HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-10-19; Planning Commission; ; LCPA 88-01 (MELLO II)|GPA/LU 88-02|ZC 88-04 WILLIAMSON CONTRACT AMENDMENT 76-1B - CARLTAS' CARLSBAD RANCHAPPLICATION COMPLETE DATE:
September 15. 1988
STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 19, 1988
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: LCPA 88-KMELLO ID/GPA/LU 88-2/ZC 88-4 WILLIAMSON CONTRACT AMENDMENT
76-1B - CARLTAS' CARLSBAD RANCH - Request approval of various related
actions to remove approximately 52 acres from the agricultural
preserve and add an equal amount of area to the preserve from a
different area (land swap) on property located north of Palomar
Airport Road and east of Paseo del Norte in Local Facilities
Management Plan Zone 13.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 2783 APPROVING the mitigated
Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolution Nos. 2784, 2875, 2786 and 2787 APPROVING LCPA 88-1 (MELLO
II), GPA/LU 88-2, ZC 88-4, and Williamson Contract Amendment No. 76-16 based on
the findings and conditions therein where relevant and appropriate.
•II. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
On August 23, 1988 the City Council directed Planning staff to priority process
a request by the Carltas Company to amend its Agriculture (Ag) Preserve Contract
No. 76-1 with the City. The proposed amendment would remove approximately 52
acres of land from the preserve and add 52 acres of land to the preserve from
another area that is contiguous (Exhibit "A"). The priority processing is
necessitated by a "sunset clause" in the state legislation that allows land swaps
to Agricultural Preserves. The Williamson Act of 1965 (Government Code Sec.
51200 et. seq.) was amended in 1985 to allow land swaps of agricultural land of
equal value but only until January 1, 1989.
The Carltas Company maintains that it has diligently pursued extending the
deadline for a swap but that opposition at the state level precluded such
extension. The applicant claims that without the swap as is being proposed,
Carltas, for business reasons, will be forced to develop the land not protected
by the Ag-Preserve Contract and the Local Coastal Program. This developable area
contains the west facing slopes traditionally known as the "flower fields".
Carltas further maintains that it is the desire of the Ecke family (owners of
Carltas to preserve the "flower fields" while allowing adequate development to
carry the costs of Palomar Airport Road assessments and anticipated cash needs
such as future estate taxes. In requesting priority processing Carltas offered
to place the open space General Plan and zoning designations over the "flower
fields" to ensure their long-term preservation.
GPA/LU 88-2/LCPA 88-1
ZC 88-4 - CARLTAS
OCTOBER 19, 1988
PAGE 2
The legislation in addition to having a sunset clause requires that any swap be
consistent with the certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) governing the area.
The MELLO II Local Coastal Program regulates development of the site which is
located north of Palomar Airport Road (PAR) and east of Paseo del Norte (PDN).
The Local Coastal Program currently allows development of approximately 137 acres
of the Carltas holding in exchange for the long-term preservation of agriculture
on the remainder of the nearly 500 acre site. The Local Coastal Program,
however, requires development to be concentrated along Palomar Airport Road,
Paseo del Norte, and Cannon Road. Carltas by amending the Ag-Preserve boundaries
is proposing development be concentrated along the north/south trending ridge.
Thus, a Local Coastal Program Amendment is required for consistency in order to
allow the amendment to the Williamson Contract.
State law also requires the City's General Plan and zoning to be consistent with
the Local Coastal Program. The General Plan does not include a special
designation for agriculture, instead the Non-residential Reserve classification
designates areas held in reserve for non-residential uses such as agriculture,
industrial, commercial, etc. The applicant therefore proposes to redesignate
the site from a combination of Medium Residential (RM) and Non-Residential
Reserve (NRR) to a combination of NRR and Open Space (OS). The Open Space
designation would be placed over approximately 50 acres of the west facing slope
traditionally referred to as the "flower fields".
In order to provide consistency between the zoning and other related actions,
a Zone Change from R-A-10,000 and Exclusive Agriculture to Open Space (OS) over
the 50 acres known as the "flower fields", Exclusive Agriculture over the
reconfigured boundaries of the Ag-Preserve, and Limited Control (L-C) over the
remaining developable portion of the site. Staff is recommending a Q overlay
be placed over the L-C zone (see Analysis section).
III. ANALYSIS
Due to the number of complex actions being considered, the staff
discussion/analysis that follows will be divided into separate sections dealing
with each of the requested actions plus a section focusing on staff concerns
related to the location and shape of the area proposed to be excluded from the
Ag-Preserve (i.e. available for development).
