HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 02-05; Smith Property Land Use Change; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (5)c - yh.42272-a
City of Carlsbad
July 2,2002
Bill Ponder
California Coastal Commission
7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103
San Diego, CA 92108
RE: LAND USE AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE ON VACANT PARCEL
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF INTERSTATE 5 AND
POINSETTIA LANE (APN: 214471-53)
Dear Mr. Ponder:
This letter is a follow-up to my previous letter to you dated April 1, 2002 regarding the
land use amendment noted above. As mentioned in the April 1, 2002 letter, the City of
Carlsbad City Council has directed City staff to process the necessary General Plan,
Zoning, and Local Coastal Plan amendments to change the current commercial
designation to residential on a vacant 5.12 acre parcel located on the southeast corner
of Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane (Smith property).
In the April 1, 2002 letter I requested that the Coastal Commission provide a written
response indicating whether or not they would consider supporting a land use and zone
change from commercial to residential. You responded via voicemail that your initial
response was that the Coastal Commission would not support any residential
designation because the Coastal Commission would prefer to see the property
developed with a visitor-serving commercial use.
As noted in the previous letter, the property is located within the Mello I Segment of the
Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan, which states “commercial uses may be allowed on the two
parcels south of Poinsettia’ Lane and adjacent to 1-5 on both sides of the freeway
provided that 35% of the land area is devoted exclusively to tourist commercial uses”.
City staff has researched the history of the Local Coastai Plan in reference to the
subject site, and based on our research, staff would like the Coastal Commission to
consider the following:
1. The need for “tourist commercial uses” that was identified when the Mello I
Segment was originally adopted, and ultimately resulted in the 35% tourist
commercial requirement noted above, may have been met on other
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 0. FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @
Letter to Coastal Comn-ion
Re: GPA 02-02, ZC 02-03, LCPA 02-05
July 2,2002
Paqe 2 of 5
properties in the vicinity that were not originally anticipated to develop as
commerciaVtourist commercial; and
2. When the Mello II Segment of the LCP was adopted in 1981 , the 35% “tourist
commercial” land use requirement was removed from the land south of
Poinsettia Lane on both sides of 1-5.
On September 30, 1980, the Coastal Commission adopted the Mello I Segment of the
Carlsbad LCP. At the time of adoption and to date, the Mello I Segment wadis
comprised of three areas of land identified as “Standard Pacific”, “Occidental Land, Inc”,
and “Rancho La Costa”. The subject property is one parcel located within the
“Occidental Land” area.
The Occidental Land area includes approximately 143 acres of land located north,
south, east and west of the intersection of Interstate 5 and Poinsettia Lane. When the
Mello I Segment was originally adopted, the Occidental properties were designated for
planned development in a planned agriculture zone.
Originally, planned commercial and residential development were permitted on the
Occidental properties as follows:
a.
b.
C.
“Residential uses allowed on parcels with soils rated below Class IV in the Land
Use Capability Classification, at an increased density of 4 units per acre provided
that such development meets the other requirements of these policies, and the
additional requirements of the RDM zone”.
“Commercial uses may be allowed on the two parcels south of Poinsettia Lane
and adjacent to 1-5 on both sides of the freeway provided that 35% of the land
area is devoted to exclusively tourist commercial uses”.
“The two parcels north of Poinsettia Lane on either side of 1-5 and the portion of
the easternmost parcel that contains any soils of Class I through IV under the
Land Use Capability Classification shall be permanently protected as agricultural
cropland exclusively, through recordation of an agricultural conservation
easement that allows only agricultural uses”.
Based on the originally adopted Mello I Segment, the only commercial development
anticipated within the Occidental Land area was on the south side of Poinsettia Lane on
both sides of 1-5. It appears that in 1980, the Coastal Commission determined that the
area south of Poinsettia Lane was the most appropriate for commercial development.
In addition, the 35% “tourist commercial’’ requirement reflects a need that was identified
for visitor-serving uses in that area.
1
Letter to Coastal Comn;. .ion
Re: GPA 02-02, ZC 02-03, LCPA 02-05
July 2,2002
Paae 3 of 5
The land located north of Poinsettia Lane and west of 1-5 was originally required to be
permanently protected as agricultural crop land. Therefore, when the 35% tourist
commercial requirement on the properties south of Poinsettia Lane was adopted, the
land north of Poinsettia Lane and west of 1-5 was not anticipated to develop as
commercial/tourist commercial. However, there are currently four hotels and one
restaurant located north of Poinsettia Lane on the west side of 1-5.
