Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 94-11; Mar Vista; Tentative Map (CT) (2)STATE OF CALIFORNIA— THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO COAST AREA 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725 (619| 521-8036 NOTICE OF PROPOSED PERMIT AMENDMENT TO:All Interested Parties FROM:Peter Douglas, Executive Director DATE:March 7, 1997 SUBJECT: Permit No. 6-96-46 _ granted to UPC Homes. Inc. for residential subdivision (Mar Vista) creating 49 includin 4.7000 c. of radin on 34.3 ares residential lots. proect includes creation of a 19.2 acre open space lot, construction of local public roadways, sidewalks. curbs, gutters, and installation of drainage facilities. Residential construction is not included in this permit. at south of Palomar Airport Road, east of Paseo del Norte and north of Camino de las Ondas. Carlsbad San Dieo County. APN 211-040-14 The Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission has reviewed a proposed amendment to the above referenced permit, which would result in the following change(s): Extension of the permitted grading period (August 1 to February 15th) an additional 30 days (approx.) past February 15th to finish lot grading within the interior of the subdivision with the inclusion of mitigation measures to avoid impacts to sensitive bird species in the surrounding area. Those measures include having a biological monitor on-site to periodically monitor potential noise impacts and any effects on gnatcatcher behavior. In addition... all erosion control devices have been installed and additional erosion control measures such as berms and landscaping will be installed. This amendment is considered to be IMMATERIAL and the permit will be modified accordingly if no written objections are received within ten working days of the date of this notice. This amendment has been considered "immaterial" for the following reason(s): The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred with the extension of the grading period. In addition, mitigation measures which include routine monitoring bv a project biologist, will assure that no noise impacts will occur to the sensitive bird species which have been identified to use the nearby coastal sage areas. With implementation of the above measures, no adverse impacts to sensitive bird species are anticipated to occur as a result of the extension of the grading period. If you have any questions about the proposal or wish to register an objection, please contact Laurinda Owens _ at the District Commission office. (6376N) STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO AREA 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725 (619) 521-8036 Bob Ladwig/Ladwig Design Group 703 Palomar Airport Road - Suite 300 Carlsbad, CA 92009 NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE Date: December 12. 1996 Applicant: UPC Homes. Inc. Document or Plans: 1. Deed restriction recorded as document #1996-0584919 on 11/19/96: 2. Subordination agreement recorded as document #1996-0618539 on 12/10/96: 3. Updated Title Report: 4. Grading and Erosion Control Plans; 4. Drainage and Runoff Plans: 5. Construction! Access and Staging Area Plans: 6. Evidence of gayment of Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Fee: and. 7. Brush Management Program Plans. Submitted in compliance with Special Condition(s) No(s).: 1-6 of Coastal Development Permit No. 6-96-53 Remaining Special Condition(s): **None ** Material submitted in compliance with said Special Condition(s) of your development permit has been reviewed by the District Director and found to fulfill the requirements of said condition(s). Your submitted material and a copy of this letter have been made a part of the permanent file. Sincerely, Charles Damm District Director (floraVdoc) STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO COAST AREA 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725 (619) 521-8036 Date July 19. 1996 Application No. Page 1 of 4_ 6-96-46 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT On July 12. 1996 application of the attached standard and special below: , the California Coastal Christa M. McRevnolds Commission approved the subject to conditions, for the development described Description:Residential subdivision (Mar Vista) creating 49 residential lots, including 47,000 cy. of grading on 34.3 acres; project includes creation of a 19.2 acre open space lot, construction of local public roadways, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and installation of drainage facilities. Residential construction in not included in this permit. Lot Area Zoning Plan Designation 34.3 acres R-1-7500-Q One-family Residential Development overlay) (w/Qualified Site:South of Palomar Airport Road, east of Paseo del Norte and north of Camino de las Ondas, Carlsbad, San Diego County. APN 211-040-14 The permit will be held in the San Diego District Office of the Commission, pending fulfillment of Special Conditions 1 - 6 . When these conditions have been satisfied, the permit will be issued. CHARLES DAMM DISTRICT DIRECTOR BY RECEIVED JUL 23 1996 IADWIG DESIGN 6R V. NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT NO. 6-96-46 Page 2 of 4 STANDARD CONDITIONS: 1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgement. The permit is not valid and development shall not commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the permittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and acceptance of the terms and conditions, is returned to the Commission office. 2. Expiration. If development has not commenced, the permit will expire two years from the date on which the Commission voted on the application. Development shall be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a reasonable period of time. Application for extension of the permit must be made prior to the expiration date. 3. Compliance. All development must occur in strict compliance with the proposal as set forth below. Any deviation from the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the staff and may require Commission approval. 4. Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition will be resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission. 5. Inspections. The Commission staff shall be allowed to inspect the site and the development during construction, subject to 24-hour advance notice. 6. Assignment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided assignee files with the Commission an affidavit accepting all terms and conditions of the permit. 7. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall be perpetual, and it is the intention of the Commission and the permittee to bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the terms and conditions. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: The permit is subject to the following conditions: 1. Open Space Deed Restriction. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall record a restriction against the subject property, free of all prior liens and encumbrances, except for tax liens, and binding on the permittee's successors in interest and any subsequent purchasers of any portion of the real property. The restriction shall prohibit any alteration of landforms, removal of vegetation or the erection of structures of any type, except the sewer and drainage facilities herein approved, in the area shown on the attached Exhibit "5", and generally described as follows: the dual criteria slopes and coastal sage scrub/riparian scrub area as shown on the Slope Analysis dated 1/20/95. The recording document shall include legal descriptions of both the applicant's entire parcel(s) and the restricted area, and shall be in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director. Evidence of recordation of such restriction shall be subject to the review and written approval of the Executive Director. NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT NO. 6-96-46 Page 3 of 4 SPECIAL CONDITIONS, continued: 2. Grading and Erosion Control. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director for review and written approval, in consultation with the Department of Fish and Game, final grading plans approved by the City of Carlsbad. Grading activities shall be permitted between October 1st and February 15th subject to the following criteria: a. All temporary and permanent runoff and erosion control devices shall be developed and installed prior to or concurrent with any on-site grading activities. b. All areas disturbed, but not completed, during the dry season, including graded pads, shall be stabilized in advance of the rainy season. The use of temporary erosion control measures, such as berms, interceptor ditches, sandbagging, filtered inlets, debris basins, and silt traps shall be utilized in conjunction with plantings to minimize soil loss from the construction site. Said planting shall be accomplished under the supervision of a licensed landscape architect, shall provide adequate coverage within 90 days, and shall utilize vegetation of species compatible with surrounding native vegetation, subject to Executive Director approval. 3. Drainage/Runoff Control. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall submit final drainage and runoff control plans, approved by the City of Carlsbad. Said plans shall be designed by a licensed engineer qualified in hydrology and hydraulics, and assure no increase in peak runoff rate from the developed site as a result of a ten-year frequency storm over a six-hour duration (10 year, 6 hour rainstorm). Runoff control shall be accomplished by such means as on-site detention/desilting basin(s). Energy dissipating measures at the terminus of outflow drains shall be constructed. The runoff control plan including supporting calculations shall be submitted to and determined adequate in writing by the Executive Director. 4. Construction Timing/Staging Areas/Access Corridors. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director for review and written approval, a final construction schedule, which shall be incorporated into construction bid documents. The schedule shall also include plans for the location of access corridors to the construction sites and staging areas. Access corridors and staging areas shall be located in a manner that has the least impact on coastal resources. No staging areas or access corridors shall be located within the environmentally sensitive habitat areas on the west and north portions of the site. 5. Agricultural Conversion. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director for review and written approval, evidence that payment of an agricultural NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT NO. 6-96-46 Page 4 of 4 SPECIAL CONDITIONS, continued: mitigation fee for converted agricultural lands to urban uses has been received by the City of Carlsbad, consistent with the provisions of the Carlsbad Mello II LCP. 6. Brush Management Program. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval of the Executive Director, a brush management program. The plan shall include a site plan showing a 60 foot distance beyond all planned structures on lots adjacent to areas of native vegetation, designating those areas subject to selective thinning and pruning. The plan shall indicate that clear-cut vegetation removal for brush management purposes shall not be permitted within required open space areas pursuant to Special Condition #1. Any approved clearing shall be conducted entirely by manual means and shall be the absolute minimum for reduction of fire hazards. 7. Future Development. This permit is for construction of residential bulding pads including grading, landscaping, construction of local public streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and storm drains. Construction of residences on any of the proposed lots shall require review and approval by the Coastal Commission, or its successor in interest, under a separate coastal development permit or an amendment to this permit. (6263N) STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO COAST AREA3111 CAMINO DEI RIO NORTH,. SUITE 200 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6-96-53 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725 PdOe 1 Of 4 (619) 521-8036 3 On July 12. 1996 , the California Coastal Commission granted to MSP California. LLC Marcus Palkowitsh this permit for the development described below, subject to the attached Standard and Special Conditions. Description: Tentative Map for resubdivision of two legal parcels creating 61 residential lots (Emerald Ridge West), an 8.3-acre open-space lot and a 27.4-acre remainder parcel; project includes 47,000 cy. of grading on 28.9 acres, construction of local public roadways, sidewalks, curbs, gutters and drainage facilities, and a trail alignment between Hidden Valley Road and the residential lots. Residential construction is not included in this permit. Lot Area 56.3 acres (total) Zoning R-1-7500-Q Plan Designation Residential Medium (RM) (8 dua) Site: South of Palomar Airport Road, east of Paseo del Norte, and north of Camino de las Ondas, Carlsbad, San Diego County. Issued on behalf of the California Coastal Commission by PETER DOUGLAS Executive Director and IMPORTANT: THIS PERMIT IS NOT VALID UNLESS AND UNTIL A COPY OF THE PERMIT WITH THE SIGNED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT HAS BEEN RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION OFFICE. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The undersigned permittee acknowledges receipt of this permit and agrees to abide by all terms and conditions thereof. Date Signture of Permittee COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PElA NO. 6-96-53 Page 2 of 4 STANDARD CONDITIONS: 1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgement. The permit is not valid and development shall not commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the permittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and acceptance of the terms and conditions, is returned to the Commission office. 