A. Amendment to the boundaries of the Agriculture Preserve.
Planning Issues
Is the proposed boundary amendment consistent with the provisions of Section
51200 et. seq. (especially Sec. 51257) of the California Government Code
(Williamson Act)?
GPA/LU 88-2/LCPA 88-1
ZC 88-4 - CARLTAS
OCTOBER 19, 1988
PAGE 3
DISCUSSION
In 1965, the State Legislature added Section 51200 et. seq. to the Government
Code. Section 5100 et. seq. (known as the Williamson Act) authorizing local
jurisdictions to establish a Conservation Contract. Landowners within a preserve
may enter into a Land Conservation Contract with the jurisdiction to restrict
their land to agricultural or open space uses whereby tax assessment of their
land will be based on its restricted use rather than on its fair market value.
The terms of the contract require the land use to be restricted for a specified
period of time (10 years). There are monetary penalties for premature
cancellation of the contract.
In 1976, the City entered into a Land Conservation Contract with the Carltas
Company to establish a 345 acre Agriculture Preserve. The contract has an
automatic renewal clause such that unless a nonrenewal notice is filed, the
contract will not expire. Instead, the contract will always be for ten years.
The amendment to the Ag-Preserve contract proposes to only modify the boundaries
of the preserve. In 1987 the City and Coastal Commission approved Ag-Preserve
Amendment 76-la which expanded the list of allowable uses on ag-lands under a
Conditional Use Permit. That amendment also included the boundary adjustment
to the preserve which allowed the expansion of Car Country.
Section 51257 of the Government Code was amended in 1985 to allow such boundary
adjustments of existing agricultural preserves providing certain findings, to
amend the contract, can be made by the City and the California Coastal Commission
to approve the boundary adjustment. In general the findings focus on the
requirements that the boundary adjustment will not diminish the long-term
preservation and viability of agricultural lands.
Specifically the following findings must be made:
1. There will not be a reduction of the amount of acreage under contract as
of January 1, 1985.
2. The land added to the contract is at least equal in size, agricultural
suitability and fair market value as the land being removed from the
contract.
3. At least 50% of the land presently subject to the contract will remain
subject to the contract.
4. The boundary adjustment is located within an incorporated City within a
county with a population in excess of 1,500,000.
GPA/LU 88-2/LCPA 88-1
ZC 88-4 - CARLTAS
OCTOBER 19, 1988
PAGE 4
5. The contract affected by the adjustment has been in effect for at least
10 years.
6. The adjustment is consistent with the General Plan.
7. The land added is contiguous with land either under contract or owned by
a single family.
8. The proposed adjustment is consistent with the findings that are required
for cancellation of the contract.
There were 345 acres under contract in 1985. The 1987 Car Country expansion was
accomplished by a land swap so that there are still 345 acres in the preserve.
The currently proposed 52 acre swap would leave 345 acres under contract.
Additionally the 52 acre swap means that 85% of the land presently under contract
will remain under contract.
As part of the swap proposed, the City required the applicant to submit proof
that the land being added to the preserve was at least as suitable for
agriculture as the land being removed. As noted previously, in addition to staff
review, the City contracted for an independent "third party" review. The reports
(on file in the Planning Department) both concluded that the land being added
to the preserve was slightly better for agriculture than that being removed.
The applicant did not submit any appraisals, so that it is difficult to compare
the fair market value of the two parcels, the area being added may have a higher
value than that being removed. The area being added is primarily zoned for
agriculture (E-A) while that being added is mostly zoned for residential (R-A-
10). With respect to the General Plan the area being added is a combination of
residential (RM and non-residential (NRR) while that being removed is primarily
NRR where specific uses must be determined through analysis of specific
proposals. Since the NRR designation does not give a clear entitlement for
development, determination of specific uses is subject to discretion and
assigning a precise value to the property is risky.
With respect to the other required findings, the Land Contract has been in effect
since 1976 (eleven years). Also, San Diego has a population in excess of two
million. The land to be added is contiguous with the remaining contract land.
Finally, there is no request to cancel any portion of the contract.
B. Amendment to the Mello II Local Coastal Program Segment
Planning Issue
Is the proposed amendment.to the Mello II Local Coastal Program, which modifies
the boundaries of the developable portion of the Carltas site, consistent with
the long-term preservation of agriculture goals of the Local Coastal Program.
