Delete reference to formal landscaping in the flower
fields.
I
..
..
I
-.
u... . .. .
Much of the most visible west-facing slopes will maintain agricultural use of the .. site as flower fields. 1
P* b# #. A transitional wall will create an
edge to the flower fields that will become a promenade with belvederes giving scenic
vistas to the fields, the city and the ocean.
Development will be concentrated within a limited area. The focal point of the
development will be a pedestrian oriented village center linked to the other
development sites along a main ridge road. The village center is intended to serve a
mix of community and business uses and mixed use buildings will be encouraged.
The hotel will occupy the most prominent location at the southern end of the site.
The hotel will serve a role in Carlsbad much like the La Valencia Hotel in La Jolla and
the Hotel Del Coronado in Coronado as a major landmark and social gathering place
for the community. In the village center, a common architectural style will be
required, not to imitate the appearance of the corporate buildings, but rather to invoke
a place that is friendly to people. The use of courtyards, terraces, landscaping,
sloping and tiled roofs, distinctive massing and many of the qualities characteristic of
Mediterranean buildings are envisioned.
In the event that the proposed expanded research and development/of%ce uses
locate on parcel 6 and 7, the architectural features will be similar to those required for
the O/PI uses on parcels 1-5 and 9, starting on page 82. To retain the pedestrian
character of the village center between parcel 6 and 7, increased building setbacks
and increased pedestrian oriented landscape features will be incorporated into the
proposed officehesearch and development uses. With the incorporation of the
expanded research and development/office uses, the village center uses serving the
community may be reduced from the base development program as well as shifted to
parcel 8 of the village center.
Figures 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 found on pages 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30
respectively, identify the proposed location of land uses and the development program
to be achieved on the developable portion of the Carlsbad Ranch, which is expected
to build out over a 10 to 15 year time period. The Parcelization Diagrams (Figures 12
and 13) depict in more specific terms the proposed distribution of development and
open space on the site. Figure 12 illustrates the proposed office and retail program
while Figure 13 incorporates a vocational campus use option and research and
development land uses on parcels 6, 7 and 7A. The parcelization diagram for the
vocational campus illustrates minor reconfiguration of parcels 2, 3, 4 and 5 to
*.
Revised: May, 19'95
75 -2
I
Figure 10
i .. I
I
I.. '. ..
. ..
.. ..
... .
ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN - WA
2455
In order to ensure that farm vehicles can move between agricultural areas on
the west and east sides of the property, a grade separated crossing is planned at
Road 'A', north of Parcel 1.
POLICY 4-8: Utilize existinu auricultural road to serve as a Dedestrian connection
between the Paseo Center and the Carlsbad Ranch villaqe center.
This pedestrian path will traverse areas planned for continuation of agricultural
use and is designed to allow the free movement of farm vehicles across the path to
, the pedestrian
will be gated at both ends
adjoining agricultural fields.
path
so farmers can close off the walkway as warranted by agricultural operations. 43~~-
POLICY 4-C:. Establish a 50 foot building setback from adjolning agricultural areas.
Structures must be set back 50 feet from adjacent agricultural areas in order
to ameliorate the impacts of agricultural dust, pesticides and noise on the commercial uses.
POLICY 4-D: A 6 foot solId wall or landscaped berm shall be installed around the perimeter of the area designated for development, to provide a physical barrier between urban and agricultural uses and to restrict access into agricultural. areas. Construction of the perimeter wall and/or berms will occur concurrent with development. Installation of temporary barriers are required If the construction of the
roadway precedes development on portfons of the site.
A combination of a wall and landscaped berms are located around the perimeter of the development area to provide a barrier between agricultural and urban uses, as
shown on Figure 48 on page 119. Along the western edge of the developable area,
a solid wall is proposed as a barrier between uses. Due to the high visibility of the
wall, design guidelines provided in the following chapter will ensure that the wall is treated to provide a positive contribution to the project design. An illustrative plan and section of the wall appears in Figure 49 on page 120.
Landscaped earth berms are proposed around the remainder of the developable
area where a barrier which is softer in appearance is desirable. Berms will be 3 feet
Revised: May, 1995
i
in height and
Typical berm
supplemented with 3 feet of plant material, to achieve a 6 foot barrier.
treatment is illustrated in Figure 50 on page 121.
POLICY &E:. Regrade the road cut adjacent to Palomar Airport Road in the area
designated as "Open Space" to allow agricultural use of the land. Soils in the
regraded area should be amended to be equivalent to the existing Class 111 Marina
soils.
The grading concept prepared for the Specific Plan regrades road cuts at the
north and south edge of the property to a slope of 6:l in order to allow agricultural
use of the land. The grading concept is illustrated by Figure 14 on page 42.