2. Expiration. If development has not commenced, the permit will expire two years from the date on which the Commission voted on the application. Development shall be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a reasonable period of time. Application for extension of the permit must be made prior to the expiration date. 3. Compliance. All development must occur in strict compliance with the proposal as set forth below. Any deviation from the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the staff and may require Commission approval. 4. Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition will be resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission. 5. Inspections. The Commission staff shall be allowed to inspect the site and the development during construction, subject to 24-hour advance notice. 6. Assignment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided assignee files with the Commission an affidavit accepting all terms and conditions of the permit. 7. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall be perpetual, and it is the intention of the Commission and the permittee to bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the terms and conditions. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: The permit is subject to the following conditions: 1. Open Space Deed Restriction. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall record a restriction against the subject property, free of all prior liens and encumbrances, except for tax liens, and binding on the permittee's successors in interest and any subsequent purchasers of any portion of the real property. The restriction shall prohibit any alteration of landforms, removal of vegetation or the erection of structures of any type, except that grading necessary to repair an eroded slope east of Lots 15 & 16. The open space lot includes the area shown on the attached Exhibit "5", and is generally described as follows: the dual criteria slopes and coastal sage scrub/riparian scrub area (approx. 4.6 acres of Lot #62) as shown on the Slope Analysis dated 8/14/95 and grading plan dated 9/26/95. A north/south linear public trail, as indicated on the grading plan, west of Hidden Valley Road, may be a permitted use within the open space. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT plIT NO. 6-96-53 Page 3 of _4_ SPECIAL CONDITIONS, continued: The recording document shall include legal descriptions of both the applicant's entire parcel(s) and the restricted area, and shall be in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director. Evidence of recordation of such restriction shall be subject to the review and written approval of the Executive Director. 2. Grading and Erosion Control. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director for review and written approval, in consultation with the Department of Fish and Game, final grading plans approved by the City of Carlsbad. Grading activities shall be permitted between October 1st and February 15th subject to the following criteria: a. All temporary and permanent runoff and erosion control devices shall be developed and installed prior to or concurrent with any on-site grading activities. b. All areas disturbed, but not completed, during the dry season, including graded pads, shall be stabilized in advance of the rainy season. The use of temporary erosion control measures, such as berms, interceptor ditches, sandbagging, filtered inlets, debris basins, and silt traps shall be utilized in conjunction with plantings to minimize soil loss from the construction site. Said planting shall be accomplished under the supervision of a licensed landscape architect, shall provide adequate coverage within 90 days, and shall utilize vegetation of species compatible with surrounding native vegetation, subject to. Executive Director approval. 3. Drainage/Runoff Control. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall submit final drainage and runoff control plans, approved by the City of Carlsbad. Said plans shall be designed by a licensed engineer qualified in hydrology and hydraulics, and assure no increase in peak runoff rate from the developed site as a result of a ten-year frequency storm over a six-hour duration (10 year, 6 hour rainstorm). Runoff control shall be accomplished by such means as on-site detention/desiIting basin(s). Energy dissipating measures at the terminus of outflow drains shall be constructed. The runoff control plan including supporting calculations shall be submitted to and determined adequate in writing by the Executive Director. 4. Construction Timing/Staging Areas/Access Corridors. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director for review and written approval, a final construction schedule, which shall be incorporated into construction bid documents. The schedule shall also include plans for the location of access corridors to the construction sites and staging areas. Access corridors and staging areas COASTAL DEVELOPMENT Page 4 of 4 ERMIPERMIT NO. 6-96-53 SPECIAL CONDITIONS, continued: shall be located in a manner that has the least impact on coastal resources. No staging areas or access corridors shall be located within the environmentally sensitive habitat areas located along the Hidden Valley Road alignment. 5. Agricultural Conversion. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director for review and written approval, evidence that payment of an agricultural mitigation fee for converted agricultural lands to urban uses has been received by the California Coastal Conservancy, consistent with the provisions of the Carlsbad Mello II LCP. 6. Brush Management Program. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval of the Executive Director, a brush management program. The plan shall include a site plan showing a 60 foot distance beyond all planned structures on lots adjacent to areas of native vegetation, designating those areas subject to selective thinning and pruning. The plan shall indicate that clear-cut vegetation removal for brush management purposes shall not be permitted within required open space areas pursuant to Special Condition #1. Any approved clearing shall be conducted entirely by manual means and shall be the absolute minimum for reduction of fire hazards. 