GPA/LU 88-2/LCPA 88-1
ZC 88-4 - CARLTAS
OCTOBER 19, 1988
PAGE 5
DISCUSSION
As previously mentioned an Ag-Preserve boundary change was the subject of a 1987
Ag-Preserve Contract Amendment and a Local Coastal Program Amendment to enable
the expansion of Car Country. The currently proposed Local Coastal Program
Amendment would do three things:
1. Change the Local Coastal Program map boundaries (Exhibit 4.3A) of
the Local Coastal Program that delineate ag-lands and developable
lands consistent with the boundaries proposed in the Ag-Preserve
Contract Amendment (Exhibit "X"); and,
2. Change the Local Coastal Program text that requires development to
be clustered along Palomar Airport Road, Paseo del Norte, and Cannon
Road per Local Coastal Program Exhibit 4.3A to add the phrase "and
clustered on the first major ridge area as designated on Exhibit
4.3A." (This would be modified to be consistent with new Exhibit
"X".)
3. Amends the Local Coastal Plan text to allow any deed restrictions
governing Ag/Urban areas to be modified consistent with any approved
boundary changes.
The 1987 Local Coastal Program Amendment was approved with additional revised
policies aimed at ensuring the long-term viability and preservation of
agriculture on the Carltas site. Of particular importance were the revised
policies that required:
(a) Any new amendment to the location of the developable area to
prove that the new area of development is not more suitable
for agriculture than the previously developable area. The
intent of this requirement is to cluster development on lands
least suitable for agriculture.
(b) The Master Plan (required for future development) to provide
a mix, location and intensity of uses that are compatible with
and will not adversely impact the long-term viability of
agricultural uses.
(c) All development shall include special treatment buffers...that
stabilize the urban-agricultural boundaries and limit to a
level of insignificance ag-impacts on the urban uses.
(d) All development shall be located so as to not interfere with
normal agricultural operations including but not limited to
cultivation, irrigation and spraying.
GPA/LU 88-2/LCPA 88-1
ZC 88-4 - CARLTAS
OCTOBER 19, 1988
PAGE 6
The following analysis will focus on the above Local Coastal Program policies
in determining consistency with the goal of long-term Ag-Preservation.
The ag-study submitted by the applicant as well as the independent third party
review contracted by the City indicate that the swap area for development is less
suitable for agriculture than the swap area being placed into the Ag-Preserve.
The applicant's ag-study did not address the second issue -- what is the area
least suitable for agriculture? However, the applicant claims that the thin
soils of the ridgetops and the poor drainage of the valley are reasons why the
middle of the property is least suitable for agriculture. The City's independent
consultant instead believes that the land least suitable for agriculture lies
along the eastern portion of the property extending from Palomar Airport Road
to Cannon Road -- not the middle of the property as is being proposed for
development.
In other words, the issue of least suitable remains somewhat unresolved and staff
is not really qualified to address the issue. However, no development can take
place on any portion of the property without an approved Master Plan and Coastal
Development Permit. It should be noted that it is unknown whether the area
currently designated for development is least suitable for agriculture. However,
the Local Coastal Program requires as a condition of a Master Plan for entire
property - the preservation of agriculture of 345 acres for agricultural for as
long as feasible. It would then appear to make more sense to address the issue
of suitability at the Master Plan stage.
The ag-study and the independent consultant review of the study indicated that
the proposed location of development could both lead to compatibility problems
with adjacent farming and could adversely impact the long-term viability of that
agriculture. The concerns centered around compatibility and boundary conflicts;
bisection of ag-operations; and, buffer treatment to mitigate both urban uses
on farming and vice versa. Agricultural operations generally involve the
generation of dust and the potential for fugitive spray (either pesticides,
fertilizers, and/or irrigation to adversely impact adjacent urban uses). At the
same time the proximity of urban uses can adversely impact ag-operations, farms
near urban uses are often subject to vandalism. Also when urban areas surround
ag-areas, it is difficult to attract and maintain a supply of farm labor.
Therefore, numerous conflicts in compatibility can arise along the
urban/agricultural boundary.
The "island" shape of proposed development maximizes the length of the boundary
between farming and urban uses, meaning that the proposed configuration plan
almost doubles the length of incompatible boundaries. If the boundaries that
are unaffected by the proposed modifications are excluded, there are
approximately 6,600 linear feet of conflicting boundaries under the existing
configuration as compared to 12,750 linear feet of conflict related to the
proposed configuration.
GPA/LU 88-2/LCPA 88-1
ZC 88-4 - CARLTAS
OCTOBER 19, 1988
PAGE 7
The proposed "island" shape which extends Palomar Airport Road to approximately
300 feet from Cannon Road nearly bisects the agricultural areas. This could have
the negative effect of increasing the cost of farming operations because there
would be a need for separate irrigation systems and farm machinery. The impact
would be reduced if different operators farm the east and west ag-parcels. In
this case as noted above, the island shape still brings urban uses closer to two
farm operations instead of just one as would be the case under the existing
shape.