POLICY 4-F: Require the disposal of irrigation and storm water runoff from the
buildings, streets, parking'lots and landscaped areas through a system of detention
basins and storm drains so as to segregate urban and agricultural runoff and mitigate
the potential water degradation associated with each land use.
The storm water management concept for the Carlsbad Ranch development
collects urban water runoff and disposes of it through an integrated system' of
features which are designed to improve the quality of the storm water before it is
discharged off site. Drainage facilities are planned to segregate urban runoff from
agricultural areas. The storm water management concept is discussed more fully in
the following section, beginning on page 43.
POLICY 44: Project landscaping shall incorporate windbreaks to aid in reducing the
effects of farm spraying and dust generation.
The landscape concept for the Carlsbad Ranch includes generous landscaping
which provides amenity and shelter from the sun, wind and rain.
Finformal groupings of trees and shrubs are planted on berms and in
setback areas to provide shelter from the wind.
POLICY 4-H: Landscape plant material shall be selected for resistance to pests,
particularly aphids, thrips, whitefly and spider mites. The use of herbaceous plant
material should be minimized. Landscaping should be inspected routinely for the
presence of pests and treated to control them. All pests shall be eliminated by means
that do not adversely impact agricultural crops.
40
1 Revised: May, 1995
I
Figure 15
..
.. .
I
Figure 16
CIRCULATION PLAN
SPECIFIC PLAN ONELOPME" AREAS
EXISTING CIACUUTION
PUNNED CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT PROPOSED ClRClJUTlON
PROJECT PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN WAYS
GRADE SEPARATION FOR FARM VEHlCLEYPEDESTRAlNS
Revised: May, 1995
Pedestrian Circulation *
0 WECTIVE 10: Develop a strong pedestrian circulation network within
the Carlsbad Ranch that connects with planned citywide trail systems.
POLICY 1 O-A: Establish a pedestrian promenade along the western perimeter of the
planning area, which will serve as an active public gathering place for the
development, and the City of Carlsbad.
In planning the Carlsbad Ranch, emphasis has been placed on developing a
friendly environment for the pedestrian. The promenade along the main road (Road
'A') will be the backbone of the Carlsbad,Ranch pedestrian network that will link-
together the various destinations within the Ranch. Located along the western edge
of the development area with sweeping views of the Pacific Ocean and flower fields
coupled with the mild climate of the Carlsbad area, the promenade will provide an
attractive setting for pedestrian use. An illustrative section and plan of the pedestrian
promenade can be found on top in Figure 49 on page 120.
POLICY 10-6: Provide a pedestrian walkway along Road '8' linking the Carlsbad
Ranch to the planned city-wide trail system.
A pedestrian walk is planned along Road 'E' in order to allow connection
between the Carlsbad Ranch and the comprehensive recreation trail and open space
system in planning phases by the City of Carlsbad.
POLICY 10-C: Establish a pedestrian trail connection between the Paseo Center and
the village center. Design the trail to allow movement of farm vehicles across the trail
to adjoining agricultural uses.
A pedestrian path is planned to connect the Paseo Center retail development on Paseo del Norte with the Carlsbad Ranch hotel and the village center area. The
pedestrian connection would serve to channel foot traffic which presently traverses
the fields, particularly when flowers are in bloom. 21 w
e" VI I +he-€<he path will-.'l--be gated at both ends so that pedestrian access Can
be cut off completely, if warranted by the farming operations. A cross-section of
the pedestrian path is shown on Figure 21.
Revised: May, 1995 w
AGRlCULTURE 30' 4 AGRICULTURE
MISTING DIRT FARYING ACCESS PATH
# 4.
Figure 21
ILLUSTRATIVE SECTION
PEDESTRIAN WALK IN FLOWER FIELD
O~N w7 2-46
Arrange buildings along the perimeter of the site in a continuous fashion to create a well defined 'auto-court'.
Create a focus at tbe juncture of the pedestrian walkway and Paseo Center with gardens or a plaza with benches for loot tramc.
Vary roof heights and vertical planes to create visual interest. As a guideline, break root planes every 50 to 75 feet.
Utilize architectural features (e.g. arcades, loggias, balconies) that reflect a meditemean vocabulary. Building materials (stucco, natural stone, decorative block) and roofing materials (clay tiles, copper, aluminum and steel panels) . should reflect a mediterranean character.
Mark come= of retail buildings with higher architectural elements.
Architectural Character
Figure 47
PASEO CENTER DESIGN GUIDELINES
i
c
I
Figure 51
LANDSCAPE CONCEPT
..... E] .....
._
AGRICULTURAL
GOLF DRlVlt4.Q RANGE
PARKINQ AREAS
INFORUAL PUNTING
._STREETS & PEDESTRIAN PATHS
* FORMAL PUNTING
I