7. Future Development. This permit is for construction of residential bulding pads including grading, landscaping, construction of local public streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and storm drains. Construction of residences on any of the proposed lots shall require review and approval by the Coastal Commission, or its successor in interest, under a separate coastal development permit or an amendment to this permit. (6053P) STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES Jk CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO COAST AREA 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725 (619) 521-8036 IMPORTANT PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM MAJOR AMENDMENT NO. 2-96A/B , Governor OCEAN BLUFF. MAR VISTA AND EMERALD RIDGE REZONE The California Coastal Commission has received a request by the City of Carlsbad to review and certify an amendment to the Mello II segment of its Local Coastal Program (LCP) Implementation Plan. A public hearing on the LCP amendment request by the Coastal Commission has been scheduled at the time and location stated below. Any persons wishing to attend the hearing and present testimony are so invited. I. HEARING TIME AND LOCATION DATE: June 13, 1996 TIME: 9:00 a.m. LOCATION: Marin County Board of Supervisors Chambers Administration Building - Room 322 Marin County Civic Center San Rafael, CA 94903 II. HEARING PROCEDURES At the time of the public hearing, staff will make a brief oral presentation to the Commission. Immediately following the presentation of the staff, a representative or representatives from the City of Carlsbad may address the Commission regarding the local coastal program amendment. Upon conclusion of the City's presentation, interested members of the public and agencies will have an opportunity to address the Commission and comment on the request. The Commission will then close the public hearing and, since there are preliminary recommendations and findings prepared for the Commission, the Commission may take final action on the local coastal program submittal at this time. III. BACKGROUND The City's certified LCP contains six geographic segments as follows: Agua Hedionda, Mello I, Mello II, West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties and East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties. Pursuant to Sections 30170(f) and 30171 of the Public Resources Code, the Coastal Commission prepared and approved two portions of the LCP, the Mello I and II segments in 1980 and 1981, respectively. However, the City of Carlsbad found several provisions of the Mello I and II segments unacceptable and declined to adopt the LCP implementing ordinances for the LCP. In October 1985, the Commission approved major amendments, related to steep slope protection and agricultural preservation, to the Mello I and II segments, which resolved the major differences between the City and the Coastal Commission. The City then adopted the Mello I and II segments and began working toward certification of \ Important Public Hearing Notice City of Carlsbad LCP Amendment No. 2-96A/B Page 2 all segments of its local coastal program. Since the 1985 action, the Commission has approved several major amendments to the City of Carlsbad's LCP. The subject amendment request only affects the Hello II segment of the LCP. IV. AMENDMENT REQUEST The subject amendment request revises the certified Mello II LCP segment. The request includes two parts (A and B) affecting three property holdings. Part A comprises the Ocean Bluff amendment which involves rezoning a 31.2 acre property located at the northwest corner of future Poinsettia Lane/Black Rail Court from Exclusive Agriculture (E-A) to One-Family Residential (R-l). In Part B, the City is also seeking to amend the LCP Implementation Plan by rezoning the McReynolds property (aka "Mar Vista") from Planned Community (PC) to the One-family Residential Zone with the Qualified Development Overlay (R-1-7500-Q) and rezoning the MSP California L.L.C. property (aka "Emerald Ridge") from the Residential Density Multiple Zone with a Qualified Development Overlay (RDM-Q) to One-family Residential Zone with a Qualified Development Overlay (R-1-7500-Q). These two properties are situated south of Palomar Airport Road, north of Poinsettia Community Park and along the future extension of Hidden Valley Road. V. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORT A staff report on the LCP request, containing recommendations, has been prepared for the Commission. If you would like the full text of this staff report, call or write the San Diego Area Office of the Coastal Commission and request a copy of the "City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-96A/B" staff report. A copy will be mailed to you promptly. Questions regarding the report or hearing should be directed to Bill Ponder. Coastal Planner, for the Ocean Bluff rezone and to Laurinda R. Owens. Coastal Planner, for the Mar Vista and Emerald Ridge rezones at (619) 521-8036. We apologize if you received duplicate notices; however, because of the overlap of persons with interest in more than one community on our mailing list, the duplications are unavoidable. (1090A) r STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO COAST AREA 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725 (619) 521-8036 May 20, 199 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: COMMISSIONERS AND INTERESTED PARTIES CHUCK DAMM, SOUTH COAST DISTRICT DIRECTOR DEBORAH N. LEE, COASTAL PROGRAM MANAGER, SAN ___ BILL PONDER, COASTAL PROGRAM ANALYST, SAN DIEGO AREA OFFICE LAURINDA R. OWENS, COASTAL PROGRAM ANALYST, SAN DIEGO AREA OFFICE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON MAJOR AMENDMENT NO. 2-96A/B (OCEAN BLUFF, MAR VISTA AND EMERALD RIDGE REZONES) TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM - MELLO II SEGMENT (For Public Hearing and Possible Final Action at the Coastal Commission Hearing of June 12-14, 1996) SYNOPSIS SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT REQUEST The subject amendment request revises the certified Mello II LCP segment. The request includes two parts (A and B) affecting three property holdings. Part A comprises the Ocean Bluff amendment which involves rezoning a 31.2 acre property located at the northwest corner of future Poinsettia Lane/Black. Rail Court from Exclusive Agriculture (E-A) to One-Family Residential (R-l). In Part B, the City is also requesting to amend the LCP Implementation Plan by rezoning the McReynolds property (aka "Mar Vista") from Planned Community (PC) to the One-family Residential Zone with the Qualified Development Overlay (R-1-7500-Q) and rezoning the MSP California L.L.C. property (aka "Emerald Ridge") from the Residential Density Multiple Zone with a Qualified Development Overlay (RDM-Q) to One-family Residential Zone with a Qualified Development Overlay (R-1-7500-Q). These two properties are situated south of Palomar Airport Road, north of Poinsettia Community Park and along the future extension of Hidden Valley Road. SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION For the Mar Vista and Emerald Ridge rezonings, those actions would be consistent with the certified land use plan and staff is therefore recommending approval of those rezonings as submitted. However, the proposed Ocean Bluff rezoning would potentially allow development of the site at a density which would exceed the certified land use plan designation and staff is recommending it first be rejected, then approved with a suggested modification to reinforce the land