HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-02-03; Planning Commission; ; GPA 92-09|LCPA 92-02|ZC 92-01 - BEACH AREA LAND USE STUDY• APPLICATION COMPLETE DATE:
AUGUST 3, 1992
PROJECT PIANNER: ERIC MUNOZ
STAFF REPORT
DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 1993
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: GPA 92-09/LCPA 92-02/ZC 92-01 -BEACH ARFA LAND USE STUDY -
Proposed changes to General Plan, Local Coastal Program and Zoning
designations as recommended by a City Council directed land use study for
an area generally located in the southern portion of the Beach Area Overlay
Zone within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 and the Mello II Local
Coastal Program.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3440
recommending APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and
AOOPT Planning Commission Resolution No.'s 3441, 3442, and 3443, recommending
APPROVAL of GPA 92-09, LCPA 92-02, and ZC 92-01, based on the findings and subject
to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
In 1987, a study titled the North Beach Planning and Traffic Study (NBPTS) was
completed. The NBPTS addressed various traffic and land use issues within what is now
the Beach Area Overlay Zone (BAOZ). In November 1987 the City Council adopted several
recommendations of the NBPTS. The subject of this proposed action (general plan
amendment, local coastal program amendment. and zone change) addresses ~ of the
recommendations of the NBPTS adopted by the City Council in November 1987.
In looking at traffic issues and land uses for the beach area, the NBPTS identified some
residential areas that either were developing or had the potential to develop land use
incompatibilities between smaller scale single family residences and larger scale multi-
family projects. The issue of preserving the existing single family character and scale of
the neighborhood was raised by the NBPTS and was expressed in the form of a
recommendation.
• GPA 92-09/LCPA 92-02/ZC 92-01
BEACH AREA LAND USE sruoy
FEBRUARY 3, 1993
PAGE 2
.
Specifically, five residential areas within the beach area were identified relative to the
neighborhood character issue described above. For each of these five: areas the NBPTS
recommended that the City "should conduct public hearings to obtain citizen input on the
desirability of placing the study area in R-1 zoning and also the RM General Plan category.
Should these areas remain R-1 it would also be desirable to encourage the formation of one
or more neighborhood associations."
In November of 1987, the City Council adopted this recommendation for two of the five
study areas. This report and recommendation focuses on one of the study areas located
in the southern portion of the BAOZ around the southern terminus of Garfield Street. The
study area has 35 lots involved as shown on the attached location map. This area
primarily has smaller scale single family and duplex developments with several lots that are
either vacant or could be redeveloped.· The development of these lots could significantly
change neighborhood character. Existing zoning and General Plan designations are shown
on Exhibit "A". As shown, the existing zoning for this area is a non-compatible mix of
single family and multi-family zoning. Also, there are currently inconsistencies between
zoning and the General Plan in the form of some single family R-1 lots that have a high
density RH {Residential-High) or RMH {Residential-Medium High) General Plan
designation. In addition to the land use compatibility and neighborhood character issues,
this area is served by an· extended cul-de-sac street system with one access point {Garfield
St). Because of this, the issue of emergency vehicle access and response for this area was
to be addressed l>y this land use study.
This neighborhood was ~tudied first because of the issues described above and because a
zone change application for a·single family R-1 lot on the south side of Chinquapin within
the study area in 1991 has acted as a catalyst for the land use study to commence. On
September 4, 1991, the Planning Commission denied the zone change request {ZC 91-2)
without prejudice to allow time for this land use study and any resulting recommendations
to be completed.
The other study area that was approved by the City Council to be assessed for the
desirability of maintaining R-1 zoning, that is not part of this report, does not have the
same issues involved as the subject area of this code amendment. This other study area
is in the northernmost portion of the BAOZ with a consistent R-3 zoning {no mixed zoning
designations on adjacent lots) and no inconsistencies between zoning and the General Plan.
In addition this other area is built out with very few infill vacant lots. Staff intends to
assess land use designations and any options/solutions for the second study area by the end
of 1993.
For the area involved in this code amendment, staff conducted a land use study that
included a series of ,erti.tied mailings to all the property owners within the. study area.
Staff solicited and assessed all input regarding the desirability of retaining R-1 zoning with
RM allowed density for about a three month period. Input was received from all but about
5 property owners { out of 23 total) by phone and individual meetings throughout this time
-·
••• GPA 92-09/LCPA 92-02/.92-01
BEACH AREA LAND USE STUDY
FEBRUARY 3, 1993
PAGE 3
•
period. Based on the research and input reviewed during the land use study, a
recommendation has been developed that staff feels provides a solution for addressing the
issues involved. The recommendation being made with this code amendment is different
than the study-wide R-1/RM option that was the focus of the adopted recommendation.
The proposed solution is •primarily to implement the R-2 zone for the study area. Proposed
zoning and General Plan designations are shown on Exhibits "B" and "C".
This recommendation, more fully described in the analysis section below, is responsive to
(1) the existing conflicts in land use designations; (2) the property owner input received;
and (3) the development scale and neighborhood compatibility issues involved. Approval
of this project requires a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to adjust General Plan
designations, a Zone Change (ZC) to modify the area's zoning and a Local Coastal Program
Amendment (LCPA) to the City's Mello II LCP.
III. ANALYSIS
1. What is the impact of circulation on determining land uses and residential densities
for the study area?
2. What combination of z01;ling and General Plan designations best addresses the land
use compatibility and neighborhood character issues involved with this study area?
3. Is the recommendation consistent with City and planning policies; specifically the
Mello II Local Coastal Program and the City's Growth Management Program?
DISCUSSION
1. CIRCULATION IMPACTS ON LAND USE DENSITIES
As mentioned the study area is currently served by an extended cul-de sac street
system that violates the Engineering Department's cul-de~sac policy. The policy sets .
limits for cul-de-sacs regarding allowed length and number of dwelling units served.
Specifically, this street system exceeds (1) the 600 foot length maximum; (2) the
50 dwelling units cap; and (3) the 500 ADT traffic limit. The current situation and
potential maximum density under existing land use designations violates the policy.
The original option of all R-1 zoning for the study area would not create a situation
where there would be compliance with the cul-de-·sac policy. Therefore from an
Engineering standpoint, with the current existing non-conforming situation; any
decrease in potential units for the area would be incrementally better and supported
by Engineering. Comparing potential units under existing designations (94-132
units) to potential units under the staff proposed designations (70-103 units) shows
that the proposed recommendation would lower the maximum potential units under
a buildout scenario. Furthermore, the City Fire Department has stated that the
GPA 92-09/LCPA 92-02192-01
BEACH AREA. LAND USE STUDY
FEBRUARY 3, 1993
PAGE4
•
existing scenario as well as a proposed scenario of reduced units would not affect
their current ability to provide adequate emergency response services to the study
area .
