HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 94-11; Mar Vista; Tentative Map (CT) (2)STATE OF CALIFORNIA— THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SAN DIEGO COAST AREA
3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725
(619| 521-8036
NOTICE OF PROPOSED PERMIT AMENDMENT
TO:All Interested Parties
FROM:Peter Douglas, Executive Director
DATE:March 7, 1997
SUBJECT: Permit No. 6-96-46 _ granted to UPC Homes. Inc.
for residential subdivision (Mar Vista) creating 49
includin 4.7000 c. of radin on 34.3 ares
residential lots.
proect includes creation of a
19.2 acre open space lot, construction of local public roadways, sidewalks.
curbs, gutters, and installation of drainage facilities. Residential
construction is not included in this permit.
at south of Palomar Airport Road, east of Paseo del Norte and north of Camino
de las Ondas. Carlsbad San Dieo County. APN 211-040-14
The Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission has reviewed a
proposed amendment to the above referenced permit, which would result in the
following change(s):
Extension of the permitted grading period (August 1 to February 15th) an
additional 30 days (approx.) past February 15th to finish lot grading within
the interior of the subdivision with the inclusion of mitigation measures to
avoid impacts to sensitive bird species in the surrounding area. Those
measures include having a biological monitor on-site to periodically monitor
potential noise impacts and any effects on gnatcatcher behavior. In addition...
all erosion control devices have been installed and additional erosion control
measures such as berms and landscaping will be installed.
This amendment is considered to be IMMATERIAL and the permit will be modified
accordingly if no written objections are received within ten working days of
the date of this notice. This amendment has been considered "immaterial" for
the following reason(s):
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred with the extension of the
grading period. In addition, mitigation measures which include routine
monitoring bv a project biologist, will assure that no noise impacts will
occur to the sensitive bird species which have been identified to use the
nearby coastal sage areas. With implementation of the above measures, no
adverse impacts to sensitive bird species are anticipated to occur as a result
of the extension of the grading period.
If you have any questions about the proposal or wish to register an objection,
please contact Laurinda Owens _ at the District Commission office.
(6376N)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SAN DIEGO AREA
3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725
(619) 521-8036
Bob Ladwig/Ladwig Design Group
703 Palomar Airport Road - Suite 300
Carlsbad, CA 92009
NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE
Date: December 12. 1996
Applicant: UPC Homes. Inc.
Document or Plans: 1. Deed restriction recorded as document #1996-0584919 on
11/19/96: 2. Subordination agreement recorded as document #1996-0618539 on
12/10/96: 3. Updated Title Report: 4. Grading and Erosion Control Plans; 4. Drainage
and Runoff Plans: 5. Construction! Access and Staging Area Plans: 6. Evidence of
gayment of Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Fee: and. 7. Brush Management Program
Plans.
Submitted in compliance with Special Condition(s) No(s).: 1-6
of Coastal Development Permit No. 6-96-53
Remaining Special Condition(s): **None **
Material submitted in compliance with said Special Condition(s) of your development
permit has been reviewed by the District Director and found to fulfill the requirements of
said condition(s). Your submitted material and a copy of this letter have been made a
part of the permanent file.
Sincerely,
Charles Damm
District Director
(floraVdoc)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SAN DIEGO COAST AREA
3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725
(619) 521-8036
Date July 19. 1996
Application No.
Page 1 of 4_
6-96-46
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT
On July 12. 1996
application of
the attached standard and special
below:
, the California Coastal
Christa M. McRevnolds
Commission approved the
subject to
conditions, for the development described
Description:Residential subdivision (Mar Vista) creating 49 residential lots,
including 47,000 cy. of grading on 34.3 acres; project includes
creation of a 19.2 acre open space lot, construction of local
public roadways, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and installation of
drainage facilities. Residential construction in not included
in this permit.
Lot Area
Zoning
Plan Designation
34.3 acres
R-1-7500-Q
One-family Residential
Development overlay)
(w/Qualified
Site:South of Palomar Airport Road, east of Paseo del Norte and north
of Camino de las Ondas, Carlsbad, San Diego County.
APN 211-040-14
The permit will be held in the San Diego District Office of the Commission,
pending fulfillment of Special Conditions 1 - 6 . When these
conditions have been satisfied, the permit will be issued.
CHARLES DAMM
DISTRICT DIRECTOR
BY
RECEIVED
JUL 23 1996
IADWIG DESIGN 6R
V.
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT NO. 6-96-46
Page 2 of 4
STANDARD CONDITIONS:
1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgement. The permit is not valid and
development shall not commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the
permittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and
acceptance of the terms and conditions, is returned to the Commission
office.
2. Expiration. If development has not commenced, the permit will expire two
years from the date on which the Commission voted on the application.
Development shall be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a
reasonable period of time. Application for extension of the permit must
be made prior to the expiration date.
3. Compliance. All development must occur in strict compliance with the
proposal as set forth below. Any deviation from the approved plans must
be reviewed and approved by the staff and may require Commission approval.
4. Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any
condition will be resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission.
5. Inspections. The Commission staff shall be allowed to inspect the site
and the development during construction, subject to 24-hour advance notice.
6. Assignment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided
assignee files with the Commission an affidavit accepting all terms and
conditions of the permit.
7. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall
be perpetual, and it is the intention of the Commission and the permittee
to bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the
terms and conditions.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
The permit is subject to the following conditions:
1. Open Space Deed Restriction. Prior to the issuance of the coastal
development permit, the applicant shall record a restriction against the
subject property, free of all prior liens and encumbrances, except for tax
liens, and binding on the permittee's successors in interest and any
subsequent purchasers of any portion of the real property. The restriction
shall prohibit any alteration of landforms, removal of vegetation or the
erection of structures of any type, except the sewer and drainage facilities
herein approved, in the area shown on the attached Exhibit "5", and generally
described as follows: the dual criteria slopes and coastal sage scrub/riparian
scrub area as shown on the Slope Analysis dated 1/20/95. The recording
document shall include legal descriptions of both the applicant's entire
parcel(s) and the restricted area, and shall be in a form and content
acceptable to the Executive Director. Evidence of recordation of such
restriction shall be subject to the review and written approval of the
Executive Director.
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT NO. 6-96-46
Page 3 of 4
SPECIAL CONDITIONS, continued:
2. Grading and Erosion Control. Prior to the issuance of the coastal
development permit, the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director for
review and written approval, in consultation with the Department of Fish and
Game, final grading plans approved by the City of Carlsbad. Grading
activities shall be permitted between October 1st and February 15th subject to
the following criteria:
a. All temporary and permanent runoff and erosion control devices shall
be developed and installed prior to or concurrent with any on-site grading
activities.
b. All areas disturbed, but not completed, during the dry season,
including graded pads, shall be stabilized in advance of the rainy
season. The use of temporary erosion control measures, such as berms,
interceptor ditches, sandbagging, filtered inlets, debris basins, and silt
traps shall be utilized in conjunction with plantings to minimize soil
loss from the construction site. Said planting shall be accomplished
under the supervision of a licensed landscape architect, shall provide
adequate coverage within 90 days, and shall utilize vegetation of species
compatible with surrounding native vegetation, subject to Executive
Director approval.