Finally, since the proposed shape brings urban uses closer to farm uses there
is a greater need to create artificial barriers or buffers to reduce the negative
effects of dissimilar uses.
Both the ag-study and the environmental document prepared by staff recognized
the need to mitigate the potential incompatibility of boundary conflicts.
Special conditions were added to the Conditional Negative Declaration which
require: .
(a) The north/south road through the developable area to incorporate a
grade separation to allow for access to the east and west parcels
without interfering with commercial traffic;
(b) Structural setbacks from farming areas;
(c) Physical barriers to the farm areas;
(d) Windbreaks and landscaping to reduce the effects of dust and
spraying; and
(e) The developer to bear the cost of all mitigation without raising farm
rents.
The Conditional Negative Declaration requires twelve conditions (including those
mentioned above) to be added to the Local Coastal Program as policy statements.
Staff believes that the twelve conditions will sufficiently mitigate the impacts
related to the incompatibility of farming and urban uses to ensure that the goal
of the Local Coastal Program for the long-term preservation of agriculture will
be met.
C. Amendment to the General Plan.
Planning Issues
1. Is the proposed amendment consistent with State Law requiring conformity
between the Local Coastal Program and General Plan?
GPA/LU 88-2/LCPA 88-1
ZC 88-4 - CARLTAS
OCTOBER 19, 1988
PAGE 8
2. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the goals and policies of the
plan including those recommended by Citizens Committee and adopted by
Council in 1985?
DISCUSSION
The proposed amendment to the General Plan (Exhibit "B") would place the Non-
Residential Reserve (NRR) over the entire site with the exception of
approximately 50 acres of the western slope ("Flower Fields") which would be
designated Open Space (OS).
The Local Coastal Program requires the Carltas property to remain in agriculture
until a Master Plan which provides for the long-term preservation of agriculture
on 345 acres and the development plan for 137 acres has been approved. The Local
Coastal Program further specifies the location and type of development that could
occur. Related to the type of development the Local Coastal Program notes that
residential uses are possible only where they do not conflict with the Airport
Influence Area and where they are compatible with adjacent uses.
The NRR classification designates areas held in reserve for non-residential uses
such as agriculture. This designation is consistent with the Local Coastal
Program since no other designation exists exclusively for agriculture. The NRR
does not give any land use or development entitlements. A subsequent General
Plan Amendment is required to determine actual permitted land use. Finally, the
designation recognizes that the area proposed for development lies almost
entirely within the Airport Influence Zone so that residential uses may not be
possible.
The area proposed for the open space designation could also be designated NRR
and be consistent with the Local Coastal Program. However, the Open Space
designation better ensures both the City's adopted goal and the property owner's
desire to preserve the "flower fields". While the NRR designation allows
agriculture, farming could be considered an interim use. The OS designation is
generally reserved to apply to areas that are to remain in open space uses such
as agriculture.
D. Zone Change
Planning Issues
Is the proposed Zone Change appropriate to implement the General Plan and Local
Coastal Plan amendments?
GPA/LU 88-2/LCPA 88-1
ZC 88-4 - CARLTAS
OCTOBER 19, 1988
PAGE 9
DISCUSSION
The property is currently zoned Residential/Agriculture (R-A-10, 10,000 square
foot minimum lot) and Exclusive Agriculture (E-A). The E-A designation coincided
with the original boundaries of the Ag-Preserve. The zoning was not amended when
those boundaries were modified in 1987. The proposed Zone Change would designate
the area in the Ag-Preserve as E-A (except for the "flower fields" which would
be designated Open Space). The developable area would be zoned Limited Control
(L-C) (Exhibit "C"). The purposes of the E-A Zone are to provide, protect, and
encourage agricultural uses; recognize agricultural activities as a necessary
part of the character of Carlsbad; and help assure a continued healthy ag-economy
in the City.
The Open Space Zone is designed to provide open space uses which have been deemed
necessary for aesthetic reasons as well as to designate high priority resource
areas.
The intent of the L-C zone is to provide an interim zone for areas where planning
for future uses has not been completed or plans for development have not been
formalized. This zone anticipates rezoning after proper plans have been
approved.
It appears that the Zone Changes are consistent with the purpose and intent of
each zone being proposed. The E-A zone is appropriate for the Ag-Preserve. The
Open Space Zone which allows agriculture is more restrictive than E-A which will
help assure the long-term preservation of the "flower fields". Finally, no
proposals have been submitted for the developable area. Not only will a Master
Plan have to be proposed, a Local Facilities Management Plan must also be
approved before the area can develop so that the L-C zone is also appropriate.
It should be noted that staff is proposing a Q overlay be placed over the L-C
Zone because of concerns that will be addressed in the next section.