• 2. RECOMMENDED ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS
Property owner input was essentially split with regards to favoring R-1 or multi-
family zoning (ROM). This represents the mix of the two designations within the
study area. Several owners of existing R-1 lots or lots under 7,000 square feet
favored the R-1 single family zoning while property owners of larger sized lots with
the current allowance to build multi-family type projects did not. A common theme,
however, from all property owners was-the need to prevent large scale multi-family
projects from deteriorating existing neighborhood character elements. There was
general agreement on the need for compatibility, and project design control.
As the primary factor continued_ to be a scale and neighborhood character issue,
most property owners agreed that a R-2 (duplex zoning) scenario would be more
favorable than eliminating the R-1 zone or letting the ROM zone (with multi-family
development standards) remain.
As such, this proposal re~ommends the designations shown on exhibits "B" and "C"
The. R-2 zone is proposed to balance out the extremes of the incompatible zoning
designations • while allowing developments of a reasonable scale and density to
occur. A lot's allowable density within the study area would be based on the lot
size and General Plan designation's density range. Two units would be allowed on
lots with a minimum lot size of 7500 square feet. In addition, the R-2 zone has
more single family-like development standards (20 foot front yard setbacks and less
allowed lot coverage) as compared to the multi-family ROM zone. Therefore, a
duplex o~ twin home neighborhood may ultimately develop as opposed to a mixture
of high density multi-family projects adjacent to single family residences.
The proposal to introduce the R-2 zone, therefore, is more of a product type control
instead of a downzoning of the study area. Multiplying each lot in the study area
by its existing and proposed designations shows that the proposed scenario could
yield a theoretical maximum of 70-103 units while the existing scenario could yield
approximately 94-132 units maximum. In reality, several properties have and will
continue to have single family residences. Also, these numbers are approximate and
do not consider compliance with development and design standards. However, the
proposal does not represent an intensification of the residential land uses of the
study area thus rendering the existing street system adequate for future
development. :
Staff is proposing two exceptions to the R-2 zoning. First, the south side of
Chinquapin would have the single family islands eliminated and replaced with ROM
-GPA 92-09/LCPA 92-02/ZC 92-01 • BEACH AREA LAND USE STUDY
FEBRUARY 3, 1993
PAGE 5
3.
zoning and Residential Medium High (RMH) General Plan land use designations.
General Plan designations were reduced from RH to RMH to allow more appropriate
densities given average lot sizes and adjacent uses. The two eastern lots on the
south side of Chinquapin are proposed for R-2/RM designations. The reduced
densities. for these lots is reflective of property owner input and the goals of
reducing development impacts to this area. The second exception is the existing 10
unit condo project at the south-eastern end of Olive Avenue. By maintaining its
existing designations, this lot will not become any more non-conforming to current
codes.
With this proposal, General Plan and zoning is in conformance for each lot within
the study area. The staff proposed designations are an equitable solution to the
neighborhood compatibility concerns that exist within the study area. They promote
conformity and consistency between General Plan land _use designations and zoning.
Also they best reflect the property owner input received concerning reasonable
scales and densities of development while regulating against non-compatible multi-
family development projects.
A. MELLO II LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
Implementing the proposed land use designations would require a Local Coastal
Program Amendment (LCPA). The Mello II LCP designates this area as Medium
High Density with a corresponding RDM zoning classification. The LCPA will
modify these current designations to reflect the proposed General Plan designation
modifications and zoning changes including the introduction of the R-2 zone. This
proposal will not adversely impact any of the issues the LCP regulates including:
land uses, grading, coastal access, natural resource protection, etc.
B. ZONE 1 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN
Since implementing the proposed land use ·designations does not involve increasing
densities or allowable units, this project complies with the Zone 1 Local Facilities
Manag~ent Plan. In fact, this proposal slightly reduces the maximum potential
density bi this area so there may be less of a demand for services than with existing
designations. Future projects will undergo environmental review and a standard.
assessment of impacts to facilities and services so that all growth management
performance standards will be maintained.
GPA 92-09/LCPA 92-0.C 92-01
BEACH AREA LAND USE STUDY
FEBRUARY 3, 1993
PAGE 6
IV. SUMMARY
In summazy, staff.feels the recommendation is a functional solution to the issues addressed.
All property owners were given the opportunity to have input on the final proposed
recommendation at a noticed workshop on August 20, 1992. Three property owners
attended and no significant opposition was expressed against the proposed recommendation
either at the meeting or in written comments from those not in attendance.
Implementation of the R-2 zone ultimately could result in a duplex type neighborhood.
Development standards would be more similar to single family than multi-family zoning.
There would not be a dramatic decrease in currently allowed densities within the study
area but two units would be allowed on a lot of 7,500 sq. ft. or greater. The R-2 zoning,
and proposed designations in general, will (1) be appropriate for the study area's lot sizes;
(2) provide a solution where product type and neighborhood compatibility issues will be
minimized; (3) neutralize the extremes of the existing incompatible R-1/RDM zoning while
adjusting General Plan designations to be consistent with zoning; and (4) be most
responsive to the public input received and not represent a wholesale downzoning of the
area.
V. ENVIRONMENf AL REVIEW
The implementation of the proposed land use designation$ will not create an adverse
impact to the environment. As required, future projects will go through environmental
review. The Planning Director has determined that this project will not have a significant
impact on the environment and, therefore, has issued a Negative Declaration on August 27,
1992.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3440
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3441 (with Exhibits "A" -11C11)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3442 (with Exhibits "A" -11C11)
4. Planning Commission Resolution· No. 3443 (with Exhibits "A" -11C11)
5. Location Map.
ENM:lh:km
September 9, 1992
--
•
LAND USE STUDY AREA
City of Carlsbad
h
CHINQUAPIN AVE
' i 1 2 3:4 s e:11s
I •
i I
9 10 11 12
DATE AVE
'
\
\ l
l I \i
20 22 , 24 l ; 21 .~t ,:s
21 23\2s\ 2& 128 r~ ~
-..::IL.-l--1...--~----....... "'1--\ 0 OLIVE AVE ,?· >
_ __. 31 'i 32 331 34 35
I
AGUA HEDIONDA
LAGOON
....