use plan density limits. The appropriate resolutions and motions mav be found on Pages 4 and 5. The suggested modification may be found on Page 6. The findings for certification of the proposed Mar Vista and Emerald Ridge rezonings. as submitted, begin on Page 6. Findings for the denial of the Ocean Bluff rezonino. as submitted, begin on Page '8 and findings for approval of the rezoning. as modified, begin on Page 9. CarlsbsTLCPA No. 2-96A/B Page 2 BACKGROUND The City's certified LCP contains six geographic segments as follows: Agua Hedionda, Mello <•!, Mello II, West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties and East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties. Pursuant to Sections 30170(f) and 30171 of the Public Resources Code, the Coastal Commission prepared and approved two portions of the LCP, the Mello I and II segments in 1980 and 1981, respectively. However, the City of Carlsbad found several provisions of the Mello I and II segments unacceptable and declined to adopt the LCP implementing ordinances for the LCP. In October 1985, the Commission approved major amendments, related to steep slope protection and agricultural preservation, to the Mello I and II segments, which resolved the major differences between the City and the Coastal Commission. The City then adopted the Mello I and II segments and began working toward certification of all segments of its local coastal program. Since the 1985 action, the Commission has approved several major amendments to the City of Carlsbad's LCP. The subject amendment request only affects the Mello II segment of the LCP. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Further information on the City of Carlsbad LCP amendment may be obtained at the above address or by contacting the following Coastal Planners: Bill Ponder - Ocean Bluff property/rezoning and Laurinda R. Owens - Mar Vista and Emerald Ridge properties/rezonings. Both planners may be reached by calling the Commission's office at (619) 521-8036. PART I. OVERVIEW A. LCP HISTORY The City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP) consists of six geographic segments: the Agua Hedionda Lagoon LCP segment comprised of approximately 1,100 acres; the Carlsbad Mello I LCP segment with 2,000 acres; the Carlsbad Mello II LCP segment which includes approximately 5,300 acres; the West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties LCP segment with 200 acres; the East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties LCP segment with 1,000 acres and the Village Area Redevelopment segment with approximately 100 acres. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 30170(f) and 30171, the Coastal Commission was required to prepare and approve an LCP for identified portions of the City. This resulted in the two Carlsbad LCP segments commonly referred to as the Mello I and Mello II segments. The Mello I and Mello II LCP segments were approved by the Coastal Commission in September 1980 and June 1981, respectively. The Agua Hedionda segment Land Use Plan was prepared by the City and approved by the Coastal Commission on July 1, 1982. The Mello I, Mello II and Agua Hedionda segments of the Carlsbad LCP cover the majority of the City's coastal zone. They are also the segments of the LCP Carlsba!W.CPA No. 2-96A/B Page 3 which involve the greatest number of coastal resource issues and have been the subject of the most controversy over the past years. Among those issues involved in the review of the land use plans of these segments were preservation of agricultural lands, protection of steep-sloping hillsides and wetland habitats and the provision of adequate visitor-serving facilities. Preservation of the scenic resources of the area was another issue raised in the review of these land use plans. As mentioned, the City had found the policies of the certified Mello I and II segments regarding preservation of agriculture and steep-sloping hillsides to be unacceptable. The City therefore did not apply these provisions in the review of local projects. In the summer of 1985, the City submitted two amendment requests to the Commission and, in October of 1985, the Commission certified amendments 1-85 and 2-85 to the Mello I and Mello II segments, respectively. These (major) amendments to the LCP involved changes to the agricultural preservation, steep slope protection and housing policies of the Mello I and II segments of the LCP. After certification of these amendments, the City adopted the Mello I and II LCP segments. The West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties segment and the East Batiquitos/Hunt Properties segment were certified in 1985. These LCP amendments paved the way for two large projects comprising the majority of each segment: the Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park-Sammis project within the West Batiquitos segment and the Pacific Rim Master Plan (now known as the Aviara Master Plan) within the East Batiquitos Segment. The plan area of the Village Area Redevelopment segment was formerly part of the Mello II segment of the LCP. In August of 1984, the Commission approved the segmentation of this 100-acre area from the remainder of the Mello II LCP segment and, at the same time, approved the submitted land use plan for the area. In March of 1988, the Commission approved the Implementation Program for the Village Area Redevelopment segment of the LCP. A review of the post-certification maps occurred in December and the City assumed permit authority for this LCP segment on December 14, 1988. In addition to the review process for the six LCP segments mentioned, the City has also submitted at various times, packages of land use plan amendments to the certified LUP segments, including these segments, in an effort to resolve existing inconsistencies between the City's General Plan, Zoning Maps and the Local Coastal Program. After all such inconsistencies are resolved, the City plans to submit, for the Commission's review, the various ordinances and post-certification maps for implementation of the LCP. At that time, or perhaps earlier, the City should also prepare and submit a single LCP document that incorporates all of the LCP segments as certified by the Commission and any subsequent LCP amendments. After review and approval of these documents by the Commission, the City would gain "effective certification". B. STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review for implementation plans is Section 30513 of the Coastal Act. Pursuant to Section 30513 of the Coastal Act, the Commission may >bdraCarlsbTa LCPA No. 2-96A/B Page 4 only reject zoning ordinances or other implementing actions, as well as their amendments, on the grounds that they do not conform with, or are inadequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified land use plan. The Commission shall take action by a majority vote of the Commissioners present. C. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The City has held both Planning Commission and City Council meetings with regard to the subject amendment request. Each of these local hearings were duly noticed to the public. Notice of the subject amendment has been distributed to all known interested parties. PART II. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM SUBMITTAL - RESOLUTIONS Following a public hearing, staff recommends the Commission adopt the following resolution and findings. The appropriate motion to introduce the resolution and a staff recommendation are provided just prior to the resolution. A. RESOLUTION I (Resolution to approve certification of the City of Carlsbad LCP Implementation Plan Amendment #2-968 - Mar Vista/Emerald Ridge rezones, as submitted) MOTION I I move that the Commission reject the City of Carlsbad's LCP Implementation Plan Amendment #2-96B, as submitted. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends a NO vote and the adoption of the following resolution and findings. An affirmative vote by a majority of the Commissioners present is needed to pass the motion. Resolution I The Commission hereby approves certification of the amendment to the City of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program on the grounds that the amendment conforms with, and is adequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified land use plan. There are no feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts which the approval would have on the environment. r Carlsbad^PA No. 2-96A/B Page 5 B. RESOLUTION II (Resolution to deny certification of the City of Carlsbad LCP Implementation Plan Amendment #2-96A - Ocean Bluff, as submitted) MOTION II I move that the Commission reject the City of Carlsbad's LCP Implementation Plan Amendment #2-96A, as submitted. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends a YES vote and the adoption of the following resolution and findings. An affirmative vote by a majority of the Commissioners present is needed to pass the motion. Resolution II The Commission hereby denies certification of the amendment to the City of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program on the grounds that the amendment is inadequate to carry out the provisions of the certified land use plan. There are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts which the approval would have on the environment. C. RESOLUTION III (Resolution to approve certification of the City of Carlsbad LCP Implementation Plan Amendment #2-96A - Ocean Bluff, if modified) MOTION III I move that the Commission approve the City of Carlsbad's LCP Implementation Plan Amendment #2-96A, as modified. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends a YES vote and the adoption of the following resolution and findings. An affirmative vote by a majority of the Commissioners present is needed to pass the motion. Resolution III The Commission hereby approves certification of the amendment to the City of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program on the grounds that the amendment, as modified, conforms with, and is adequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified land use plan. There are no feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts which the approval would have on the environment. W CarlsWTCarlsGWLCPA No. 2-96A/B Page 6 PART III. SUGGESTED MODIFICATION Carlsbad LCP Amendment #2-96A/Qcean Bluff Rezoninq 1. The City of Carlsbad LCP Zoning Map shall be revised to indicate that the Qualified Development Overlay Zone shall be applied to the Ocean Bluff property. The Q designator applied to the site shall indicate that the property will be developed with no more than 4 dwelling units per acre. PART IV. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD LCP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2-96B/MAR VISTA AND EMERALD RIDGE REZQNES. AS SUBMITTED A. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION - MAR VISTA AND EMERALD RIDGE REZONES The City of Carlsbad LCP Implementation Program (IP) principally takes the form of the City's Zoning Code. The proposed IP amendment has been submitted in the form of an ordinance, Ordinance NS-350 of the City's Municipal Code, which would change the zoning of the Mar Vista property from Planned Community (PC) to One-family Residential with a Qualified Development Overlay (R-1-7500-Q) and change the zoning on the Emerald Ridge property from Residential Density Multiple with a Qualified Development Overlay (RDM-Q) to the One-family Residential zone with a Qualified Development Overlay (R-1-7500-Q). No other changes to the implementation program are proposed. The two properties are located south of Palomar Airport Road. The Emerald Ridge site is bisected by the northern extension of Hidden Valley Road from Camino de las Ondas to the south to Palomar Airport Road to the north, which is presently under construction. This roadway has been designated in the current LCP. The Mar Vista site lies west of this roadway. For the Emerald Ridge rezoning, the area to the west of Hidden Valley Road is known as Emerald Ridge West and the area to the east as Emerald Ridge East. Three future residential subdivisions are proposed on the two properties (Mar Vista, Emerald Ridge West and Emerald Ridge East). The sites are currently vacant. The Mar Vista and Emerald Ridge West sites are presently being used for agriculture (bean crops) while the Emerald Ridge East site has been cultivated and disced in the past. The two properties contain gently sloping terrain and have large flat developable areas along with steep slopes and finger canyons along portions of the sites. While the properties, for the most part, consist of disturbed habitat, there are areas of native coastal sage scrub habitat on the steep slope areas of the properties as well as isolated patches of coastal sage scrub in finger canyons ranging from low to high quality. B. FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION a) Purpose and Intent of the Ordinance. The purpose and intent of the zoning amendment is to allow a change from PC (Planned Community) and RDM-Q (Residential Density Multiple with Qualified Development Overlay zone) to Carlsb~LCPA No. 2-96A/B Page 7 R-1-7500-Q (Residential One-family zone with Qualified Development Overlay zone) on two parcels (Mar Vista/34.3 acres and Emerald Ridge/45.7 acres, respectively) south of Palomar Airport Road on both the west and east sides of the extension of Hidden Valley Road. b) Major Provisions of the Ordinance. The major provisions of Ordinance NS-350 provides for the change of zoning of the identified parcels from PC and RDM-Q to R-1-7500-Q. The R-1/One-Family Residential zone permits one-family dwellings, accessory buildings and structures (i.e. garages, etc.), greenhouses and agricultural crops. In limited cases, a two-family dwelling may be permitted provided it is adjacent to specified zones as listed in the zoning ordinance. Also, home occupations, etc., are permitted in certain circumstances. The R-l zone sets