3. Drainage/Runoff Control. Prior to the issuance of the coastal
development permit, the applicant shall submit final drainage and runoff
control plans, approved by the City of Carlsbad. Said plans shall be designed
by a licensed engineer qualified in hydrology and hydraulics, and assure no
increase in peak runoff rate from the developed site as a result of a ten-year
frequency storm over a six-hour duration (10 year, 6 hour rainstorm). Runoff
control shall be accomplished by such means as on-site detention/desilting
basin(s). Energy dissipating measures at the terminus of outflow drains shall
be constructed. The runoff control plan including supporting calculations
shall be submitted to and determined adequate in writing by the Executive
Director.
4. Construction Timing/Staging Areas/Access Corridors. Prior to the
issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall submit to the
Executive Director for review and written approval, a final construction
schedule, which shall be incorporated into construction bid documents. The
schedule shall also include plans for the location of access corridors to the
construction sites and staging areas. Access corridors and staging areas
shall be located in a manner that has the least impact on coastal resources.
No staging areas or access corridors shall be located within the
environmentally sensitive habitat areas on the west and north portions of the
site.
5. Agricultural Conversion. Prior to the issuance of the coastal
development permit, the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director for
review and written approval, evidence that payment of an agricultural
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT NO. 6-96-46
Page 4 of 4
SPECIAL CONDITIONS, continued:
mitigation fee for converted agricultural lands to urban uses has been
received by the City of Carlsbad, consistent with the provisions of the
Carlsbad Mello II LCP.
6. Brush Management Program. Prior to the issuance of the coastal
development permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval of the
Executive Director, a brush management program. The plan shall include a site
plan showing a 60 foot distance beyond all planned structures on lots adjacent
to areas of native vegetation, designating those areas subject to selective
thinning and pruning. The plan shall indicate that clear-cut vegetation
removal for brush management purposes shall not be permitted within required
open space areas pursuant to Special Condition #1. Any approved clearing
shall be conducted entirely by manual means and shall be the absolute minimum
for reduction of fire hazards.
7. Future Development. This permit is for construction of residential
bulding pads including grading, landscaping, construction of local public
streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and storm drains. Construction of
residences on any of the proposed lots shall require review and approval by
the Coastal Commission, or its successor in interest, under a separate coastal
development permit or an amendment to this permit.
(6263N)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SAN DIEGO COAST AREA3111 CAMINO DEI RIO NORTH,. SUITE 200 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6-96-53
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725 PdOe 1 Of 4
(619) 521-8036 3
On July 12. 1996 , the California Coastal Commission granted to
MSP California. LLC Marcus Palkowitsh
this permit for the development described below, subject to the attached
Standard and Special Conditions.
Description: Tentative Map for resubdivision of two legal parcels creating 61
residential lots (Emerald Ridge West), an 8.3-acre open-space
lot and a 27.4-acre remainder parcel; project includes 47,000
cy. of grading on 28.9 acres, construction of local public
roadways, sidewalks, curbs, gutters and drainage facilities, and
a trail alignment between Hidden Valley Road and the residential
lots. Residential construction is not included in this permit.
Lot Area 56.3 acres (total)
Zoning R-1-7500-Q
Plan Designation Residential Medium (RM) (8 dua)
Site: South of Palomar Airport Road, east of Paseo del Norte, and
north of Camino de las Ondas, Carlsbad, San Diego County.
Issued on behalf of the California Coastal Commission by
PETER DOUGLAS
Executive Director
and
IMPORTANT: THIS PERMIT IS NOT VALID UNLESS AND UNTIL A COPY OF THE PERMIT
WITH THE SIGNED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT HAS BEEN RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION OFFICE.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The undersigned permittee acknowledges
receipt of this permit and agrees to
abide by all terms and conditions
thereof.
Date Signture of Permittee
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PElA NO. 6-96-53
Page 2 of 4
STANDARD CONDITIONS:
1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgement. The permit is not valid and
development shall not commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the
permittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and
acceptance of the terms and conditions, is returned to the Commission
office.
2. Expiration. If development has not commenced, the permit will expire two
years from the date on which the Commission voted on the application.
Development shall be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a
reasonable period of time. Application for extension of the permit must
be made prior to the expiration date.
3. Compliance. All development must occur in strict compliance with the
proposal as set forth below. Any deviation from the approved plans must
be reviewed and approved by the staff and may require Commission approval.
4. Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any
condition will be resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission.
5. Inspections. The Commission staff shall be allowed to inspect the site
and the development during construction, subject to 24-hour advance notice.
6. Assignment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided
assignee files with the Commission an affidavit accepting all terms and
conditions of the permit.
7. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall
be perpetual, and it is the intention of the Commission and the permittee
to bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the
terms and conditions.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
The permit is subject to the following conditions:
1. Open Space Deed Restriction. Prior to the issuance of the coastal
development permit, the applicant shall record a restriction against the
subject property, free of all prior liens and encumbrances, except for tax
liens, and binding on the permittee's successors in interest and any
subsequent purchasers of any portion of the real property. The restriction
shall prohibit any alteration of landforms, removal of vegetation or the
erection of structures of any type, except that grading necessary to repair an
eroded slope east of Lots 15 & 16. The open space lot includes the area shown
on the attached Exhibit "5", and is generally described as follows: the dual
criteria slopes and coastal sage scrub/riparian scrub area (approx. 4.6 acres
of Lot #62) as shown on the Slope Analysis dated 8/14/95 and grading plan
dated 9/26/95. A north/south linear public trail, as indicated on the grading
plan, west of Hidden Valley Road, may be a permitted use within the open space.
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT plIT NO. 6-96-53
Page 3 of _4_
SPECIAL CONDITIONS, continued:
The recording document shall include legal descriptions of both the
applicant's entire parcel(s) and the restricted area, and shall be in a form
and content acceptable to the Executive Director. Evidence of recordation of
such restriction shall be subject to the review and written approval of the
Executive Director.
2. Grading and Erosion Control. Prior to the issuance of the coastal
development permit, the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director for
review and written approval, in consultation with the Department of Fish and
Game, final grading plans approved by the City of Carlsbad. Grading
activities shall be permitted between October 1st and February 15th subject to
the following criteria:
a. All temporary and permanent runoff and erosion control devices shall
be developed and installed prior to or concurrent with any on-site grading
activities.
b. All areas disturbed, but not completed, during the dry season,
including graded pads, shall be stabilized in advance of the rainy
season. The use of temporary erosion control measures, such as berms,
interceptor ditches, sandbagging, filtered inlets, debris basins, and silt
traps shall be utilized in conjunction with plantings to minimize soil
loss from the construction site. Said planting shall be accomplished
under the supervision of a licensed landscape architect, shall provide
adequate coverage within 90 days, and shall utilize vegetation of species
compatible with surrounding native vegetation, subject to. Executive
Director approval.
3. Drainage/Runoff Control. Prior to the issuance of the coastal
development permit, the applicant shall submit final drainage and runoff
control plans, approved by the City of Carlsbad. Said plans shall be designed
by a licensed engineer qualified in hydrology and hydraulics, and assure no
increase in peak runoff rate from the developed site as a result of a ten-year
frequency storm over a six-hour duration (10 year, 6 hour rainstorm). Runoff
control shall be accomplished by such means as on-site detention/desiIting
basin(s). Energy dissipating measures at the terminus of outflow drains shall
be constructed. The runoff control plan including supporting calculations
shall be submitted to and determined adequate in writing by the Executive
Director.
4. Construction Timing/Staging Areas/Access Corridors. Prior to the
issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall submit to the
Executive Director for review and written approval, a final construction
schedule, which shall be incorporated into construction bid documents. The
schedule shall also include plans for the location of access corridors to the
construction sites and staging areas. Access corridors and staging areas
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
Page 4 of 4
ERMIPERMIT NO. 6-96-53
SPECIAL CONDITIONS, continued:
shall be located in a manner that has the least impact on coastal resources.