• ,.,,
0
ATTACtNEN'T ''A''
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
•
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3440
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FORA GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT, LOCAL COAST AL PLAN AMENDMENT
AND ZONE CHANGE TO ALLOW FOR ZONING, GENERAL
PLAN, AND LOCAL COASTAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION
CHANGES PER THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF A CITY
COUNCIL DIRECTED LAND USE STUDY FOR THE AREA
GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE
BEACH AREA OVERLAY ZONE.
CASE NAME: BEACH AREA LAND USE STUDY
CASE NO: GPA 92-09/LCPA 92-02/ZC 92-01
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of February, 1993,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff,
and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all
factors relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration according
to Exhibit "ND", dated August 27, 1992, and "PII", dated August 10, 1992, attached
hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The study area is an existing residential neighborhood and implementing the
proposed land use designations will not have an impact on the environment.
2. Future projects will continue to undergo environmental review as required so no
significant adverse impacts to the environment will be created within the study area.
l
2
:3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
• '' ..
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of February,
1993, by the following Vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
BAILEY NOBLE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
16 PLANN{NG DIRECTOR
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC R;ESO NO. 3440 -2-
-..
ZONING Qf:.NI.RAL ?t..AN
# APN EXISTING PR.OPOS£0 EXImNG PROPOSED
1 206-080-12 RDM RDM RH R.MH
2 206-080-13 R-1 RDM RH RMH
3 206-080-14 RDM RDM RH R.MH
4 206-080-15
.. R.DM RDM RH R.MH
5 • 206-080-16 R.DM R.DM RH R.MH
6 206-080-17 ROM ROM RH R.."1H
7 206-080-18 R-1 R.-2 RH R.."1
8 206-080-19 R-1 R-2 RH rl..\,1 I
9 206-080-25 RDM R-2 R..\1H R..\1H I
10 2006-080-24 R.-1 R-2 RMH R..\,1
11 206-080-23 R.DM R.-2 RMH R..\,1
1.2 206-080-22 R.DM R-2 . RMH RM
13 206-080-26 R.DM R-2 R..\iH R..\1
14 206-~91-01 R-1 R-2 RMH R.."1
1s· 206-091-02 R•l R-2 RMH R..'vt
16 206-091-03 R-1 R-2 RMH RM
17 206-091-04 ROM R-2 RMH R.."1
18 206-091-0S ROM R-2 RMH R.."1
19 206-091-06 R-1 R-2 RMH RM
20 206-091--07 R-1 R-2 RMH R..'vt
21 206-091-08 ROM R-2 RMH R.."vt
22 206-091-09 R-1 R-2 RMH RMH
23 206-091-10 R-1 R-2 RMH RMH
24 206-091-12 ROM R-2 RMH RMH
25 206-091·11 RDM R-2 RMH RMH
26 206-09&•13 RDM R-2 RMH RMH·
27 206-091·14 RDM R-2 RMH RMH
28 206-091-15 ROM R.-2 RMH RMH
29 206-092-16 RDM R-2 RMH RMH
30 206-092-17 -RDM R-2 RMH RMH
31 206-092-02 R-1 R-2 RMH RMH
32 206-092-03 R-1 R-2 R.MH RMH
33 206-092-08 R-1 R-2 RMH RMH
34 206-092-09 R.-1 R-2 RMH RMH
' 35 206-092-03 RDM I\DM RMH RMH
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20·
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
•
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUITON NO. 3441
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FROM EXISTING
DESIGNATIONS TO PROPOSED DESIGNATIONS ON
PROPER1Y GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE SOUTHERN
PORTION OF THE BEACH AREA OVERLAY ZONE
CASE NAME: BEACH AREA LAND USE STUDY
CASE NO: GPA 92-09
WHEREAS, a verified application for an amendment to the General Plan
designation for certain property located, as shown on Exhibits "A" -"C", dated February
3, 1993, attached and incorporated herein, has been filed with the Planning Commission;
and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for amendment
as provided in Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 3rd day of February, 1993,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of 'all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission
considered all factors relating to the General Plan Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A)
B) .
That the above recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
recommends APPROVAL of GPA 92-09, as shown on Exhibit "C', based on
the following findings and subject to the following conditions.
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20·
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• •
Fipdjnp=
1. The proposed General Plan designation modifications are consistent with the goal
of promoting neighborhood compatibility within the study area.
2. The proposed amendment will eliminate existing General Plan and Zoning
Designation inconsistencies and conflicts.
3. The land use study and co~esponding public input to consider land use
designation changes within the study area was carried out in a manner consistent
with the original City Council recommendation.
4. The proposed General Plan designation changes will allow for reasonable
development given the average lot sizes within the study area.
S. Goal "A" of the General Plan Land Use Element is to preserve and enhance the
environment, character and image of the City as a desirable residential, beach and
open space oriented community. The proposed designations accomplish this by
allowing the product types and densities that will help resolve neighborhood
compatibility issues.
6. Uses which would be pennitted by the proposed General Plan designations will be
compatible with existing and allowable future land uses.
7. Implementation of this General Plan Amendment will not create an impact on the
availability of public facilities or services as outlined in the Zone 1 Local Facilities
Management Plan of _the City Growth Management Program.
8. The proposed Zoning, General Plan and LCP designations will be consistent with
each other within the study area if this proposal is approved.
9. All findings of Resolution No. 3443, ZC 92-0i and 3442, LCPA 92-02 are
incorporated herein by reference.
Conditions:
1. Approval is granted for GPA 92-09 as shown on Exhibits "A" -"C", dated:February
3, 1993.
2. Approval of GPA 92-09 is granted subject to approval of LCPA 92-02 and ZC 92-
01.
--
PC RESO 3441 2
l
2
:3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• •
EFFECTIVE DATE: This resolution will be effective 30 days after its passage.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of February, 1993,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
PC RESO 3441 3
BAILEY NqBLE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
• • EXHBIT "A" ••
FEBR~ARY 3, 1993
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN
~
~
~ __ .......__.. _____________ .....,. ~
City of Carlsbad AGUA HEDIONDA
LAGOON
, ... ,.
rvw
'."11
.RH
.RMH
R-1 ZONE -.. . .
·.: . . .
RD-M ZONE
BEACH AREA LAND USE STUDY GPA 92-9/ ZC 92-1/
LCPA 92-2
J
• • EXI-IBIT ''8"
FEBRUARY 3, 1993
LAND USE STUDY AREA •
• PROPOSED ZONING
~
~
R"'
_ ___.,__,,_CH ..... IN_Q_U_AP ...... IN_.....AV_E..__.___...__~ ~
~
City of Carlsbad
R-2 ZONE -.. . . . . . . . · . .
