HomeMy WebLinkAboutV 94-01; Carlsbad by the Sea Lutheran Homes; Variance (V) (3)Ann Hysong Ci ty of Carl sbad
2075 Las Palmas Carl sbad CA 92008
Re: Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the "Carlsbad by the Sea" Project
Dear Ms. Hysong,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on ths above. subject document and has the following conraents. Staff has reviewed the
neral Cmts/Villaae RedevPlwent Arpa
Regarding the main element of the project on Parcel 1, the "VI 1 lage Design Manual 'I of the certified Vi 1 lage Redevelopment Local Coastal Program (LCP) requires in Subarea 5 that the entire ground floor of all projects must be devoted to visitor comercial uses, and that nixed use projects which do not meet this criteria require approval by the Coastal Conmission or the Executive Director as a major or minor amendment to the Local Coastal Program. In either instance, an amendment must be submitted to and approved by the Coastal Commission before it is effective. The above document finds the proposed project would not be subject to the above provision because the proposed intensification of the existing non-conforming comercial use does not constitute a "change in use" that would trigger a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA). use, the project represents- "new development" because of the structures' total demo1 i tion and subsequent intensification of the professional care faci li ty. Therefore, since the redevelopment does not provide a visitor conmercial use on the ground floor, staff believes the project should be subject to the LCP amendment requi rement . The continuance of non-conforming uses through redevelopment is directly contrary to the planning goals of the certified LCP .
However, staff's position is that while not a change in
Section 30221 of the Coastal Act provides that oceanfront lands suitable for recreational use shall be protected unless both present and foreseeable future demands for publtc or cornnetcia1 recreational activities Is already adequately provided for in the area. Section 30222 provides that private lands suitable for vi si tor-serving cornercia1 faci li ties designed to enhance public access opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over other land uses except coastal dependent and agricultural land uses. How can the proposed intensification and redevelopment of an existing nOn-ViSitOt-SetVing use on this site be found consistent with the certified LCP and the above Coastal Act sections? Section 30221 states that if adequate connetcia1 recreational activities to meet current and future demands are provided In the area, other lower priority land uses can be allowed. Thus, staff believes the amendment must address this issue and document both the present kinds and extent of visitor comnercial uses in the planning area and provide the necessary assurances and rationale that adequate land has been reserved to
Ann Hysong June 7, 1995 Page 2
meet foreseeable future demands for visitor colnrnercial uses. As a LCPA filing requirement, the amendment would need to document the nature and amount of visitor-serving uses in the itmediate vicinity, as well as those within Subarea 5 and the Village Redevelopment Area in particular. Depending on the scope of any prospective LCP amendment, it night be necessary to present such documentation on Carisbad's coastal zone in general.
The document indicates a height variance (36.5 feet) will be given above the certi tied Vi 1 lage Redevelopment Area LCP standard of 35 feet as mi tigation for demolishing a locally significant historic structure on Parcel 1. The document also states that the intent of the Village Design Manual is "to provide general design guidelines and regulations rather than strict [height] standards". buildings within the village area shall not exceed 35 feet, unless a development disposl tion agreement is approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Comnission. cons1 stent wi th the above LCP provi sion.
I!kuuL
However. the manual states that the maximum height for new
It must be demonstrated that the proposed height variance is
The proposed Parcel 2 residential structure, located west of Ocean Street on the coastal bluff, also requires a height variance (proposing 39' high on the coastal bluff with an LCP-specified 35' height limit). The document justifies the variance stating an existing view corridor will be retained, the structure will be consistent with "stringline" structural setbacks, and will be the same height or lower than existing structures to the north and south. However, the certified Mello I1 Local Coastal Program (LCP) does not provide for variances; thus, it must be demonstrated how the project can be found consistent with the
I re
This 12,500 sq. ft. parcel overlooks the beach, is residentially undeveloped and is used as a private viewing area of the professional care facility. Development on the parcel includes a concrete stairway, benches and fencing. The certified Mello I1 segment contains a Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone (C-0) which identifies access requirements on sites containing historic public use, including slting development in a way that does not interfere with existing public use or providing an area of equivalent public access In the Irdlrte vicinity of the site which will accoamdate the same type and Intensity of use as my have existed. The document should address how the above LCP provision would be applied to the proposed development of Parcel 2.
The ordinances of the C-0 contain detailed regulations regarding the constructlon of revetments, seawalls, cliff-retaining walls, and other siailar shoreline structures. The ordinances a1 low for the construction of such structures only when they are required to serve coastal dependent uses or to protect existlna structures or public beaches in danger froa erosion, and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local sand supply. The document notes the coastal bluff proposed for development on Parcel 2 is heavily inrpacted by erosion due to wave action, and the bluff would be supported by a 20' high retaining wall constructed beneath the structure
Ann Hysong June 7, 1995 Page 3 .
thereby protecting it from further erosion. The document also notes that although no seawall is proposed, a 7' high foundation wall will provide the necessary protection from wave action during high tides and severe storms.
The foundation wall appears to function as a seawall which as noted above can only be approved to protect existing development, not neu development as proposed. To comply with this LCP requirement, new developmemt must be sited and designed to not require shoreline protection. The Comisslon has found seawalls cause adverse impacts to shoreline processes and public access. In siting new development without the need for shoreline protection, existing site conditions must be identified and a geotechnical evaluationhave runup analysis performed. The document must address this issue, and must also address what a1 ternatives to the proposed foundation wal l/shorel ine protective work were exami ned.
The C-0 ordinance a1 so states that as a condition of approval peml tted shoreline structures may be required to replenish the beach with Imported sand, and further, permitted shore1 ine structures shall be requi red to provide public access. The above document is silent on the project's need to provide lateral access along the beach.
The project proposes the half street vacation of Christiansen Hay, resul ting in the elimination of 38 existing parallel parking spaces which the public has us'ed to park near the beach. To offset this adverse imact to publlc access, the document states a small net increase in public parking will be provided in the imnediate vicinity of the project through the improvement of the Garfield Street unimproved right-of-way and the addition of diagonal parking on the south side of Grand Avenue (the narrowing of traffic lanes on Grand Avenue is proposed to allow for diagonal parking and a 10 foot wide promenade to the beach). However, Garfield Street is an eltisting unimproved parking reservoir, and, as such, the document should establish why it should be accepted as bonafide replacement parking.
I apologize for this late rasponse. We also realize that the scope of our comnents qoes beyond soecitic environmental issues but wished to provide a broader expl anatjon Ci ty in determining have any questions,
of- coastal concerns. We would like to coordinate vi th the the most appropriate action on the ptodect slte. If you please contact me at the above number.
iP7h 11 Ponder Coastal Planner
BP:bp(0236A) cc: Tony Lawson