HomeMy WebLinkAboutMP 139A; Rancho Carrillo Master Plan; Master Plan (MP) (15)March 20, 1981
Summary of City Attorney's Comments (2/24/81) on Rancho Carrillo
Master Plan
1) Master Plan does not comply with requirements of Carlsbad
Planned Community Zone nor the provisions, of the State
Government Code regulating specific plans.
2) Master Plan must comply with all city General Plan
Elements.
3) General Provisions should be added to front section of
Master Plan (similar to La Costa Master Plan) including non-
vesting of rights, amendments, public service availability,
public facilities agreement for entire master plan area.
4) Definitions (pg. 3-7) are incorrect. Specific issues
include: Apartment house; attached; berm'^building;
building height; commercial coach; community facilities;
CUP; condo; density; development standard; dwelling unit;
family; General Plan; gross area; housing element;
incentive; master plan; open space; permitted; recreational
vehicle; revision; setback; specific plan; structure;
temporary; transit.
These definitions are incorrect, and do not comply with the
requirements of the law.
5) Design Manual. If the design manual is intended to fulfill
PC requirements, it must be adopted concurrent with, and be
incorporated into, the Master Plan text. "It is an
explicit development scheme for the entire Rancho Carrillo
project... it cannot be adopted later."
6) Site Plan Review. To assure individual areas developed
consistent with development standards contained in plan ...
plan doesn't contain any development standards ... totally
unacceptable.
7) Development Standards are unacceptable, there aren't any.
8) Planning area modification (pg. 13) procedure establishes
no standards for determining which method to use.
9) Condominiums and PUD (pg. 13) provisions cannot be waived
unless specific standards are set in Master Plan which are
consistent with the general city code requirements. If no
standards are set in plan, then city zone provisions must
prevail.
10) Building Height must "be measured in feet .
11) Off-street Parking significant concerns that two-car
garages are not required.
12) .-Building Setbacks to be established in site plan review is
not acceptable since no standards for making determination
are given.
13.) Standards (pg. 16 to 22) lack clarity. -Permitted uses are
vague; "difficult to view the development standards... as a
serious attempt to meet the requirements of Chapter 21 .38
(PC code) .
14) Site Plan Review (pg. 24 to 37(a). Totally inappropriate
without development standards. "Standards must be spelled
out and the limit to the decision makers discretion must be
established." Reasons listed for site plan review are "for
the use of ... and not for the establishment of a
mechanism."
15) Procedures establishes no procedure for review of
plans. Section must clearly specify how plan is to be
reviewed; against what standards,; noticing; public.
hearing; when review will occur (reference: Chapter 21 .47,
condo permit) . Fifty day review is not sufficient; no
provisions for extensions or not meeting deadline.
16) (Pg. 25) include clear statement that if there is no site
plan review, there is no tentative map. Eighteen month
time period is appropriate, but there is no reason to
suspend time limits for reason beyond the control of the
city.
1.7) Revisions plan must include standards for decision of
"minor" amendment; decision should rest with Planning
Director with appeal to Planning Commission (no reason for
City Manager) .
Page 2
18) Final Site Plan Review (pg. 26) revise to establish that
. Planning Director may approve only if consistent with the
preliminary site plan and all conditions of approval.
19) Site Plan Review standards for review are vague; need more
concrete development standards; suggest including La Costa
zoning alternative, standards and criteria.
20) Affordable Housing applies only to moderate income; too
many bonuses proposed ("windfall for developer);
inconsistent with Housing Element." Must put limit on
height increase for affordable.
21) Public Facilities (pg. 43+) ..." wholly inadequate to
protect the needs of the community." Plan must spell out
obligation of developer to provide necessary public
improvements. Provisions for public facilities without
phasing (pg. 43) must include streets, signals and other
necessary improvements.
22) Assessment District if this is proposed, plan must indicate
how assessment districts will be processed.
23) Public Facilities plan fails to discuss provision of
schools, fire stations, government facilities, etc.
(Suggest reference La Costa Master Plan). Fails to
establish program for meeting public facility needs (parks,
schools, etc.).
24) Planning Area Adjustments "How can a deviation of up to 20$
be considered minor?"
25) Phasing no adequate phasing schedule for public facilities
improvements.
Page 3
PT:ar