RD-M ZONE
BEACH AREA LAND USE STUDY GPA 92-9/ ZC 92-1 /
LCPA 92-2
J
•• • EXHIBIT "C"
_FEBRUARY 3, 1993
LAND USE STUDY AREA
PROPOSED GEN·ERAL PLAN
~
!"'1
~
--~...........,___,,.....,__~---...... ~
, ... ,.
NW
~
City of Carlsbad
RM -RMH
--
BEACH AREA LAND USE STUDY GPA 92-9/ ZC 92-1 /
LCPA 92-2
l
2
:3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• •
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3442
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CI'IY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MELLO II
SEGMENT OF THE CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
TO BRING THE DESIGNATIONS ON THE LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM, GENERAL PLAN, AND ZONING MAP INTO
CONFORMANCE ON PROPER'IY LOCATED IN THE
SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE BEACH AREA OVERLAY
ZONE.
CASE NAME: BEACH AREA LAND USE STUDY
CASE NO: LCPA 92-02
WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program,
General Plan, . and Zoning designations for properties in the Coastal Zone be in
conformance;
WHEREAS, a verified application for an amendment to the Local Coastal
Program designations f!Jr certain property located, as shown on Exhibits "A" -"C', dated
February 3, 1993, attached and incorporated herein, has been filed with the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for amendment
as provided in Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of February, 1993,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the proposed Local
Coastal Program Amendments shown on Exhibits "A" -"C'', and;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission
considered all factors relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment.
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• •
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
of-the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
(B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
recommends APPROVAL of LCPA 92-02 as shown on Exhibit(s) "A" -"C", dated
February 3; 1993, attached hereto and made a part hereof based on the following
findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. The proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment is consistent with all applicable
policies of the Mello II LCP.
2. The proposed amendment to the Mello II segment of the Carlsbad LCP is required
to bring the designations of the LCP, General Plan and Zoning for the study area
into conformance.
3. All findings of Resolution No. 3441, GPA 92-09 and Resolution 3443, ZC 92-01
are incorporated herein by reference.
Conditions:
1.
2.
Approval is granted for LCPA 92-02 as shown on Exhibits "A" -"C'', dated January
6, 1993. •
Approval of LCPA 92-02 is granted subject to the approval of GPA 92-09 and ZC
92-01.
PC RESO NO. 3442 -2-
l
2
:3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• •
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 3rd day of February, 1993, by the
following_ vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3442 -3-
BAILEY NOBLE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
•• • EXt-lBIT "A" • •
FEBRUARY 3, 1993
EXISTING ZONIN.G· AND GENERAL PLAN
;>-
~
~
__ --...,,_________, ......... ....-~------4 ti)
City of Carlsbad
R-1 ZONE
-
~
.RH
~ ~~~4-~ ~ ~---~
AGUA HEDIONDA
LAGOON
"·"· "IW
-·.:. .. · . . . . .
.RMH
RD-M ZONE
BEACH AREA LAND USE STUDY GPA 92-9/ ZC 92-1 /
LCPA 92-2
. ' .
J
• • EXHIBIT "B"
FEBRUARY 3, 1993
LAND USE STUDY AREA
PROPOSED ZONING
?>'
~
~
-------~~~~----.i-...i..-.i..._-'-1 Cll
II.II.
"fW
;r1
City of Clrlsbad
R-2 ZONE -.. . . . : . .
:=
RD-M ZONE
-
BEACH AREA LAND USE STUDY GPA 92-9/ ZC 92-1 /
LCPA 92-2
J
• • EXHIBIT "C"
FEBRUA~Y 3, 1993
LAND USE STUDY AREA
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
~
~
~ _ __.___.__..,___......__,,i.......-_...___.____._. ~
'."f1
"·"·
............_vs.:~~~v.\..~~>Qll..'A.'.~-"'"AIQS"""-'..~l'V" So.A..~~~cA....~l'U'\~.:,!1<,11 111/W
City of Carlsbad
RM -RMH
-
BEACH AREA LAND USE.STUDY GPA 92-9/' ZC 92-1 /
LCPA 92-2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• •
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUl1ON NO. 3443
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CI'IY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM EXISTING
DESIGNATIONS TO PROPOSED DESIGNATIONS ON
PROPER1Y GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE SOUTHERN
PORTION OF THE BEACH AREA OVERIAY ZONE.
CASE NAME: BEACH AREA LAND USE STUDY
CASE NO: ZC 92-01
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property,
located as shown on Exhibits "A"-"C", dated February 3, 1993,
attached and incorporated herein,
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of February, 1993,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all
factors relating to the Zone Change; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Com.mission
as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Com.mission
recommends APPROVAL of ZC 92-01, as shown on Exhibit "B", based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions.
--
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• •
Findings:
1. The proposed zone changes are responsive to the goal of addressing neighborhood
compatibility while neutralizing the extremes of the existing single family vs. multi-
family zoning mixture within the study area. The proposed R-2 zoning will promote
compa~ble de~elopment standards and a community with appropriate size and scale.
2. The proposed zone changes will eliminate existing General Plan conflicts and
inconsistencies with General Plan designations within the study area.
3. All findings of Resolution No. 3441, GPA 92-09, and Resolution 3442, LCPA 92-02
are incorporated herein by reference.
Conditions:
1. Approval is granted for ZC 92-01 as shown on Exhibits "A"-"C", dated February 3,
1993.
2. Approval of ZC 92-01 is granted subject to the approval of GPA 92-09 and LCPA 92-
02.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of February, 1993, by
the following vote, to ·wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
AITEST:
.::
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO 3443 -2-
r
BAILEY NOBLE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
• • EXHIBIT "A"
FEBRUARY 3,. 1993
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN
City of Carlsbad AGUA HEDIONDA
LAGOON
.RH
.RMH
R-1 ZONE -. . • -:
• · . . . . . .
RO-M ZONE
-
BEACH AREA LAND USE STUDY GPA 92-9/ ZC 92-1 /
LCPA 92-2
J
• • EXHIBIT "8" ~ · • ..
FEBRUARY 3, 1993
LAND USE STUDY·AREA
PROPOSED ZONING
';>
~
~ __ _......_.___,___,__._..........,,. ........... ___._......,. ~
"·"· 11/W
!'"r1
City of Carlsbad
R-2 ZONE -: :
; . . . . .
RO-M ZONE
~
BEACH AREA LAND USE STUDY GPA 92~9/ ZC 92-1/
LCPA 92-2
• ,f •
J
• • EXHBIT "C"
FEBRUARY 3, 1993
LAND USE STUDY AREA
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
~
~
~
,_____,____._....._ _____ ....__.a....i...___.i...-__,,_. VJ
CHINQUAPIN AVE ~
, ... ,.