No staging areas or access corridors shall be located within the
environmentally sensitive habitat areas located along the Hidden Valley Road
alignment.
5. Agricultural Conversion. Prior to the issuance of the coastal
development permit, the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director for
review and written approval, evidence that payment of an agricultural
mitigation fee for converted agricultural lands to urban uses has been
received by the California Coastal Conservancy, consistent with the provisions
of the Carlsbad Mello II LCP.
6. Brush Management Program. Prior to the issuance of the coastal
development permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval of the
Executive Director, a brush management program. The plan shall include a site
plan showing a 60 foot distance beyond all planned structures on lots adjacent
to areas of native vegetation, designating those areas subject to selective
thinning and pruning. The plan shall indicate that clear-cut vegetation
removal for brush management purposes shall not be permitted within required
open space areas pursuant to Special Condition #1. Any approved clearing
shall be conducted entirely by manual means and shall be the absolute minimum
for reduction of fire hazards.
7. Future Development. This permit is for construction of residential
bulding pads including grading, landscaping, construction of local public
streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and storm drains. Construction of
residences on any of the proposed lots shall require review and approval by
the Coastal Commission, or its successor in interest, under a separate coastal
development permit or an amendment to this permit.
(6053P)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES Jk
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SAN DIEGO COAST AREA
3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725
(619) 521-8036
IMPORTANT PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
MAJOR AMENDMENT NO. 2-96A/B
, Governor
OCEAN BLUFF. MAR VISTA AND EMERALD RIDGE REZONE
The California Coastal Commission has received a request by the City of
Carlsbad to review and certify an amendment to the Mello II segment of its
Local Coastal Program (LCP) Implementation Plan. A public hearing on the LCP
amendment request by the Coastal Commission has been scheduled at the time and
location stated below. Any persons wishing to attend the hearing and present
testimony are so invited.
I. HEARING TIME AND LOCATION
DATE: June 13, 1996
TIME: 9:00 a.m.
LOCATION: Marin County Board of Supervisors Chambers
Administration Building - Room 322
Marin County Civic Center
San Rafael, CA 94903
II. HEARING PROCEDURES
At the time of the public hearing, staff will make a brief oral presentation
to the Commission. Immediately following the presentation of the staff, a
representative or representatives from the City of Carlsbad may address the
Commission regarding the local coastal program amendment. Upon conclusion of
the City's presentation, interested members of the public and agencies will
have an opportunity to address the Commission and comment on the request. The
Commission will then close the public hearing and, since there are preliminary
recommendations and findings prepared for the Commission, the Commission may
take final action on the local coastal program submittal at this time.
III. BACKGROUND
The City's certified LCP contains six geographic segments as follows: Agua
Hedionda, Mello I, Mello II, West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties and East
Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties. 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 and II segments in 1980 and 1981,
respectively. However, the City of Carlsbad found several provisions of the
Mello I and II 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 II segments and began working toward certification of
\
Important Public Hearing Notice
City of Carlsbad LCP Amendment No. 2-96A/B
Page 2
all segments of its local coastal program. Since the 1985 action, the
Commission has approved several major amendments to the City of Carlsbad's
LCP. The subject amendment request only affects the Hello II segment of the
LCP.
IV. AMENDMENT REQUEST
The subject amendment request revises the certified Mello II LCP segment. The
request includes two parts (A and B) affecting three property holdings. Part
A comprises the Ocean Bluff amendment which involves rezoning a 31.2 acre
property located at the northwest corner of future Poinsettia Lane/Black Rail
Court from Exclusive Agriculture (E-A) to One-Family Residential (R-l).
In Part B, the City is also seeking to amend the LCP Implementation Plan by
rezoning the McReynolds property (aka "Mar Vista") from Planned Community (PC)
to the One-family Residential Zone with the Qualified Development Overlay
(R-1-7500-Q) and rezoning the MSP California L.L.C. property (aka "Emerald
Ridge") from the Residential Density Multiple Zone with a Qualified Development
Overlay (RDM-Q) to One-family Residential Zone with a Qualified Development
Overlay (R-1-7500-Q). These two properties are situated south of Palomar
Airport Road, north of Poinsettia Community Park and along the future extension
of Hidden Valley Road.
V. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORT
A staff report on the LCP request, containing recommendations, has been
prepared for the Commission. If you would like the full text of this staff
report, call or write the San Diego Area Office of the Coastal Commission and
request a copy of the "City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program Amendment No.
2-96A/B" staff report. A copy will be mailed to you promptly.
Questions regarding the report or hearing should be directed to Bill Ponder.
Coastal Planner, for the Ocean Bluff rezone and to Laurinda R. Owens. Coastal
Planner, for the Mar Vista and Emerald Ridge rezones at (619) 521-8036.
We apologize if you received duplicate notices;
however, because of the overlap of persons with
interest in more than one community on our mailing
list, the duplications are unavoidable.
(1090A)
r
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SAN DIEGO COAST AREA
3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725
(619) 521-8036
May 20, 199
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
COMMISSIONERS AND INTERESTED PARTIES
CHUCK DAMM, SOUTH COAST DISTRICT DIRECTOR
DEBORAH N. LEE, COASTAL PROGRAM MANAGER, SAN ___
BILL PONDER, COASTAL PROGRAM ANALYST, SAN DIEGO AREA OFFICE
LAURINDA R. OWENS, COASTAL PROGRAM ANALYST, SAN DIEGO AREA OFFICE
STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON MAJOR AMENDMENT NO. 2-96A/B (OCEAN
BLUFF, MAR VISTA AND EMERALD RIDGE REZONES) TO THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM - MELLO II SEGMENT (For Public
Hearing and Possible Final Action at the Coastal Commission
Hearing of June 12-14, 1996)
SYNOPSIS
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT REQUEST
The subject amendment request revises the certified Mello II LCP segment. The
request includes two parts (A and B) affecting three property holdings. Part
A comprises the Ocean Bluff amendment which involves rezoning a 31.2 acre
property located at the northwest corner of future Poinsettia Lane/Black. Rail
Court from Exclusive Agriculture (E-A) to One-Family Residential (R-l).
In Part B, the City is also requesting to amend the LCP Implementation Plan by
rezoning the McReynolds property (aka "Mar Vista") from Planned Community (PC)
to the One-family Residential Zone with the Qualified Development Overlay
(R-1-7500-Q) and rezoning the MSP California L.L.C. property (aka "Emerald
Ridge") from the Residential Density Multiple Zone with a Qualified Development
Overlay (RDM-Q) to One-family Residential Zone with a Qualified Development
Overlay (R-1-7500-Q). These two properties are situated south of Palomar
Airport Road, north of Poinsettia Community Park and along the future extension
of Hidden Valley Road.
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION
For the Mar Vista and Emerald Ridge rezonings, those actions would be
consistent with the certified land use plan and staff is therefore
recommending approval of those rezonings as submitted. However, the proposed
Ocean Bluff rezoning would potentially allow development of the site at a
density which would exceed the certified land use plan designation and staff
is recommending it first be rejected, then approved with a suggested
modification to reinforce the land use plan density limits. The appropriate
resolutions and motions mav be found on Pages 4 and 5. The suggested
modification may be found on Page 6. The findings for certification of the
proposed Mar Vista and Emerald Ridge rezonings. as submitted, begin on Page
6. Findings for the denial of the Ocean Bluff rezonino. as submitted, begin
on Page '8 and findings for approval of the rezoning. as modified, begin on
Page 9.