E. Other Related Planning Issues
Planning Issues
Is the proposed location of the land swap and resulting area for development
consistent with accepted planning principles regarding boundary conflicts between
dissimilar uses and location theory regarding commercial/office use?
GPA/LU 88-2/LCPA 88-1
ZC 88-4 - CARLTAS
OCTOBER 19, 1988
PAGE 10
DISCUSSION
The proposed land swap would create an 83 acre island of urban uses surrounded
by 345 acres of agricultural uses. (Note: There is approximately an additional
100 acres of farming that is conducted on the SDG&E parcel immediately to the
north of there.) As noted previously there are conflicts at the farm urban
boundary that are only worsened by expanding that boundary as is being proposed.
Staff does believe that most of those conflicts can be properly mitigated by the
conditions required in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. There are other
issues related to the island shape of development that concern staff and raises
a number of questions. For example: the island is separated from existing
development. The island concept appears to be a classic example of "leap-frog"
development. Will there be a subsequent infill into the ag-areas? What will
be the pressure to expand urban uses into the ag-areas? What type of subsequent
urban uses would be appropriate in the ag-area?
Another concern relates to location theory which states that commercial uses
(allowed in NRR and by the LCP) require location along major arterial frontages
to take advantage of high traffic volumes to capture patronage. Will the need
to attract patronage require the City to make future concessions on signage or
building heights? What will be the impacts of commercial traffic on adjacent
farm operations? Is the proposed island shape and circulation system appropriate
for expected traffic volumes?
The developable area utilizes the ridge of the westerly slope. The applicant
claims that this is to take advantage of views and to make development visible
so that there won't be a need for increased signage or building heights.
However, buffers are needed between farming and urban uses. Plus, the General
Plan contains policies that protect ridgetops from development. Does the island
allow enough width to set development back from the ridge? If development is
set back, will there again be pressures to relax standards on signage and
building heights?
Planning for the developable area of the site has not to this point progressed
far enough to answer the above questions and satisfy staff's concerns. Any
development of the site will require a Master Plan and related environmental
review as well as the approval of a Local Facilities Management Plan. To guide
the future planning of the site staff recommends that a Qualified ("Q") overlay
be placed over the developable portion of the site This would require that a
Site Development Plan be approved as part of the development proposal. The Site
Development Plan should ensure adequate setback from the ridgetop and/or from
slopetop edges (minimum 30 to 50 feet). The purpose of this requirement is to
preserve visual resources by reducing the "wall effect" of structures being
placed too close to the edge of the top of slope or of a ridge. In addition the
plan should require strict adherence to building height requirements (maximum
35 feet), and structural separation so that the visual resources of the "flower
fields" and the ridge above are further preserved.
GPA/LU 88-2/LCPA 88-1
ZC 88-4 - CARLTAS
OCTOBER 19, 1988
PAGE 11
In summary, staff has a number of concerns regarding the shape and location of
the revised development area as proposed. The area is basically an island and
serves to separate large areas of agriculture. It also increases the amount of
agriculture which will be impacted by urban uses and vice versa. The current
clause on land swaps is causing the City to make a decision that is really
premature and would normally be made only in conjunction with a Master Plan.
The City will be receiving the highly visible flower fields in open space, a
major desire of the City. The difficult thing to determine, is at what price.
The City may be getting intensive development on highly visible ridges changing
the entire character of the area. It also may alter what the City ultimately
wants on adjacent land which will be developed in the future. As a result of
these things, comprehensive planning for the area becomes more difficult.
Because of the importance of the flower fields, however, staff recommends
approval of the proposed amendments based on the conditions added to preserve
long-term agricultural viability and the placing of a Q-overlay on the L-C
portion of the site to ensure preservation of the ridgetops and visual resources
as well as to maintain standards of building height and setback.