The hotel development (visitor-serving commercial) on the property northwest of 1-5 and
Poinsettia Lane was made possible when the Mello II Segment was adopted by the
Coastal Commission in 1981. When the ’Mello II Segment was originally adopted it
included provisions for the development of “developable agricultural lands” subject to an
agricultural subsidy program. The agricultural subsidy program specified in the Mello II
Segment applied to the Occidental Land properties provided that the property owners
chose to pay an “agricultural development fee”.
The original Mello II Segment stated that if the Occidental Land property owners elected
to pay an “agricultural development fee” the Occidental properties could develop as
follows:
a. ”The area east of 1-5 and north of Poinsettia Lane shall be designated for
residential use at a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre”.
b. “The area of approximately 28 acres located south of Poinsettia Lane and
immediately adjacent to 1-5 on both sides of the Freeway shall be designated
for visitor-serving or neighborhood commercial development according to Ch.
21.26 of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinances”.
c. “The remaining area west of 1-5 and north of Poinsettia Lane shall be
designated for visitor-serving or neighborhood commercial development
according to Ch. 21.26 of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinances, provided that a
minimum of 35% of gross acres is developed as visitor-serving uses”.
The Occidental Lands property owners elected to pay the “agricultural development
fee”. Therefore, the development requirements stated within the Mello II Segment
replaced the requirements originally adopted in the Mello I Segment. There are two
significant modifications to the development requirements for the Occidental properties
established with the Mello II Segment.
The first significant modification was that the 35% “tourist commercial” requirement was
deleted on the land south of Poinsettia Lane on both sides of 1-5. The development
requirement was changed to specify that the area be designated for “visitor-serving or
neighborhood commercial development according to Ch. 21.26 of Carlsbad Zoning
Ordinances”.
. ”
Letter to Coastal Comm, ,ion
Re: GPA 02-02, ZC 02-03, LCPA 02-05
July 2,2002
Paqe 4 of 5
The second significant modification was the provision for “visitor-serving or
neighborhood commercial development” on the area west of 1-5 and north of Poinsettia
Lane, and that a minimum of 35% of the area be developed as visitor-serving uses. It
appears that the 35% “tourist commercial’’ requirement was removed from the south
side of Poinsettia Lane and applied to the north side west of 1-5. The area north of
Poinsettia Lane and west of 1-5 has developed in accordance with this requirement. In
fact, 50% of the total Occidental area north of Poinsettia and west of 1-5 has been
developed with visitor-serving uses.
City staff asks that the Coastal Commission consider the above information when
considering the possibility of changing the land use designation on the subject site from
commercial to residential. Staff understands the Coastal Commission’s policy to
consider visitor-serving commercial uses as a priority over private residential or general
commercial. However, staff would like the Coastal Commission to consider that the
commercial/visitor-serving commercial land use designation on the subject site was
adopted when other land in the area was not anticipated to develop with visitor-serving
commercial uses.
Since the time that the subject site was originally designated commercial/visitor-serving
commercial in 1980, the land north of Poinsettia and west of 1-5, which was originally
anticipated to be preserved in agriculture, has been developed with over 11 acres of
visitor-serving commercial uses. In addition, when the Mello II Segment was adopted in
1981 , the 35% “tourist commercial” requirement no longer applied to the land south of
Poinsettia Lane on both sides of 1-5.
The need for visitor-serving uses in the vicinity of the project site has been met with the
1 I acres of hotel development on the north side of Poinsettia Lane and 1-5 and with the
commercial development on the south side of Poinsettia west of 1-5, which includes
approximately 3.5 acres of existinglfuture restaurant development and a service station.
As indicated in the April 1 , 2002 letter, the City Council’s direction to change the land
use and zoning on the property from commercial to residential was in response to
several years of opposition from the surrounding residential community to any type of
commercial development on the site.
In light of the additional information provided above, staff would like to receive a written
response from the Coastal Commission indicating whether or not they agree with our
research. Also, in light of that research, would the Coastal Commission still oppose a
land use and zone change on the property from commercial to residential, and if so,
what is the basis for their opposition?
e Letter to Coastal Comrr. ,ion
Re: GPA 02-02, ZC 02-03, LCPA 02-05
July 2,2002
Page 5 of 5
The Coastal Commission's time and consideration on this matter is very much
appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact me at (760) 602-4637 or
jcoon@ci.carlsbad.ca.us. -
Jebnifer Coon:
Associate Planner
JLC:rnh
c: File Copy