CarlsbsTLCPA No. 2-96A/B
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The City's certified LCP contains six geographic segments as follows: Agua
Hedionda, Mello <•!, Mello II, West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties and East
Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties. 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 and II segments in 1980 and 1981,
respectively. However, the City of Carlsbad found several provisions of the
Mello I and II 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 II segments and began working toward certification of
all segments of its local coastal program. Since the 1985 action, the
Commission has approved several major amendments to the City of Carlsbad's
LCP. The subject amendment request only affects the Mello II segment of the
LCP.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Further information on the City of Carlsbad LCP amendment may be obtained at
the above address or by contacting the following Coastal Planners: Bill
Ponder - Ocean Bluff property/rezoning and Laurinda R. Owens - Mar Vista and
Emerald Ridge properties/rezonings. Both planners may be reached by calling
the Commission's office at (619) 521-8036.
PART I. OVERVIEW
A. LCP HISTORY
The City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP) consists of six geographic
segments: the Agua Hedionda Lagoon LCP segment comprised of approximately
1,100 acres; the Carlsbad Mello I LCP segment with 2,000 acres; the Carlsbad
Mello II LCP segment which includes approximately 5,300 acres; the West
Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties LCP segment with 200 acres; the East
Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties LCP segment with 1,000 acres and the Village
Area Redevelopment segment with approximately 100 acres.
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. This resulted in the two Carlsbad LCP segments commonly referred
to as the Mello I and Mello II segments. The Mello I and Mello II LCP
segments were approved by the Coastal Commission in September 1980 and June
1981, respectively. The Agua Hedionda segment Land Use Plan was prepared by
the City and approved by the Coastal Commission on July 1, 1982.
The Mello I, Mello II and Agua Hedionda segments of the Carlsbad LCP cover the
majority of the City's coastal zone. They are also the segments of the LCP
Carlsba!W.CPA No. 2-96A/B
Page 3
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 II segments regarding preservation of
agriculture and steep-sloping hillsides to be unacceptable. The City
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 II 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 II segments of the
LCP. After certification of these amendments, the City adopted the Mello I
and II LCP segments.
The West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties segment and the East
Batiquitos/Hunt Properties segment were certified in 1985. These LCP
amendments paved the way for two large projects comprising the majority of
each segment: the Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park-Sammis project within
the West Batiquitos segment and the Pacific Rim Master Plan (now known as the
Aviara Master Plan) within the East Batiquitos Segment.
The plan area of the Village Area Redevelopment segment was formerly part of
the Mello II segment of the LCP. In August of 1984, the Commission approved
the segmentation of this 100-acre area from the remainder of the Mello II 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
for the Village Area Redevelopment segment of the LCP. A review of the
post-certification maps occurred in December and the City assumed permit
authority for this LCP segment on December 14, 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 should also 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 gain "effective certification".
B. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of review for implementation plans is Section 30513 of the
Coastal Act. Pursuant to Section 30513 of the Coastal Act, the Commission may
>bdraCarlsbTa LCPA No. 2-96A/B
Page 4
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 both Planning Commission and City Council meetings with
regard to the subject amendment request. Each of these local hearings were
duly noticed to the public. Notice of the subject amendment has been
distributed to all known interested parties.
PART II. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM SUBMITTAL - RESOLUTIONS
Following a public hearing, staff recommends the Commission adopt the
following resolution and findings. The appropriate motion to introduce the
resolution and a staff recommendation are provided just prior to the
resolution.
A. RESOLUTION I (Resolution to approve certification of the City of
Carlsbad LCP Implementation Plan Amendment #2-968 -
Mar Vista/Emerald Ridge rezones, as submitted)
MOTION I
I move that the Commission reject the City of Carlsbad's LCP Implementation
Plan Amendment #2-96B, as submitted.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends a NO vote and the adoption of the following resolution
and findings. An affirmative vote by a majority of the Commissioners
present is needed to pass the motion.
Resolution I
The Commission hereby approves certification of the amendment to the City
of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program on the grounds that the amendment
conforms with, and is adequate to carry out, the provisions of the
certified land use plan. There are no feasible alternatives or feasible
mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any
significant adverse impacts which the approval would have on the
environment.
r Carlsbad^PA No. 2-96A/B
Page 5
B. RESOLUTION II (Resolution to deny certification of the City of
Carlsbad LCP Implementation Plan Amendment #2-96A - Ocean
Bluff, as submitted)
MOTION II
I move that the Commission reject the City of Carlsbad's LCP Implementation
Plan Amendment #2-96A, as submitted.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends a YES vote and the adoption of the following resolution
and findings. An affirmative vote by a majority of the Commissioners
present is needed to pass the motion.
Resolution II
The Commission hereby denies certification of the amendment to the City of
Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program on the grounds that the amendment is
inadequate to carry out the provisions of the certified land use plan.
There are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available
which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts which the
approval would have on the environment.
C. RESOLUTION III (Resolution to approve certification of the City of
Carlsbad LCP Implementation Plan Amendment #2-96A -
Ocean Bluff, if modified)
MOTION III
I move that the Commission approve the City of Carlsbad's LCP
Implementation Plan Amendment #2-96A, as modified.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends a YES vote and the adoption of the following resolution
and findings. An affirmative vote by a majority of the Commissioners
present is needed to pass the motion.
Resolution III
The Commission hereby approves certification of 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. There are no feasible alternatives or
feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen
any significant adverse impacts which the approval would have on the
environment.
W CarlsWTCarlsGWLCPA No. 2-96A/B
Page 6
PART III. SUGGESTED MODIFICATION
Carlsbad LCP Amendment #2-96A/Qcean Bluff Rezoninq
1. The City of Carlsbad LCP Zoning Map shall be revised to indicate that
the Qualified Development Overlay Zone shall be applied to the Ocean Bluff
property. The Q designator applied to the site shall indicate that the
property will be developed with no more than 4 dwelling units per acre.
PART IV. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD LCP IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2-96B/MAR VISTA AND EMERALD RIDGE REZQNES. AS
SUBMITTED
A. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION - MAR VISTA AND EMERALD RIDGE REZONES
The City of Carlsbad LCP Implementation Program (IP) principally takes the
form of the City's Zoning Code. The proposed IP amendment has been submitted
in the form of an ordinance, Ordinance NS-350 of the City's Municipal Code,
which would change the zoning of the Mar Vista property from Planned Community
(PC) to One-family Residential with a Qualified Development Overlay
(R-1-7500-Q) and change the zoning on the Emerald Ridge property from
Residential Density Multiple with a Qualified Development Overlay (RDM-Q) to
the One-family Residential zone with a Qualified Development Overlay
(R-1-7500-Q). No other changes to the implementation program are proposed.
The two properties are located south of Palomar Airport Road. The Emerald
Ridge site is bisected by the northern extension of Hidden Valley Road from
Camino de las Ondas to the south to Palomar Airport Road to the north, which
is presently under construction. This roadway has been designated in the
current LCP. The Mar Vista site lies west of this roadway. For the Emerald
Ridge rezoning, the area to the west of Hidden Valley Road is known as Emerald
Ridge West and the area to the east as Emerald Ridge East. Three future
residential subdivisions are proposed on the two properties (Mar Vista,
Emerald Ridge West and Emerald Ridge East). The sites are currently vacant.