IV.ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that the proposed actions will not have a
significant impact on the environment because the applicant has agreed to
implement mitigation measures contained in the Conditional Negative Declaration
issued October 12, 1988. The environmental analysis of the related actions that
included field checks and independent consultant review identified the possible
rural (farm)/urban boundary conflicts as a factor that could in the long term
lead to a reduction of crop acreage. Twelve mitigating measures were agreed to
by the applicant which when implemented with any future development reduce this
potential impact to a level of insignificance. No other impacts were identified
during the environmental analysis and no comments were received during the public
notice period for the Conditional Negative Declaration.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2783 (Neg Dec)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2784 (LCPA)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2785 (GPA)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2786 (ZC)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2787 (Williamson Amend)
Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "4.3A"
Exhibit "B" (GPA)
Exhibit "C" (ZC)
Location Map
Disclosure Form
GW:af
October 5, 1988
Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth Street, Rm. 121, Sacramento, CA 95814 -- 916/445-0613
NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FORM | See NOTE Below:
I SCH f
1. Project Title Carlsbad Ranch
2. Lead Agency: City of Carlsbad
3a. Street Address: 2075 Las Palmas
3. Contact Person: Gary Wayne
3b. City: Carlsbad
3c. County:San Diego 3d. Zip: 92009 3e. Phone: (619) 438-1161
PROJECT LOCATION 4. County: San Diego 4a. City/Community: Carlsbad
4b.(optional) Assessor's Parcel No.4c. Section:Tup.Range
For Rural,
5a. Cross Streets: Palomar Airport Rd/Paseo Del Norte 5b. Nearest Community:
6. Within 2 miles of: a. State Hwy No. I-5 b. Airports Palomar c. Waterways Pacific Ocean
7. DOCUMENT TYPE 8. LOCAL ACTION TYPE 10. DEVELOPMENT TYPE
CEQA
01 NOP
02 Early Cons
03 X Neg Dec
04 Draft EIR
05 Supplement/
Subsequent EIR
(if so, prior SCH #
)
NEPA
06 Notice of Intent
07 Envir. Assessment/
FONSI
08 Draft EIS
OTHER
09 Information Only
10 Final Document
11 Other:
01 General Plan Update 01
02 New Element 02
03 X General Plan Amendment
04 Master Plan 03
05 Annexation
06 Specific Plan
Residential: Units Acres
Office: Sq. Ft.
Acres Employees
Shopping/Commercial: Sq.Ft.
Acres Employees
04 Industrial: Sq. Ft.
07 Redevelopment
08 X Rezone
09 Land Division
(Subdivision, Parcel Map.
Tract Map, etc.)
10 Use Permit
11 Cancel Ag Preserve
12 X Other LCP Amend
Wm. Act contract Amend
9 TOTAL ACRES; 440
05
06
07
08
Acres
Sewer: MGD
Water: MGD
Employees
Transportation: Type
Mineral Extraction: Mineral
09 Power Generation: Wattage
Type:
10 X Other: Non-Residential Reserve/Open Space
11. PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT
01 X Aesthetic/Visual 08
02 X Agricultural Land 09
03 Air Quality 10
04 Archaeological/Historical/ 11
Pa Ieontological 12
05 Coastal 13
06 Fire Hazard 14
07 Flooding/Drainage
Geologic/Seismic 15
Jobs/Housing Balance 16
Minerals 17
Noise 18
Public Services 19
Schools 20
Septic Systems 21
Sewer Capacity
Soil Erosion
Solid Waste
Toxic/Hazardous
22 Water Supply
23 Wetland/Riparian
24 Wildlife
25 Growth Inducing
Traffic/Circulation 26 X Incompatible Landuse
Vegetation 27 Cumulative Effects
Water Quality 28 Other
12 FUNDING (approx.)Federal $State $Total $
13 PRESENT LAND USE AND ZONING: Exclusive Agriculture and R-A-10,000 - Farming.
14 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See attached sheet.
15. SIGNATURE OF LEAD AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE:,Date:
IT
NOTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers f&/all new projects If a SCH Number already exists for a
project (e.g. from a Notice of Preparation or previous draft document) please fill it in.
KtVitWINU AbtNC'fEb"
_ Resources Agency
_ A1r Resources Board
_ Conservation
_ F1sh and Game
_ Coastal Commission
_ Caltrans District
_ Caltrans - Planning
_ Caltrans - Aeronautics
California Highway Patrol
_ Boati ng and Waterways ._
_ Forestry
_ State Water Resources Control
Board - Headquarters
Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Region
.Division of Water Rights (SWRCB)
Division of Water Quality (SWRCB)' .»>
Department of Water Resources
Reclamation Board
Solid Waste Management Board
Colorado River Board
_ CTRPA (CalTRPA)
_ TRPA (Tahce RPA)
_ Bay Conservation & Dev't Comm
_ Parks and Recreation
_ Office of Historic Preservation
_ Native American Heritage Comm
_ State Lands Comm
_ Public Utilities Comm
_ Energy Comm
l • ". • • • w
_ Food and Agriculture
_ Health Services
_Statewide Health Planning (hospitals)
_Housing and Community Dev't
_ Corrections
_ General Services
. Office of Local Assistance
. Public Works Board
m Office of Appropriate Technology (OPR
_ Local Government Unit (OPR)
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
Other '
FOR SCH USE ONLY
Date Received at SCH
Date Review Starts _
Date to Agencies
Date to SCH
Clearance Date
Notas:
Catalog Number
Proponent
Consultant
Contact
Address
Phone
ECKE/CARLSBAD RANCH
Project Description
4 Components:
A. General Plan Amendment (GPA) on 440 acres from
Medium Residential (RM). and Non-Residential Reserve
(NRR) to Open Space (approximately 50 acres) and Non-
Residential Reserve.