~~~~~~~~~~~~>QI A/'#
City of Carlsbad
RM -RMH
-
BEACH AREA LAND USE STUDY GPA 92-9/ ZC 92-1/
LCPA 92-2
PACIJIC
OCL\N
LAND USE STUDY AREA
CHINQUAPIN AVE
?'
~i!!!i\ !I ~I !If(· \i>!t~ . . ~
·•···•• ·••'
AGUA HEDIONDA
LAGOON
BEACH ·AREA LAND USE STUDY
City of Carlsbad
GPA 92-/
2-2/
zc 92-1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY
CALIFORNIA COAST AL COMMISSION
SAN DIEGO COAST AREA
3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725
(619) 521-8036
TO: COMMISSIONERS AND INTERESTED PERSONS
FROM: CHUCK DAMM, SOUTH COAST DISTRICT DIRECTOR
N mbe 2~~1
g ~~~ ~ ✓t~
L-\:
DEBORAH LEE, ASSISTANT DISTRICT DIRECTOR, SAN DIEGO AREA OFFICE
BILL PONDER, COASTAL PROGRAM ANALYST, SAN DIEGO AREA OFFICE
SUBJECT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON MAJOR AMENDMENT 2-94(A) TO THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM MELLO II SEGMENT (For Public Hearing
and Possible Commission Action at the Meeting of December 13-16, 1994)
SYNOPSIS
BACKGROUND
The Carlsbad Local Coastal Program consists of six geographic segments.
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 many major amendments to the City of
Carlsbad LCP.
The Commission certified the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan portion of the Agua
.Hedionda segment in 1982. In addition, two new segments were annexed to the
City, the West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties segment and the East
Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties segment. The West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis
Properties LCP was certified in 1985. The East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt
Properties LCP was certified in 1988. The subject amendment request pertains
to the Mello II segment.
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT REQUEST
The City had individually submitted two different amendment requests; however,
the portion of LCPA 2-94 addressing shoreline preservation policies has been
determined 11 incomplete 11 by Commission staff and will be coming to the
Commission after further consultation with the City.
The Mello II segment includes the major portion of the coastal zone in the
City of Carlsbad, with uses ranging from intensive commercial, residential and
agricultural development to open space in the area's sensitive lands. The
}
Carlsbad LCPA 2-94(A)
Page 2
proposed amendment would change the Mello II Land Use Plan (LUP) designation
of a 2.35 acre portion of a 8.02 acre site from Office (0) to Travel Services
Commercial (TS). The proposed amendment would also change the Mello II
Implementation Plan (IP) designation of the 2.35 parcel through a rezone from
Office (0) to Commerical Tourist (CT). No other changes are proposed as part
of this amendment request. Since the amendment involves a land use change, it
must be classified as a major LCP amendment.
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval, as submitted, of the proposed land use plan and
implementing ordinance amendments. The appropriate resolutions and motions
may be found on Pages 5 -6. The land use plan amendment findings begin on
Page 6 and the findings for certification of the implementation plan amendment
begin on Page 10.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Further information on the City of Carlsbad Mello II segment LCP amendment may
be obtained from Bill Ponder at the San Diego Area Office of the Coastal
Commission, 3111 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 200, San Diego, CA, 92108-1725,
(619) 521-8036.
PART I. OVERVIEW
Carlsbad LCPA 2-94(A)
Page 3
A. Local Coastal Program History-All Segments.
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 l, 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
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. Therefore, the
City 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 was certified in 1985
along with a coastal development permit for a project comprising the majority
of the uplands within that plan segment (Batiquitos Lagoon Educational
Park-Sammis).
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
Carlsbad LCPA 2-94(A)
Page 4
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 may 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 assume permit authority for all LCP segments.
8. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of review for land use plans, or their amendments, is found in
Section 30512 of the Coastal Act. This section requires the Commission to
certify an LUP or LUP amendment if it finds that it meets the requirements of
Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Specifically, it states:
Section 30512
(c) The Commission shall certify a land use plan, or any amendments
thereto, if it finds that a land use plan meets the requirements of, and
is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section
30200). Except as provided in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), a
decision to certify shall require a majority vote of the appointed
membership of the Commission.
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. The Commission shall take
action by a majority vote of the Commissioners present.
C. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City has held Planning Commission and City Council meetings with regard to
the components of the subject amendment request. All of those 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 resolutions and findings. The appropriate motion to introduce the
resolution and a staff recommendation are provided just prior to each
resolution.
Carlsbad LCPA 2-94(A)
Page 5
A. RESOLUTION I (Resolution to certify the City of Carlsbad Land Use Plan
Amendment 2-94(A), as submitted)
MOTION I
I move that the Commission certify the land use plan amendment, identified
as LCPA 93-04, to the City of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program, as
submitted.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends a YES vote and the adoption of the following resolution
and findings. An affirmative vote by the majority of the appointed
Commissioners is needed to pass the motion.
Resolution I
The Commission hereby certifies the amendment to the City of Carlsbad's
Local Coastal Program and adopts the findings stated below on the grounds
that the land use plan, as amended, meets the requirements of and is in
conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200)
of the California Coastal Act to the extent necessary to achieve the basic
state goals specified in Section 30001.5 of the Coastal Act; the land use
plan, as amended, will contain a specific access component as required by
Section 30500 of the Coastal Act; the land use plan, as amended, will be
consistent with applicable decisions of the Commission that shall guide
local government actions pursuant to Section 30625(c); and ceftification
of the land use plan amendment meets the requirements of Section
21080.5(d)(2)(i) of the California Environmental Quality Act, as there
would be no feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives which
would substantially lessen significant adverse impacts on the environment.
B. RESOLUTION II. (Resolution to certify the City of Carlsbad Implementation
Plan Amendment 2-94(A), as submitted)
MOTION II
I move that the Commission reject the implementation plan amendment,
identified as LCPA 93-04, to the City of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program,
as submitted.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends a NQ 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 certifies 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.
Carlsbad LCPA 2-94(A)
Page 6
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.
PART III. FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD LAND USE PLAN
AMENDMENT 2-94(A). AS SUBMITTED
A. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Land Use Plan (LUP) amendment would allow the change in the land
use designation of a 2.35 acre portion of a 8 acre site from Office to Travel
Services Commercial. Travel Service uses are those considered to serve
business and industrial areas as well as the travelling public. This LUP
designation change is proposed to accommodate the development of the overall
site with a 78-unit timeshare resort.