The Mar Vista and Emerald Ridge West sites are presently being used for
agriculture (bean crops) while the Emerald Ridge East site has been cultivated
and disced in the past.
The two properties contain gently sloping terrain and have large flat
developable areas along with steep slopes and finger canyons along portions of
the sites. While the properties, for the most part, consist of disturbed
habitat, there are areas of native coastal sage scrub habitat on the steep
slope areas of the properties as well as isolated patches of coastal sage
scrub in finger canyons ranging from low to high quality.
B. FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION
a) Purpose and Intent of the Ordinance. The purpose and intent of the
zoning amendment is to allow a change from PC (Planned Community) and RDM-Q
(Residential Density Multiple with Qualified Development Overlay zone) to
Carlsb~LCPA No. 2-96A/B
Page 7
R-1-7500-Q (Residential One-family zone with Qualified Development Overlay
zone) on two parcels (Mar Vista/34.3 acres and Emerald Ridge/45.7 acres,
respectively) south of Palomar Airport Road on both the west and east sides of
the extension of Hidden Valley Road.
b) Major Provisions of the Ordinance. The major provisions of Ordinance
NS-350 provides for the change of zoning of the identified parcels from PC and
RDM-Q to R-1-7500-Q. The R-1/One-Family Residential zone permits one-family
dwellings, accessory buildings and structures (i.e. garages, etc.),
greenhouses and agricultural crops. In limited cases, a two-family dwelling
may be permitted provided it is adjacent to specified zones as listed in the
zoning ordinance. Also, home occupations, etc., are permitted in certain
circumstances. The R-l zone sets a 35 foot height limit and establishes
development standards for setbacks, placement of building, minimum lot width
and minimum lot area (7,500 sq.ft.), etc. Additional development standards
for this zone include provisions for the type of garage required (i.e.
two-car) and that each residence have a permanent foundation. Other
requirements pertain to the composition of exterior siding of residences,
specifications regarding roof pitches and minimum width of residences.
c) Adequacy of Ordinance to Implement the 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 City's Zoning Code serves as the
Implementation Program for the Mello II segment of the LCP. In the City's
Zoning Code, the R-1/One-family Residential zone permits one-family dwelling
units with a minimum lot area of 7,500 sq.ft. The Qualified Development
Overlay Zone provides additional regulations for development to ensure that
development is compatible with surrounding development and that development is
designed in a manner to protect visual resources, in this case, those views
from Palomar Airport Road to the south, which is a designated scenic roadway
in the City's General Plan. Other design measures associated with this
overlay zone include review of site development plans in terms of building
height, roof lines, colors of structures and building setbacks. This overlay
provides additional assurance the policies of the LCP will be applied and
enforced.
Both the Mar Vista and Emerald Ridge properties have the Residential Medium
(RM) General Land Use Plan designation. The proposed rezones do not affect
the General Plan residential land uses on the properties and only involve
changing from one type of residential zoning (PC and RDM-Q) to another type of
residential zoning (R-1-7500-Q) which affects the development standards that
will be applied to future development on the subject properties. According to
the City, the proposed rezones to R-1-7500-Q are more restrictive than the
existing PC and RDM-Q zones in that more specific development criteria is
required for development within this zone classification (i.e., more
restrictions on the types of permitted uses, detailed specifications on side
yards, placement of buildings, lot widths, etc.).
In addition, the proposed rezones will be consistent with the Residential
Medium (RM) land use designation and density established in the General Plan.
CarlsbWLCPA No. 2-96A/B
Page 8
The RM designation allows up to eight dwelling units per acre (8 dua) with a
growth control point of six dwelling units per net acre (6 dua). The proposed
R-1-7500-Q zone would equate to a density of 5.8 dwelling units per acre
(rounded up to 6 dwelling units per acre) which is fully consistent with the
Land Use Plan designation, as noted above.
Furthermore, through the review of future development on either parcel through
a subsequent coastal development permit, issues associated with resource
protection, etc., will be thoroughly assessed for consistency with the
certified Mello II LCP segment. It should also be noted that both City and
Commission staffs have considered future site development plans for both
properties. W^th such consideration, the proposed zoning/density again
appears appropriate in that future development of the properties at the
proposed intensity of use and with application of the other zoning standards
and certified LUP provisions is possible and reasonable. Therefore, since the
proposed rezoning would implement the LUP designation cited above, the
Commission finds that the subject amendment to the implementation plan is
consistent with and adequate to carry out the policies of the certified LUP.
PART V. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD LCP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
AMENDMENT #2-96A/OCEAN BLUFF REZONE. AS SUBMITTED.
A. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION - OCEAN BLUFF REZONE
The proposed amendment request proposes to amend the City's implementation
plan of its certified LCP by rezoning the 31.2 acre Ocean Bluff property from
Exclusive Agriculture (E-A) to One-Family Residential (R-l). The amendment is
associated with a specific project proposal currently under review by the
Commission (CDP #6-96-57) to develop a 92 unit residential project and a 16
unit affordable housing project.
B. FINDINGS FOR REJECTION
a) Purpose and Intent of the Ordinance. The purpose and intent of the
R-l zone (One-Family Residential Zone) is to allow for single family detached
homes and associated structures; however, the zone also allows multi-family
affordable housing structures developed in accordance with the RD-M
development standards to be located in the R-l zone subject to site
development plan approval. The E-A zone is a holding zone which only allows
agricultural uses.
b) Major Provisions of the Ordinance. The amendment provides for the
change of zoning of the identified parcel from E-A to R-l. The R-l zone
allows single family detached homes and associated structures, sets a 35 foot
height limit, and establishes development standards for setbacks, placement of
building, minimum lot area (7,500 sq.ft.), etc. In limited cases, a
two-family dwelling may be permitted provided it is adjacent to specified
zones as listed in the zoning ordinance. Also, home occupations, etc., are
permitted in certain circumstances. Additional development standards for this
zone include provisions for the type of garage required (i.e. two-car) and
Carlsb^LCPA No. 2-96A/B
Page 9
that each residence have a permanent foundation. Other requirements pertain
to the composition of exterior siding of residences, specifications regarding
roof pitches and minimum width of residences.
c) Adequacy of Ordinance to Implement the 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 City's Zoning Code serves as the
Implementation Program for the Mello II segment of the LCP. In the City's
Zoning Code, R-l is a zoning designation that requires a minimum lot area of
7,500 sq.ft. per acre. The Ocean Bluff property has been designated with the
Residential Low Medium (RLM) land use designation which permits up to 4 du/ac
with a growth control point of 3.2 dwelling units per net acre. Although the
City found the proposed R-l zone consistent with the RLM land use designation,
the R-l zoning could allow up to 5.8 du/ac based on the minimum lot size of
7,500 sq.ft. (43,560 sq.ft. divided by 7,500 sq.ft. = 5.8). Thus, the
proposed R-l zone could permit more dwelling units than the land use
designation would allow which is inconsistent with the certified LUP.
Increased residential density could result in adverse impacts areawide to
coastal resources by creating the need for more roads and infrastructure
through sensitive areas (i.e, dual criteria slopes, wetland and riparian
resources). Therefore, because the proposed zoning is not consistent with the
certified land use designation, the amendment must be denied.
PART VI. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD LCP IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN AMENDMENT #2-96A/QCEAN BLUFF REZONE. IF MODIFIED
The standard of review for implementation plans is 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. As identified
above, the proposed implementation plan amendment cannot be found consistent
with the density provisions of the certified Mello II LCP. Specifically, the
proposed R-l zone, allowing up to a maximum of 5.8 du/ac, cannot be found
consistent with the Residential Low Medium (RLM) land use designation of the
certified LUP which allows no more than 4 du/ac.