B. Zone Change (ZC) from R-A-10,000, and exclusive
Agriculture (EA) , to Open Space (OS) , EA, and Limited
Control (L-C).
C. Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) - Mello II
Segment - Modify (or switch) locations of developable
property with the agricultural lands in equal
quantities. Text changes to LCP to accommodate the
boundary change also would occur.
D. Williamson Act Contract Amendment - remove
approximately 52 acres from the preserve and add an
equal amount of acreage, in a different location
within the property, to the preserve. The text
refers to this exchange as the "Land Swap".
-9-
EXHIBIT A
PACIFIC OCEAN
AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT
Added to the Preserve (52 ac.) [V.'.'j Removed from the Preserve (52
Existing Developable Area (outside preserve)
AGUAHEDONOA
LAGOON
EXHIBIT 4.2A CARLTAS AGRICULTIIRAl LANDS
AGRICULTURAL LANDS
CLASS I-IV SOILS
— .
_[ CLASS V-VIII SOILS
A«*«.SOr'a Parc.lo • » of 7/14/87
•^ — " • •^•r • • m * ••• M^M • i
APN
211-010-11
-021-13
-14
-15
-18
-19
-20
-21
8 Parcels
1 ^ k^ V^
ACREAfiT?
66-96
2.94
12.37
13.46
23.05
102.58
86.00
175.11
482.47
EXHIBIT A
PACIFIC OCEAN
EXHIBIT 4.3 MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT UNDER A MASTER PLAN
MELLO II SEGMENT CARLSBAD LCP
\\y, 137 Acres of commercial/non residential development per Carlsbad
General Plan
345 Acres of agricultural land use
mm §)M
EXHIBIT X
10/19/88
SECOND AMENDMENT TO
LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT
Agricultural Preserve No. 76-1
By this second amendment dated , 1988, Carltas
Company, a California Limited partnership, successor in interest as owner to
Carltas Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "Owner") and the City of
Carlsbad, a political subdivision of the State of California, (hereinafter
referred to as "City"), the Land Conservation Contract dated February 10, 1976,
by and between Carltas Corporation and the City of Carlsbad (the "Contract") is
hereby amended pursuant to the provisions of Section 51257 of the Government Code
of the State of California in light of the following facts and circumstances:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 51257 of the Government Code
of the State of California, subdivision (c), the Owner has petitioned
the City to permit a boundary adjustment to add properties to
Agricultural Preserve No. 76-1 and to delete other properties of
identical acreage from said preserve.
B. The City and California Coastal Commission have made all
determinations required under Section 51257 that sub boundary
adjustment should be made and that the amendment stated herein is
appropriate, and is consistent with the intent of Section 51257 in
the development of a Local Coastal Program with provision for long
term preservation of agricultural lands.
C. Owner and City desire to further amend the contract to specify
certain conditional uses permitted under the Williamson Act.
THEREFORE, it is agreed between Owner and City as follows:
Section 1. ADJUSTMENT TO CONTRACT BOUNDARY. Effective on the date of this
amendment, the land depicted on the attached Exhibit "A", dated October 19, 1988,
as "New Contract Land" shall hereinafter be subject to the Contract and the land
located along the north/south trending ridge/valley system shall be deleted and
no longer subject to the Contract. There shall be no net loss of land under Land
Conservation Contract Agricultural Preserve No. 76-1 due to this boundary
amendment.
Section 2. TERM. For purposes of the determination of the term of this
agreement with respect to the New Contract Land, herein made subject to the
Contract and previously not subject to the Contract, the term shall be for 15
years from the effective date of this amendment and Owner hereby waives the right
to cancel this agreement as to such property for a period of five years
commencing on the effective date of this amended contract.
Section 3. CHANGE IN NOTICE. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 16
of the Contract, notice to Owner shall be addressed as follows:
Carltas Company, a California Limited Partnership
4401 Manchester Avenue, Suite 206
Encinitas, California 92024
Section 4. RATIFICATION AND AFFIRMATION OF CONTRACT. Except as
hereinabove set forth, the land conservation contract dated February 10, 1976,
is hereby ratified and confirmed. Executed on the date first written above.
Section 5. RECORDATION. The Owner shall record this amendment as per
Section 52183.4 of the California Government Code.
Section 6. AMENDMENT PROCEDURES. Amendment of this amendment of Land
Conservation Contract Agricultural Preserve No. 76-1 shall not occur until all
conditions and contingencies specified in the agreements have been satisfied.