The site is located to the east of Carlsbad Boulevard at its intersection with
Ponto Drive in south Carlsbad. Total acreage is 8.02 acres but the amendment
is submitted for only a 2.35 acre segment of the site. This segment is vacant
and has been previously used for agriculture. The remaining portion of the
site is designated Open Space (OS) and will remain so designated. Immediately
west of the project site is City-owned land containing a portion of Ponto
Road, the terminus of an existing bridge over Carlsbad Boulevard and its
associated entrance and exit ramps. The future elimination of this bridge and
ramp structure would result in excess City-owned property of approximately 2.3
acres. Directly west of the ramp structure is Carlsbad Boulevard and the
northern end of the South Carlsbad State Beach campground. To the north is
the floodway of Canyon de las Encinas Creek and the Solamar Mobilehome Park.
Directly to the south is a vacant 1/2 acre office parcel; immediately south of
that is a vacant residential subdivision, La Costa Downs, and the Lanikai
Mobilehome Park. East· of the site is the NCTD railroad right-of-way and
vacant land zoned for Office/Planned Industrial.
The project site was analyzed within a larger study by the City of Carlsbad,
Seapointe Carlsbad, in 1986 to determine appropriate land uses for an
approximate 340 acre area. The study recommended the property be designated
as Residenti~l Medium High (RMH) with an alternative of Office (O). The
rationale for RMH was that a residential designation would create housing
opportunities from Poinsettia Lane to just south of Palomar Airport Road.
However, acknowledging the existence of the Encina Wastewater Treatment Plant
to the northeast and its primarily nocturnal odor impacts, an alternative land
use of Office was recommended, which the City adopted. Also, because there
are oceanfront views from the site, the location was considered to be prime
for view offices. The study addressed the site as a visitor-or
recreation-oriented location, but found that because the site is located away
from the Palomar Airport Road and Poinsettia Lane freeway intersections, it is
less competitive as visitor-or-recreation serving.
B. CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 30001 .5 OF THE COASTAL ACT
The Commission finds, pursuant to Section 30512.2b of the Coastal Act, that
the land use plan amendment, as set forth in the resolution for certification
Carlsbad LCPA 2-94(A)
Page 7
as submitted, is consistent with the policies and requirements of Chapter 3 of
the Coastal Act to the extent necessary to achieve the basic state goals
specified in Section 30001.5 of the Coastal Act which states:
The Legislature further finds and declares that the basic goals of
the state for the coastal zone are to:
a) Protect, maintain and, where feasible, enhance and restore the
-overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and
manmade resources.
b) Assure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal
zone resources taking into account the social and economic needs of the
people of the state.
c) Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public
recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound
resource conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of
private property owners.
d) Assure priority for coastal-dependent and coastal-related
development over other developments on the coast.
e) Encourage state and local initiatives and cooperation in
preparing procedures to implement coordinated planning and development for
mutually beneficial uses, including educational uses, in the coastal zone.
C. CHAPTER 3 CONSISTENCY
1. Recreation/Visitor-Serving Commercial Uses.
Section 30222 of the Coastal Act states:
The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving
commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public
opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private
residential, general industrial, or general commercial development, but
not ovet agriculture or coastal-dependent industry.
Section 30222 of the Coastal Act provides that the use of private lands
suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to
enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over
private residential, general industrial or general commercial development, but
not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry. The project site is
situated in a location that would attract visitor-serving use. Although not
located between the first public road and the sea, the site is adjacent to a
popular destination point, the Carlsbad State Beach, a campground operated by
the State Department of Parks Recreation. This campground features blufftop
camping sites and public beach below. Access to the site is directly off
Carlsbad Boulevard (Old Highway 101), which is a major arterial -serving
inter-regional traffic and providing coastal access.
Carlsbad LCPA 2-94(A)
Page 8
The amendment proposes a change in land use from a general commercial use,
office, to a visitor-serving commercial use, travel services. The existing
office use designation of the site is a much lower priority land use under the
Coastal Act than the proposed visitor-serving commercial designation.
Therefore, the Commission finds the proposed redesignation can be found
consistent with Section 30222 of the Coastal Act.
2. New Development. Section 30250(a) of the Coastal Act states, in part:
(a) New residential, commercial, or industrial development, except as
otherwise provided in this division, shall be located within, contiguous
with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to
accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in
other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have a
significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on
coastal resources.
Section 30250 of the Coastal Act provides that new development be concentrated
in existing developed areas containing adequate services to accommodate it.
In reviewing the proposed LUP designation change for this site, the Commission
notes the relatively limited issues associated with such a change. The
Commission has previously certified the land use designation of the site for
office development and, through that action, has clearly anticipated that
intense development of the site would occur.
In its analysis, the City found that, when applying applicable design and
development standards (height, setback and lot coverage standards), physical
buildout of the site with either an office use or timeshare use could result
in a site plan featuring structures with a similar height and mass. Other
benchmarks for comparison included Average Daily Traffic (ADT), Equivalent
Dwelling Units (EDU) for the purpose of estimating sewer capacity and Gallons
Per Day (GPO) for estimating water needs. The SANDAG trip rate for a resort
hotel is 8 ADT per room and the rate for standard office is 20 ADT per 1000
square feet of building area. An office building of approximately the same
size as the proposed timeshare would produce greater daily traffic (78 unit
timeshare= 624 ADT and a 63,500 sq. ft. office= 1,270 ADT). Offices have
peak traffit in the morning and evenings and a timeshare would have traffic
activity spread-out during the day. The effect of fewer trips and staggered
daily traffic activity associated with a timeshare or other visitor-serving
use would reduce potential traffic-related impacts to roadways and
intersections.
The City1 s review of sewer and water capacity indicated that a timeshare or
visitor use would create a greater contribution to sewers and require a
greater daily supply of water than a office use (EDU and GPO of 78 unit
timeshare is 46.8 and 10,296 while EDU and GPO of 63,500 sq. ft. office is
35.3 and 7,766). The City concluded that a timeshare or visitor use could
have very similar physical characteristics as an office. Additionally, the
City found that although slight increases in water and sewer demands are
anticipated, existing capacities in those areas are adequate to serve the
Carlsbad LCPA 2-94(A)
Page 9
project and the project would not be growth-inducing. The Commission concurs
and finds that the subject LUP amendment, as submitted, is consistent with
Section 30250(a) of the Coastal Act.
3. Visual Resources. Section 30251 of the Coastal Act states in part:
The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered
and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development
shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and
scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to
be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where
feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded
areas ....