The Qualified Development Overlay Zone of the certified LCP provides
additional regulations for development to ensure that development occurs with
due regard to environmental factors. The overlay also promotes orderly,
attractive and harmonious development, and promotes the general welfare by
preventing the establishment of uses or erection of structures which are not
properly related to or which could adversely impact their sites, surroundings,
traffic circulation or environmental setting. Thus, this overlay provides
additional assurance the policies of the LCP will be applied and enforced.
The Commission finds that, based on the above findings, the Qualified
Development Overlay Zone must be applied to this property. The attached
suggested modification applies the Q designator to the site to ensure that the
CarlsbW LCPA No. 2-96A/B
Page 10
property will be developed with no more than 4 du/ac which is consistent with
the certified RLM land use designation. In that way, the Commission can find
the proposed zone change is consistent with the certified LUP.
Furthermore, through the review of future development on the site through a
subsequent coastal development permit, issues associated with resource
protection, etc., will be thoroughly assessed for consistency with the
certified Mello II LCP segment. In this case, the Ocean Bluff project has
been required by the City to extend Poinsettia Lane, an off-site major
arterial and circulation element road, through a canyon that contains
sensitive resources. Approximately 4 acres of dual criteria slopes would be
impacted by the proposed road alignment. While the Mello II LCP allows
impacts to sensitive resources for circulation element roads, the LCP provides
that the least environmentally-damaging alternative must be analyzed before
impacts can be accepted. Currently, this alternatives analysis is being
prepared. It will be used in determining the ultimate alignment of Poinsettia
Lane in association with the Ocean Bluff project. The companion permit to
this local coastal program amendment will be reviewed at a future hearing.
It should also be noted that both City and Commission staffs have considered
future site development plans for the site. With such consideration, the
modified zoning appears appropriate in that future development of the property
at the endorsed intensity of use and with application of the other zoning
standards and certified LUP provisions is possible and reasonable. In
summary, since the proposed rezoning, as modified, would implement the LUP
designation cited above, the Commission finds that the subject amendment to
the implementation plan is consistent with and adequate to carry out the
policies of the certified LUP.
PART VII. CONSISTENCY WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
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. Thus, under CEQA Section 21080.5,
the Commission is relieved of the responsibility to prepare an EIR for each
LCP.
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 LCP amendment to the Mello II segment
of the City's LCP deals with a change to the zoning of three properties within
the City's coastal zone. Inasmuch as the proposed Mar Vista/Emerald Ridge
rezones will implement the Residential Medium LUP designation, the Commission
finds that approval of those rezones should accommodate an appropriate
intensity of development consistent with the certified land use plan. For the
Ocean Bluff site, the proposed rezone could have resulted in an inappropriate
intensity of land use. However, as modified, the amendment provides
Carlsbl(p-CPA No. 2-96A/B
Page 11
sufficient protection to coastal resources by limiting the permitted intensity
of development. Therefore, the Commission finds that approval of the Mello II
zoning amendment, as modified, will not result in any significant adverse
environmental impacts.
In addition, individual projects to which the new LCP zone would apply will
require a coastal development permit, as previously noted, which would require
review for compliance with development standards which address, in part, steep
slope encroachment, preservation of native habitat (coastal sage scrub, etc.),
visual resource protection, conversion of agricultural land to urban uses and
parking and traffic circulation. Any specific impacts associated with
individual development projects would be assessed through the environmental
review process; and, an individual project's compliance with CEQA would be
assured. The Commission finds that approval of the subject LCP amendment, as
modified, would not result in significant environmental impacts under the
meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act and that the proposed
changes can be made.
(1095A)
MAP
* -
.'STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
SAN DIEGO COAST AREA
3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725(619)521-8036 DATE: Tuesday, May 7, 1996
TIME: 10:00 a.m.
PLACE: Hyatt Regency - Long Beach
200 South Pine Avenue
Long Beach, CA
The proposed development described on Page 2 of this notice i
a public hearing before the California Coastal Commission at the
indicated above.
This item has been tentatively scheduled as follows:
Administrative Permit
Consent Calendar
Extension Request
Adoption of Findings
Request for Reconsideration
Material Amendment
Hearing and Voting on Regular Calendar
SEE NOTE ON PAGE 2
Continued Hearing and Voting on Regular Calendar
Public Hearing on Regular Calendar
Substantial Issue Determination and Hearing and Voting on
Appeals from Local Government Decisions
Continued Hearing and Voting on Appeals from Local
Government Decisions
_X_ Other: Time Extension on Carlsbad LCPA 2-96/DNL
Information on Coastal Commission meeting procedures is enclosed on Pages 3
and 4. If, after reading this information and the project description on
Page 2, you have questions, please contact the Commission's San Diego
District Office at (619) 521-8036. The file on this project is available
for public review at the District Office during regular business hours. The
staff report will be mailed to you upon request.
-Over-
Carlsbad LCP Amendment No. 2-96 Time Extension. Public hearing and action on
request to extend time limit for action on the amendment request including
Appellate Procedures; Accessory Structures Height Limitation; Mar Vista, MSP
California L.L.C. and Ocean Bluff rezonings. (DNL-SD)
- 2 -
MIMMISSION HEARING PRQCED
IF YOU ARE AN APPLICANT: In most cases, your application will be reviewed by
the district staff and placed on the State Commission agenda for the earliest
possible meeting. Staff will determine if the application can be put on
either the consent or administrative calendar or whether it must receive a
full public hearing.
ADMINISTRATIVE CALENDAR: Administrative permits may be granted by the
executive director for projects which are minor new developments, additions to
existing structures (not exceeding $100,000. in cost), single family
residences, or multi-family projects of four units or less. The Coastal Act
requires that all administrative permits be reported to the Commission at its
next meeting before they take effect. If four or more Commissioners request
that an item be held for public hearing, the project will be removed from the
administrative calendar and scheduled for a public hearing at the next regular
Commission meeting. Conditions may be attached to an administrative permit.
Applicants and other interested parties may speak in opposition to the project
or its conditions. Testimony is limited to 3 minutes for each side.
CONSENT CALENDAR: Projects considered by staff to be consistent with the
Coastal Act but which do not qualify for the administrative calendar may be
placed on the consent calendar. Projects on the consent calendar will be
approved by the Commission with a single vote for the entire calendar. If
three or more Commissioners wish to pull an item off consent, that item will
normally be rescheduled for a regular public hearing and vote at the next
regular Commission meeting. Conditions may be attached to consent calendar
permits. Applicants who accept these conditions need not speak. Opponents
should tell the Commission why the project is inconsistent with the Coastal
Act. Three minutes will be allowed for each side to speak to the Commission.
If there are several persons wishing to address an item, efforts should be
made to consolidate presentations in order to stay within the time-limits.
Interested persons should check with the Commission staff regarding subsequent
hearings.
REGULAR CALENDAR PERMIT APPLICATIONS: Projects potentially inconsistent with
the Coastal Act or which can be approved only with conditions for which there
are no clear presedents will be placed on the regular calendar and will be
considered after a full public hearing. Persons supporting or opposing the
project should tell the Commission why they think the project is or is not
consistent with the Act. Testimony must address coastal act policies and
environmental impacts of the project and should not be redundant. Each side
is allotted 15 minutes, with the applicant speaking first and then the
opposition. The Commission can, however, at its own discretion limit or
extend this time period. The applicant may reserve some time for rebuttal
after the opponents speak. After the hearing is closed, the Commission wi11
discuss the matter and vote.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION: An applicant may request that the Commission
reconsider its previous action on a permit. The applicant must show that
there is relevant new evidence which could not have reasonably been presented
at the original hearing or that an error of fact or law occurred. Only the
applicant and persons who participated in the original proceedings are
eligible to testify. Testimony is limited to three minutes for each side.