Carltas Company, a California Limited
Partnership
By:
Paul Ecke, Jr., General Partner
"OWNER"
City of Carlsbad, a Municipal Corporation
By:
Claude A. Lewis, Mayor
"CITY"
(Notarial Acknowledgements)
10-19-88
EXHIBIT A
PACIFIC OCEAN
AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT
| Added to the Preserve (52 ac.) JV.'.'J Removed from the Preserve (52 ac.
..• Existing Developable Area (outside preserve)
EXHIBIT A
PAOF1C OCEAN
AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT
} Added to the Preserve (52 ac ) l»r»r«l D ., *. ' ' «•*•'* Removed from the Preserve (52 ac
.i Existing Developable Area (outside preserve)
EXHIBIT A
CURRENT AREA FOR
VELOPMENT PER
PACIFIC OCEAN
AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT
| Added to the Preserve (52 ac.) [;.";;j Removed from the Preserve (52
..• Existing Developable Area (outside preserve)
EXISTING LCP EXHIBIT 4.3A
/4/87
ACUA HEDtONDA
LAGOON
^>-\Y'C4RLTA5CO.
^^'IStt—i \S
EXHIBIT 4.3 MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT UNDER A MASTER PLAN
Mello II Segment Carlsbad LCP
345 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL
LAND USE
' / 137 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL
// 4 OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
AS PER CARLSBAD GP
APN
211-010-11
-021-13
-14
-15
-18
-19
-20
-21
8 Parcels
ACREAGE
66-96
2.94
12.37
13.46
23.05
102.58
86.00
175. 11
482.47
EXISTING GEN0TAL PLANEWA EXHIBIT B
LEGEND
RM MEDIUM DENSITY 4-8 D.U. PER ACRE
NRR NON-RESIDENTIAL RESERVE
LEGEND
OS
NRR
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
OPEN SPACE (Approximate boundary)
NON-RESIDENTIAL RESERVE
Pacific O
LEGEND
E-A EXCLUSIVE AGRICULTURAL ZONE
R-A-10 RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL ZONE
EXISTINSrZONING
PROPOSED ZONING
Paclllc O
LEGEND
OS OPEN SPACE
LC LIMITED CONTROL (Approximate boundary)
E-A EXCLUSIVE AGRICULTURAL ZONE
LOCATION MAP
PACIFIC OCEAN
City of Carlsbad
CARLTAS CARLSBAD RANCH LCPA 88-1/QPA/LU S8-2/
ZC 88-4/WCA 76-1B
DISCLOSURE FQRM
APPLICAN1': Carlbas Compan-yf.A California Limited Partnership
Name (individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndication)
AGENT:
MEMBERS:
4401 Manchester Ave. #206, Encinitas, CA 92024
Business Address ——
619) 944-4090
Telephone Nunb«r
George S. Nolte & Associates
Name
9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd., San Diego, CA 92124
Business Address
(619) 278-9392
Telephone Number
*
Christopher C. Calkins, Mgnfr
Name ( TndTviduai , partner , joint
.venture, corporation, syndication)
1435 Guizot, San Diego, CA 92107
Horoe Address
4401 Manchester Ave.. Ste. 206, Encinitas, CA 92024
Business Address
1619) 944-4090
Telephone Number
Paul Ecke, Jr..
Telephone Number
441 Saxony Road
Name
441 Saxony Road
Home Address
Encinitas, CA 92024
Business Address
753-1134
Telephone Number TelepJKine Number
(Attach more sheets if necessary)
The applicant is required to apply for Coastal Commission Approval
if located in the Coastal Xone.
I/We declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this
disclosure is true and correct and that it will remaj-n^true and correct and may be
relied upon as being true and correct until amende X
, Manager
Agent, Owner, Partner
Exhibit "B"
Elisabeth K. Ecke
Name
441 Saxony Road
Home Address
N/A
Business Address
Encinitas, CA 92024
N/A
Telephone Number
753-1134
Telephone Number
Lizbeth Ecke,
Name
441 Saxony Road _ . . „
Home Address
N/A
Business Address
Encinitas, CA 92024
N/A
Telephone Number
(. P. 1 Q - 1
Telephone Number
Paul Ecke. Ill
Name
441 Saxony Road
Home Address
N/A
Business Address
Enc i n itag , PA 92024
N/A
Telephone Number
( 6 19)_753
Telephone Number
Sara Ecke
Name
155 E. 29th. Apt. 5-H
Home Address
N/A
Business Address
New York. NY 10016
N/A
Telephone Number
(212) 213-6037
Telephone Number