Section 30251 of the Coastal Act provides that new development must be sited
and designed to protect and preserve scenic resources. The site is located on
the inland side of Carlsbad Boulevard as part of an inland bluff system.
Because of the site's elevation above the roadway and the adjacent Carlsbad
State Beach, any development at this location would be seen from a number of
scenic areas and features, including the state park, Carlsbad Boulevard, the
beach and distant views east of I-5.
Mello II LUP Policy 8-1 provides that a Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone will
be applied to new development to assure the maintenance of existing views and-
panoramas and that building sites should undergo review to determine if
proposed development will obstruct views or otherwise damage the visual beauty
of the area. The policy notes the Planning Commission should enforce
appropriate height limitations and see-through construction, as well as
minimize any alterations to topography.
The Commission will be reviewing a specific project design against this policy
when it considers a coastal development permit for the development of the
site. The policy provides the Commission the flexibility to minimize the
visual impact of that project, if warranted, through a possible project
redesign. Based on this assurance, the Commission finds the land use change
can be found consistent with Section 30251 of the Coastal Act.
4. Envi"ronmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas. Section 30240 states:
(a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected
against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses
dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas.
(b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive
habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed
to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and
shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation
areas.
The 2.35 acre developable portion of the property is vacant and has been used
in the past for agricultural production. The remainder of the property is
Carlsbad LCPA 2-94(A)
Page 10
undevelopable, designated as open space in the LCP, and contains floodway and
associated wetland vegetation of Canyon De Las Encinas Creek. The Mello II .
LUP contains a number of policies to protect such sensitive areas from adverse
impacts associated with new development. These policies provide for the
control of runoff into habitat areas, and establish a 100 foot buffer between
new development and identified resources.
Although the LUP amendment has been driven by a specific development, the
impacts of that development will be determined in a future Commission action
on a permit application for that project. As with any development, the
applicable policies of the certified LCP would still remain in force,
including the policies concerning the provision of _suitable buffers around
wetland areas, floodplain development restrictions, development on steep
slopes, protection against visual impacts of new development, etc. Issues
that have not been raised or discussed in the context of this action,
including, but not limited to those listed above, may be raised in the context
of an application for a specific development. Based on these assurances, the
Commission finds the land use change can be found consistent with Section
30240 of the Coastal Act.
PART IV. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
AMENDMENT 2-94(A). AS SUBMITTED
A. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION
The City of Carlsbad LCP Implementation Program (IP) takes the form of the
City•s Zoning Code. The proposed IP amendment would change the zoning of the
site from Office (0) to Commerical Tourist (CT). No other changes to the
Implementation Program are proposed.
B. FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION
a) Purpose and Intent of the Ordinance. The purpose and intent of the
amendment is to allow a change from office to commercial tourist uses on a
2.35 acre parcel near the intersection of Ponto Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard.
b) Major Provisions of the Ordinance. Zone change 93-05 provides for the
rezoning of the identified parcel to allow development of the site with
tourist-commercial uses.
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 ~ubject 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, CT is the specific zoning designation that implements the Travel
Services Commercial land use designation. Therefore, given that the proposed
zoning designation is the specific implementing zone of the LUP designation
approved above and that the proposed amendment to the Implementation Program
contains a sufficient level of detail and specificity, the Commission finds
Carlsbad LCPA 2-94(A)
Page 11
that the subject amendment to the Implementation Program is consistent with
and adequate to carry out the policies of the certified LUP.
PART V. CONSISTENCY WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEOA)
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. In the case of the subject LCP amendment
request, the Commission finds that approval of the subject LCP amendment, as
submitted, would not result in potentially significant environmental impacts
under the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act. Although the
proposed land use change would result in increases in water and sewer use over
that anticipated to occur under the present designation, those incremental
increases are not anticipated to have any impacts on coastal resources. On
the positive side, the proposed use is a higher priority visitor-serving use
under the Coastal Act and anticipated traffic generation would be less with
the proposed use. Therefore, the Commission finds that no significant,
unmitigable environmental impacts under the meaning of CEQA will result from
the approval.of the proposed amendment.
(9903A)
I I
, I
~ l.___ ___ ____._\ __
PALOMAR AIRPORT RO
SEAPOINTE RESORT
EXHIBIT NO. I
~1/k'~~f! io. ~ )
ocd,~
<lt' Caliromia Coastal Commission
LCPA 93-04
• ----s
i
' I
i I
I I .I I I J i l
Pt/0
Alli
SEAPOINTE RESORT
EXtEIT ·•A''
May 18, 1994 •
EXJST'4G
PROPOSED
0
TS
RM/0
--. ------------
EXHI
l{(' Calffomia Coastal Commission
GPA -93-04/ :..¼
LCPA 93-04
• City of Carlsbad
■Gfit,t,ti,t-1 ·24 ·hli •i•t§ ,; I
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Southern portion of the Beach Area Overlay Zone as
shown on Attachment "A" of the Environmental Impact
Assessment form Part II on file with the Planning
Department.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed changes to General Plan and Zoning designations as
recommended by a • land use study designed to address
neighborhood compatibility issues.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said
review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant
impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within
30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Eric Munoz in the
Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4441.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH DATE:
ENM:lh
AUGUST 27, 1992
GPA 92-9/LCPA 92-2/ZC 92-1
BEACH AREA LAND USE STUDY
AUGUST 27, 1992
~~
MICHAEL J. H LZ ILLER
Planning Director
2075 Las· Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161
'
BACKGROUND
• e,
ENVIRONMw-IT AL lMPACT ASSESSMENT FORI!& -PART lI
(TO. BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. GPA 92-9/LCPA 92-2/ZC 92-1
DATE: AUGUST 10, 1992
1. CASE NAME: BEACH AREA LAND USE STUDY
2. APPLICANT: CI1Y OF CARLSBAD
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE
4.
s.
CARLSBAD, CA 92009 -(619) 438-1161 x 4441
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: ....,A..,_U"""G .... U-"S"""T __ 3...,.1"""l_,99..,.2..._ _____________ _
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed General Plari and Zoning designation changes recommended by a
Council directed land use Study. The study area is an existing residential neighborhood iocated in the
southern portion of the Beach Area Overlay Zone and is shown on Attachment "A". The purpose of the
study was to address various compatibility issues due to the current mix of single (R-1) and multi-family
CRD-M) zoning. In addition, inconsistency between land use designations exists where single family
zoned properties have Residential-High (RH) General Plan designations which correu,ond with multi-
family zoning.