Should the Commissioners vote to grant the reconsideration request, the matter
will be scheduled for a public hearing as if it were a new application.
FINDINGS: Public hearing and voting on findings to support previous
Commission action. Adoption of findings will not change the previous action.
Only persons who participated in the original proceedings are eligible to
testify.
PERMIT AMENDMENTS and EXTENSIONS: Public hearing and voting on requests to
amend or extend permits previously approved by the Commission. Five minutes
will be allocated to each side.
PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES: If the item you are interested in speaking on is
scheduled for a public hearing, you must fill out a "Request to Speak" form
and give it to a staff person before the hearing starts. Sign-up forms will
be available on a table at the entrance to the hearing room.
Time limits for spoken testimony vary according to the different calendars.
In addition, because the number of speakers can vary, the Commission can also
limit or extend the stated time limits. Because of this limited time,
applicants and opponents are encouraged to submit written comments to the
Commission office at least one week in advance of the hearing. Comments will
be copied and forwarded to the Commissioners by the staff. If it is
convenient, you may also wish to bring 25 copies of your spoken testimony to
the hearing for distribution to the Commissioners.
Speakers may use maps, slides, photographs, models, and other visual materials
in their presentations to the Commission. Since material become part of the
public record on the permit, reproductions of the materials shown must be
submitted to the Commission staff before or during the Commission meeting, or
the originals will be retained by the Commission for 60 days. A carousel
slide projector and screen will be available at the meeting.
MEN HILL AN AGENDA ITEM BE HEARD? Unfortunately, no one can predict how
quickly the Commission will complete agenda items. Each session begins at the
time noted on the meeting notice. Each item is considered in order listed,
except in extraordinary circumstances. The Commission will consider items
even though the interested persons are not present. Staff at the appropriate
Commission office can give you more information prior to the hearing date and
you can call the staff at the hearing location for last minute information.
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS: Government Code Section 84308 requires Commissioners
to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a
campaign contribution of $250. or more from an interested party. If you
intend to speak on any hearing item, please indicate on the speaker slip
and/or in your testimony, if you have made campaign contributions of $250. or
more to any Commissioner within the last year, and if so, to which
Commissioners you contributed.
HQN MANY VOTES DOES IT TAKE TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION? Each permit must be
approved by a majority of the Commissioners who are authorized to vote and who
are present in the room. All permi-ts on the administrative and consent
calendars will be voted upon at one time with just one motion and one roll
call.
PUBLIC RECORDS: Public records on matters before the Commission will be
available for inspection at the meeting and at other times in the Commission
office. Extra copies of staff reports will also be available at the meeting.
ACCESS TO HEARINGS: Commission meetings are in centralized locations and are
accessible to persons with disabilities.
- 4 -
State of California
MEMORANDUM
•Tit. tea
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
and Interested
California Coastal Commission
San Diego District
DATE: AprilCommissioners
Persons
Staff
Request to Waive Time Limits for the City of Carlsbad Lo.cal
Coastal Program Amendment 2-96, Coastal Commission meeting of
May 7 - 10, 1996
On April 9, 1996, the City of Carlsbad's second LCP amendment request package,
LCPA #2-96, was received in the San Diego Area Office. The submittal was
deemed complete and filed as of that date. The amendment package consists of
four unrelated zoning code amendments or rezonings of specific properties.
The amendment includes: LCPA #94-04/Mar Vista and MSP California L.L.C.
rezonings; LCPA #95-06/Appellate Procedures; LCPA #95-09/Ocean Bluff rezoning
and LCPA #95-12/Accessory Structures Height Limitation.
Pursuant to Section 30514 of the Coastal Act, amendments to certified LCPs are
required to be processed within the same time limits as the original land use
plan or implementation plan. Therefore, LCP amendments involving land use
plan revisions must be acted upon by the Commission within 90 days; LCP
amendments involving implementation plan changes must be acted upon by the
Commission in 60 days; and combined land use plan and implementation plan
amendments must be acted on by the Commission within 90 days of their filing.
Based on the above-cited-time limits, the proposed LCP amendment package,
which involves changes to the City's zoning code and rezonings of individual
properties, constitutes several implementation plan amendments and they must
be acted on within 60 days. The amendment package has been scheduled for the
June 11 - 14, 1996 hearings in San Rafael; however, given an additional week
between the May and June hearing dates, action on the items would not occur
within the prescribed 60 days. However, Section 30517 of the Coastal Act and
Section 13535(c) of the California Code of Regulations state that the
Commission may extend for good cause the applicable time limits for a period
not to exceed one year.
Due to the date of the amendment request's receipt in the San Diego office,
the amount of work already agendized for Commission review in May and the May
meeting production schedule, staff was unable to review and prepare
recommendations for this second amendment package for the May agenda. In most
instances, these items cannot be heard at the next immediate meeting and would
usually be agendized for the following month. However, with the added week
between the May and June hearing dates, these items will not carry over even
to the June hearing without the extension of the time limits by the Commission.
Memo to Commissioners
April 23, 1996
Page 2
SUMMARY: Staff recommends that the Commission extend the 60-day time limit
for a period not to exceed one year on the City of Carlsbad's LCP Amendment
#2-96 submittal. However, in fact, the amendment request will be scheduled
for the June 11 - 14, 1996 hearings in San Rafael.
MOTION:
I move that the Commission extend the 60-day time limit to act on the City
of Carlsbad's LCP Amendment #2-96 for a period not to exceed one year.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends a YES vote. An affirmative vote by a majority of the
Commissioners present is needed to pass the motion.
(1056A)
Cfl CDflSTflL COMMISSION TEL.r!Tl9-521-9672.*.Jun 1 13:46 No.004 P.01
STATE Or CAUFOHNIA—THE RESOUKCES AGENCY PETE WUSON.
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SAN DIEGO COAST AREA
3111 CAMINO OH. RIO NORTH, SUITE 200
SAN OltOC, CA 93I09-1729
|«1V) M1-8034
June 16, 1995
VIA FACSIMILE
Post-It1" brand fax iransmittal memo 7671
Anne Hysong
Assistant Planner
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
2075 Us Palmas DriveCarlsbad* CA 92009-1576
Re: "Oceanbluff" Property/Zone 20 Specific Plan Area
Dear Ms. Hysong,
In response to your letter, dated June 5, 1995, directed to me and referencing
the above property, I have asked Bill Ponder to review the certified Hello II
Local Coastal Program (LCP) and we have reached the following conclusions,First, we confirmed that the Hello II LCP does Indeed delineate the subjectproperty with an RLM land use designation and the site 1s presently zoned
L-C. Second, we would also concur that a zone change for the site from the
l-C holding zone to R-1 would be an acceptable Implementing zone for the
certified RLM land use designation,
However, your correspondence 1s silent on the need for a local coastal program
amendment to authorize the rezonlng of the site from L-C to R-l to allow the
residential development. Although I was not directly Involved with the HelloII LCP at the time of Its original certification, It 1s my understanding that
the L-C zone was designed as an Interim holding zone and applied to siteseither committed to agriculture or awaiting further specific planning. Since
the zone only allowed agriculture, H was therefore accepted as an appropriateImplementing zone for the certified Hello II land use plan on certainproperties. However, as more specific planning occurred, any subsequent zonechange would necessitate a local coastal program amendment. All rezonlngs
related to land use regulation or administration within the coastal zppe,
which occur after the certification of a local government's local coastalprogram, require an LCP amendment In order to be effective.
