HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 93-09; Ocean Bluff; Tentative Map (CT) (23)Cfl 'CDPSTflL COMMISSION 15*^619-521-9672
0
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY
Jun 19,95 13:46 No.004 P.01
PETE WIISOM.
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SAN DltCO COAST AREA
3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUIT! 200
SAN PWOO, CA
(419) ttl-8096
June 16, 1995
VIA FACSIMILE
Post-It" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 * •>« P«O*»
Anne Hysorig
Assistant Planner
CHy of CarlsbadPlanning Department2075 Las Palmas DriveCarlsbad, CA 92009-1576
Re: "Oceanbluff" Property/Zone 20 Specific Plan Area
Dear Ms. Hysong,
In response to your letter, dated June 5, 1995, directed to me and referencing
the above property, I have asked Bill Ponder to review the certified Mello II
Local Coastal Program (LCP) and we have reached the following conclusions,
First, we confirmed that the Mello II LCP does Indeed delineate the subject
property with an RLM land use designation and the site 1s presently zoned
L-C. Second, we would also concur that a zone change for the site from the
L-C holding zone to R-l would be an acceptable Implementing zone for the
certified RLM land use designation,
However, your correspondence 1s silent on the need for a local coastal programamendment to authorize the rezonlng of the site from L-C to R-l to allow the
residential development. Although I was not directly Involved with the Mello
II LCP at the time of Its original certification, It 1s my understanding that
the L-C zone was designed as an Interim holding zone and applied to sites
either committed to agriculture or awaiting further specific planning. Sincethe zone only allowed agriculture, 1t was therefore accepted as an appropriate
Implementing zone for the certified Mello II land use plan on certainproperties. However, as more specific planning occurred, any subsequent zone
change would necessitate a local coastal program amendment, A,ll .rezonlngsrelated to land USB regulation or administration within the coastal zonefwhich occur after the certification of a local government's local coastal
program, require an LCP amendment In order to ha affective.
In summation then, we would 'disagree with your June 5, 1995 scenario for this
property since 1t did not specify the need for an LCP amendment to authorize
the R-l rezonlng. Bill Ponder has mentioned that this situation may have
''S~^V%^-\r->v*^r<-'.-Jj%;1'--;]''V^v, ••; s*-"-'V"-- .->''• _/••' 4">1
COMMISSION'
: 619-521-96 7 2 Jun^*«S95 13:46 No.004 P.02
Anne Hysong
June 16, 1995Page 2
arisen once before on another property (Eagle Canyon) and we did not requirean LCP amendment. Hhlle I cannot recall the particulars of that situation. Itwas his recollection that the application had received all of Its localapprovals and been submitted here before the question of whether or not an LCP
amendment was required became apparent. In this Instance, however, where weare apprised of the situation earlier, our direction must conform with the
Commission's regulations and an LCP amendment Is necessary to Implement the
rezonlng. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact 19,111
Ponder or me at the above office.
Sincerely,
jorah N. LeeAssistant District Director
DNL:dK0344A)
cc: Gary Hayne
Chris DeCerbo