The proposed recommendation is reflected in Attachment "B". Toe numbered lots correspond with those
shown on the study area map-Attachment "A". The recommendation utilizes the R-2 zoning designation
to neutralize the extremes of the non-compatible zoning (R-1 vs RD-M). The R-2 zone requires
developme·nt standards (20 ft. front yard setbacks, etc.) which will help facilitate neighborhood
compatibility while not unreasonably reducing the allowed density. The prooo·sed land use designations
are designed so that a 7,500 sg. ft. lot can accommodate two units.
Since the study area is part of the Beach Area· Overlay Zone. all projects are required to go through
the discretionary review and approval process of a Site Development Permit, which involves
environmental review. Implementing the proposed Zoning and General Plan designations will address
design and density compatibility issues for the study area and will not have any impact on environmental
conditions or quality.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES,. Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact
Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental h:~pact
Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist 8 identifies any physical, biological
and human factors that misht be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the
basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may l?e prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its
aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be ~hecked to indicate this
determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence .that any aspect of the project may
cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Neptive Declaration however, if
adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects c~n be deemed insignificant. These findings are shown
in the checklist under the headings ."YES-sig" and "YES-insig" respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for
impacts which would otherwise be determined signific~nt.
• PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
..
1. Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards?
2. Appreciably chang~ the topography or any
unique physical features?
3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils
either on or off the site?
4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach
sands, or modification of the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake?
5. Result in substantial adverse effects on
ambient air quality?
6. Result in substantial changes in air·
movement, odor, moisture, or temperature?
7. Substantially change the course or flow of
water (marine, fresh or flood waters)?
8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface
water, ground water or public water supply?
9. Substantially increase usage or cause
depletion of any natural resources?
10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
11. Alter a significant archeological,
paleontological or historical site,
structure or object?
YES YES
(sig) (insig)
-2-
NO
...JL
-1L
.--A-
--A-
-A-
• BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES
(sig) (insig)
12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers ·of any species of plants (i!'lcluding
trees, shrubs, grass, rnicroflora and aquatic
plants)?
13. Introduce new species of plants into an area,
or a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
14. Reduce the ax:nount of acreage of any
agricultural crop or affect prime, unique •
or other farmland of state or local
importance?
15. Affect. the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals, all water dwelling organisms
and insects? -
16. Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES
(sig) (insig)
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area?
18. Substantially affect public utilities,
• schools, police, fire, emergency or other
public s.ervices? · :
-3-
..
NO
_x_
NO
...L.
• .. •
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL tHE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer
systems, solid waste or hazardous waste
control systems?
20. Increase existing noise levels?
21. Produce new light or glare?
22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
23. Substantially alter the density of the
human population of an area?
24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
25. Generate substantial additional traffic?
26. Affect existing parking facilities, or
create a large demand for new parking?
27. Impact existing transportation systems or
alter present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/ or goods?
28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic?
2 9. Increase traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
30. Interfere with emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans?
31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an
aesthetically offensive public view?
32. Affect the quality or qua~tity of
existing recreational opportunities?
-4-
YES YES
(sig) (insig)
NO
1--
1--
_x_
_x_
_x_
_x_
_x_
• MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
WILL THE PROPOSAL DlRECTL Y OR INDlRECTL Y: YES YES NO
(sig) (insig)
33. Does the project have -the potential
to substantially degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wild-
life species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or en-
dangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important ·examples of the major periods
of CalifoI'Ilia history or prehistory. _L
34. Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the dis-
advantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of
'time while 1011,g-term impacts will
endure well into the future.) _L
\...
35. Does the project have the possible
environmental effects which are in-
dividually limited but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively con-
siderable" means that the incremental
effects of an_ individual project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
· 36. Does the project ~ environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? _K._
-.
-5-
• • ·urSCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT-
Implementing the proposed land use designations and modifying development standards will not impact
any aspects of the physical environment of the study area or adjacent areas. When actual development
is proposed, a Site Development Plan (SOP) will be required which involves specific environmental
review.
B[OLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
Implementing the proposed land use designations and modifying development standards will not impact
any aspects of the biological environment of the study area or adjacent areas. When actual
developmenr is proposed, a Site Development Plan (SOP) will be required which involves specific
environmental review.
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
17. The planned land uses will be altered in that typically high intensity multi-family projects
associated with RD-M zoning will be replaced by duplex and twinhome type development
with only a slight density reduction over the study area.
18. [mplementing the proposed recommendations will not adversely impact any facilities or
services associated with Local Facilities Management Zone 19. This proposal does not
involve adding any residential units to the overall study area so as to impact any
facilities/services.
19. No changes or modifications will be required to existing sewer systems or solid waste
pr.ocesses.
20. Noise levels will not be increased by implementing the proposed_ recommendations.
21. This proposal will not produce light or glare.
22. N/A
23. The maximum allowed densities for some properties within the study area will be
altered. However, the final allowable densities are designed to consider lot sizes and
compatible product types.
24. There will be no impacts to existing housing or housing demands.
25. A reduction in overall traffic would result if the proposed designations were fully built
out as proposed to if the current designations were fully built out.
-6-
• • 26. There will be no impacts to parking. facilities and each future project will provide for its
own parking demand.
27. Implementing the proposed designations will not have a negative impact on the existing
infrastructure or circulation systems. In addition, future projects will provide
improvements, etc., as required for project approval.
28. There wil.l be no impacts to rail, water or air traffic.
29. There will'be no impacts to motor vehicles, bicycles or pedestrians.
30. Implementing the proposed recommendations will not affect existing emergency response
plans or capabilities.
31. No views will be created or impacted by the proposed land use designations.
32. Recreational opportunities will not be created or impacted.
-7-
• ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATfVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS:
a) Phased development of the project,
b) alternate site designs,
c) alternate scale of development,
d) alternate uses for the site,
e) development at some future time rather than now,
f) alternate sites for the proposed project, and
g) no project alternative.
a) The proposed land use designations need to be implemented concurrently.
b) No site design in involved.
c) NIA
d) Alternate land uses for the study area other than residential would not be appropriate.
e) The desire to address this issue and implement a solution has been shown by the City Council and
Planning Commission. •
f) There is no alternate study area involved.
g) A no project alternative will allow current land use designations to remain in place.
Associated with this are zoning designation incompatibilities and zoning and General
Plan designation inconsistencies.
-8-
• DETERMINATION (To Be Co~pleted By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
•
_x_ I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because the
environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction with
previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is required.
Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared. •
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will .
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached shee-t
.have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENT AL
I¥PACT REPORT is required.
Date Signature
Date I ~~~ Planning Director .
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES {IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE}
-9-