In summation then, we would 'disagree with your June 5, 1995 scenario for thisproperty since 1t did not specify the need for an LCP amendment to authorize
the R-l rezonlng. Bill Ponder has mentioned that this situation may have
.riSTRL COMMTSSTfiM 19-521-96 7 2 Jun 13U6 No.004 P.02
Anna Hysong
June 16, 1995Page 2
arisen once before on another property (Eagle Canyon) and we did not requirean LCP amendment. While I cannot recall the particulars of that situation, It
was his recollection that the application had received all of Its local
approvals and been submitted here before the question of whether or not an LCP
amendment was required became apparent. In this Instance, however, where we
are apprised of the situation earlier, our direction must conform with the
Commission's regulations and an LCP amendment Is necessary to Implement therezonlng. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contactPonder or me at the above office.
Sincerely,
eborah N, LeeAssistant District Director
DNL:dK0344A)
cc: Gary WayneChris DeCerbo
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SAN DIEGO COAST AREA
3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725
(619) 521-8036
June 7, 1995
Jeff Gibson
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Pal mas
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Mar Vista Project
Dear Jeff,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above. Staff has reviewed the
subject document and has the following comments.
General Comments
According to the above document, the proposed project would be confined to an
area currently in agricultural use, and no impacts to. native vegetation on the
slopes or the on-site riparian drainage would occur, from the development
itself. However, utility impacts from a sewer line in the northwest portion
of the site would occur to on-sjte riparian resources; additionally, a
proposed trail along Hidden, Valley Road north to Palomar Airport Road would
impact off-site riparian resources associated with Encinas Creek. The LCP
provides that riparian resources located outside lagoon ecosystems shall be
protected and preserved. No direct impacts may be allowed unless it is found
that there is no feasible alternative, and the work will be performed in the
least environmentally-damaging manner.
Regarding the sewer line impacts, an alignment is proposed northerly to
Palomar Airport Road through biologically sensitive lands associated with
Canyon de las Encinas. Apparently, this alignment is parallel to and near a
sewer alignment the Commission approved in CDP #6-94-131 (Toyohara), a 68 acre
site adjacent to the project site to the southeast. In that action, the
Commission approved a sewer alignment within Hidden Valley Road. The
Commission found that part of the resource impacts associated with the
construction of this road were justified under the LCP's provision that
utilities could be accepted in sensitive areas, subject to the Commission
finding the alignment represented the least environmentally-damaging
alternative. Based on that finding and information provided by the City
regarding the above alignment now being considered to sewer the Greystone
project, Poinsettia Park, and other properties north to Palomar Airport Road,
any other sewer alignment that is being considered in this area other than the
approved Hidden Valley location cannot be the least environmentally-damaging
alternative and would likely not be accepted by the Commission. Why can't
sewerage for the project site be directed to the proposed sewer line in Hidden
Valley Road? It must be shown that no less environmentally-damaging
alternatives exist for project impacts to be considered.
Jeff Gibson/Mar Vista Comments
June 7, 1995
Page 2
Similarly, an alternatives analysis regarding riparian impacts associated with
a proposed trail along Hidden Valley Road to Palomar Airport Road must be done
to find the project consistent with the LCP. The trail is not a LCP public
access requirement but a City requirement and it is not presently listed as a
permissable use of riparian areas. Therefore, how would such resource impacts
be acceptable under the Mello II LCP? Can the trail alignment be moved to a
location where no impacts would occur? If the trail alignment cannot be moved
to a location where no impacts would occur, isn't "no project" a feasible
alternative for the trail? Notwithstanding sewerage and trail impacts, does
the project incorporate a 50 foot buffer from riparian resources as required
in Policy 3-8 of the certified Mello II Local Coastal Program (LCP)?
Five sensitive wildlife species were observed on the site or within the sewer
easement, including the California gnatcatcher. The document states that to
reduce the potential for indirect impacts to the gnatcatcher during sewer
construction, the sewer line should be installed during the non-breeding
season (August through December). Again, does the sewer line in this location
represent the least environmentally-damaging alternative considering its
indirect impacts on the gnatcatcher, its direct impacts on riparian resources
and the fact that a sewer line has been approved in the nearby Hidden Valley
Road that could possibly accommodate project sewage? Nhy can't sewerage be
handled through the sewer line proposed in Hidden Valley Road?
Specific Comments
The document notes that the least Bell's vireo is not likely found in Encinas
Creek, but directed searches for this species according to USFWS protocol
would be required. Has a recent check for this avian species been done?
The document notes that no coastal sage scrub would be directly impacted by
sewer construction. What would the indirect impacts to coastal sage scrub
be?
The document identifies erosion control and water quality measures which would
be used by the project to prevent sedimentation and water quality impacts to
Encinas Creek. However, an additional protective measure should be required
with this project to find it consistent with the LCP. Given its proximity to
Encinas Creek, grading should be prohibited during the rainy season pursuant
to Policy 3-4 of the Mello II LCP.
The document states an oversized culvert under Hidden Valley Road at Encinas
Creek is required to mitigate the effects of fragmentation of the open space
and wildlife corridor caused by the roadway, and to enhance wildlife mobility
in the area. It is our understanding that the culvert that was originally
proposed within the creek channel has been deleted. The crossing of Encinas
Creek is now proposed with a bridge structure (Murrieta crossing) that is more
accommodating to wildlife movements according to wildlife experts, and has
received the support of the California Department of Fish and Game in this
regard. What is the status of this project component?
Jeff Gibson/Mar Vista Comments
June 7, 1995
Page 3
With regard to long-range planning issues, the project must also be found
consistent with the City's draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The goal of
the HMP is to preserve and protect contiguous stands of coastal sage scrub and
other habitats that are important as habitat to a number of plants and
animals. These habitats are protected within Preserve Planning Areas (PPA) of
the HMP. Is the proposed residential project and all off-site improvements
located outside of any PPA? What role does the site play relative to
connectivity or habitat preservation for the HMP?
The project will require review by DFG and USFWS to determine the project's
conformance with the NCCP guidelines, prior to filing the coastal development
permit application, and preferably prior to completion of the local
environmental review. We believe the project site's importance as a wildlife
corridor and role in providing connectivity between sensitive habitat areas
located between Batiquitos Lagoon and Encinas Creek should be thoroughly
analyzed in the environmental document to determine the project's consistency
with both the HMP and the NCCP guidelines.
I apologize for these late comments. We would like to coordinate with the
City in determining the most appropriate action on the project site. In
addition, as part of this coordination, we again mention that it would be
advantageous for the City to submit the Zone 20 Specific Plan as a local
coastal program amendment. This would allow the Commission the opportunity to
review the access and utility requirements, as well as the associated resource
impacts, for this large undeveloped area on a comprehensive basis, rather than
on a project-by-project review. Once again, we would be willing to try and
meet with City staff to conduct such a Zone 20 Specific Plan review informally
to identify issues early and determine what would be the next appropriate
step. If you have any questions, please contact me at the above number.
Sincerely
Bill Ponder
Coastal Planner
BP:bp(0232A)