a 35 foot height limit and establishes development standards for setbacks, placement of building, minimum lot width and minimum lot area (7,500 sq.ft.), etc. Additional development standards for this zone include provisions for the type of garage required (i.e. two-car) and that each residence have a permanent foundation. Other requirements pertain to the composition of exterior siding of residences, specifications regarding roof pitches and minimum width of residences. c) Adequacy of Ordinance to Implement the Certified LUP. The standard of review for LCP implementation submittals or amendments is their consistency with and ability to carry out the provisions of the certified LUP. In the case of the subject LCP amendment, the City's Zoning Code serves as the Implementation Program for the Mello II segment of the LCP. In the City's Zoning Code, the R-1/One-family Residential zone permits one-family dwelling units with a minimum lot area of 7,500 sq.ft. The Qualified Development Overlay Zone provides additional regulations for development to ensure that development is compatible with surrounding development and that development is designed in a manner to protect visual resources, in this case, those views from Palomar Airport Road to the south, which is a designated scenic roadway in the City's General Plan. Other design measures associated with this overlay zone include review of site development plans in terms of building height, roof lines, colors of structures and building setbacks. This overlay provides additional assurance the policies of the LCP will be applied and enforced. Both the Mar Vista and Emerald Ridge properties have the Residential Medium (RM) General Land Use Plan designation. The proposed rezones do not affect the General Plan residential land uses on the properties and only involve changing from one type of residential zoning (PC and RDM-Q) to another type of residential zoning (R-1-7500-Q) which affects the development standards that will be applied to future development on the subject properties. According to the City, the proposed rezones to R-1-7500-Q are more restrictive than the existing PC and RDM-Q zones in that more specific development criteria is required for development within this zone classification (i.e., more restrictions on the types of permitted uses, detailed specifications on side yards, placement of buildings, lot widths, etc.). In addition, the proposed rezones will be consistent with the Residential Medium (RM) land use designation and density established in the General Plan. CarlsbWLCPA No. 2-96A/B Page 8 The RM designation allows up to eight dwelling units per acre (8 dua) with a growth control point of six dwelling units per net acre (6 dua). The proposed R-1-7500-Q zone would equate to a density of 5.8 dwelling units per acre (rounded up to 6 dwelling units per acre) which is fully consistent with the Land Use Plan designation, as noted above. Furthermore, through the review of future development on either parcel through a subsequent coastal development permit, issues associated with resource protection, etc., will be thoroughly assessed for consistency with the certified Mello II LCP segment. It should also be noted that both City and Commission staffs have considered future site development plans for both properties. W^th such consideration, the proposed zoning/density again appears appropriate in that future development of the properties at the proposed intensity of use and with application of the other zoning standards and certified LUP provisions is possible and reasonable. Therefore, since the proposed rezoning would implement the LUP designation cited above, the Commission finds that the subject amendment to the implementation plan is consistent with and adequate to carry out the policies of the certified LUP. PART V. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD LCP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT #2-96A/OCEAN BLUFF REZONE. AS SUBMITTED. A. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION - OCEAN BLUFF REZONE The proposed amendment request proposes to amend the City's implementation plan of its certified LCP by rezoning the 31.2 acre Ocean Bluff property from Exclusive Agriculture (E-A) to One-Family Residential (R-l). The amendment is associated with a specific project proposal currently under review by the Commission (CDP #6-96-57) to develop a 92 unit residential project and a 16 unit affordable housing project. B. FINDINGS FOR REJECTION a) Purpose and Intent of the Ordinance. The purpose and intent of the R-l zone (One-Family Residential Zone) is to allow for single family detached homes and associated structures; however, the zone also allows multi-family affordable housing structures developed in accordance with the RD-M development standards to be located in the R-l zone subject to site development plan approval. The E-A zone is a holding zone which only allows agricultural uses. b) Major Provisions of the Ordinance. The amendment provides for the change of zoning of the identified parcel from E-A to R-l. The R-l zone allows single family detached homes and associated structures, sets a 35 foot height limit, and establishes development standards for setbacks, placement of building, minimum lot area (7,500 sq.ft.), etc. In limited cases, a two-family dwelling may be permitted provided it is adjacent to specified zones as listed in the zoning ordinance. Also, home occupations, etc., are permitted in certain circumstances. Additional development standards for this zone include provisions for the type of garage required (i.e. two-car) and Carlsb^LCPA No. 2-96A/B Page 9 that each residence have a permanent foundation. Other requirements pertain to the composition of exterior siding of residences, specifications regarding roof pitches and minimum width of residences. c) Adequacy of Ordinance to Implement the Certified LUP. The standard of review for LCP implementation submittals or amendments is their consistency with and ability to carry out the provisions of the certified LUP. In the case of the subject LCP amendment, the City's Zoning Code serves as the Implementation Program for the Mello II segment of the LCP. In the City's Zoning Code, R-l is a zoning designation that requires a minimum lot area of 7,500 sq.ft. per acre. The Ocean Bluff property has been designated with the Residential Low Medium (RLM) land use designation which permits up to 4 du/ac with a growth control point of 3.2 dwelling units per net acre. Although the City found the proposed R-l zone consistent with the RLM land use designation, the R-l zoning could allow up to 5.8 du/ac based on the minimum lot size of 7,500 sq.ft. (43,560 sq.ft. divided by 7,500 sq.ft. = 5.8). Thus, the proposed R-l zone could permit more dwelling units than the land use designation would allow which is inconsistent with the certified LUP. Increased residential density could result in adverse impacts areawide to coastal resources by creating the need for more roads and infrastructure through sensitive areas (i.e, dual criteria slopes, wetland and riparian resources). Therefore, because the proposed zoning is not consistent with the certified land use designation, the amendment must be denied. PART VI. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD LCP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT #2-96A/QCEAN BLUFF REZONE. IF MODIFIED The standard of review for implementation plans is Section 30513 of the Coastal Act. Pursuant to Section 30513 of the Coastal Act, the Commission may only reject zoning ordinances or other implementing actions, as well as their amendments, on the grounds that they do not conform with, or are inadequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified land use plan. As identified above, the proposed implementation plan amendment cannot be found consistent with the density provisions of the certified Mello II LCP. Specifically, the proposed R-l zone, allowing up to a maximum of 5.8 du/ac, cannot be found consistent with the Residential Low Medium (RLM) land use designation of the certified LUP which allows no more than 4 du/ac. The Qualified Development Overlay Zone of the certified LCP provides additional regulations for development to ensure that development occurs with due regard to environmental factors. The overlay also promotes orderly, attractive and harmonious development, and promotes the general welfare by preventing the establishment of uses or erection of structures which are not properly related to or which could adversely impact their sites, surroundings, traffic circulation or environmental setting. Thus, this overlay provides additional assurance the policies of the LCP will be applied and enforced. The Commission finds that, based on the above findings, the Qualified Development Overlay Zone must be applied to this property. The attached suggested modification applies the Q designator to the site to ensure that the CarlsbW LCPA No. 2-96A/B Page 10 property will be developed with no more than 4 du/ac which is consistent with the certified RLM land use designation. In that way, the Commission can find the proposed zone change is consistent with the certified LUP. Furthermore, through the review of future development on the site through a subsequent coastal development permit, issues associated with resource protection, etc., will be thoroughly assessed for consistency with the certified Mello II LCP segment. In this case, the Ocean Bluff project has been required by the City to extend Poinsettia Lane, an off-site major arterial and circulation element road, through a canyon that contains sensitive resources. Approximately 4 acres of dual criteria slopes would be impacted by the proposed road alignment. While the Mello II LCP allows impacts to sensitive resources for circulation element roads, the LCP provides that the least environmentally-damaging alternative must be analyzed before impacts can be accepted. Currently, this alternatives analysis is being prepared. It will be used in determining the ultimate alignment of Poinsettia Lane in association with the Ocean Bluff project. The companion permit to this local coastal program amendment will be reviewed at a future hearing. It should also be noted that both City and Commission staffs have considered future site development plans for the site. With such consideration, the modified zoning appears appropriate in that future development of the property at the endorsed intensity of use and with application of the other zoning standards and certified LUP provisions is possible and reasonable. In summary, since the proposed rezoning, as modified, would implement the LUP designation cited above, the Commission finds that the subject amendment to the implementation plan is consistent with and adequate to carry out the policies of the certified LUP. PART VII. CONSISTENCY WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) Section 21080.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exempts local government from the requirement of preparing an environmental impact report (EIR) in connection with its local coastal program. Instead, the CEQA responsibilities are assigned to the Coastal Commission and the Commission's LCP review and approval program has been found by the Resources Agency to be functionally equivalent to the EIR process. Thus, under CEQA Section 21080.5, the Commission is relieved of the responsibility to prepare an EIR for each LCP. Nevertheless, the Commission is required in an LCP submittal or, as in this case, an LCP amendment submittal, to find that the LCP, or LCP, as amended, does conform with CEQA provisions. The LCP amendment to the Mello II segment of the City's LCP deals with a change to the zoning of three properties within the City's coastal zone. Inasmuch as the proposed Mar Vista/Emerald Ridge rezones will implement the Residential Medium LUP designation, the Commission finds that approval of those rezones should accommodate an appropriate intensity of development consistent with the certified land use plan. For the Ocean Bluff site, the proposed rezone could have resulted in an inappropriate intensity of land use. However, as modified, the amendment provides Carlsbl(p-CPA No. 2-96A/B Page 11 sufficient protection to coastal resources by limiting the permitted intensity of development. Therefore, the Commission finds that approval of the Mello II zoning amendment, as modified, will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. In addition, individual projects to which the new LCP zone would apply will require a coastal development permit, as previously noted, which would require review for compliance with development standards which address, in part, steep slope encroachment, preservation of native habitat (coastal sage scrub, etc.), visual resource protection, conversion of agricultural land to urban uses and parking and traffic circulation. Any specific impacts associated with individual development projects would be assessed through the environmental review process; and, an individual project's compliance with CEQA would be assured. The Commission finds that approval of the subject LCP amendment, as modified, would not result in significant environmental impacts under the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act and that the proposed changes can be made. (1095A) MAP * - .'STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SAN DIEGO COAST AREA 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725(619)521-8036 DATE: Tuesday, May 7, 1996 TIME: 10:00 a.m. PLACE: Hyatt Regency - Long Beach 200 South Pine Avenue Long Beach, CA The proposed development described on Page 2 of this notice i a public hearing before the California Coastal Commission at the indicated above. This item has been tentatively scheduled as follows: Administrative Permit Consent Calendar Extension Request Adoption of Findings Request for Reconsideration Material Amendment Hearing and Voting on Regular Calendar SEE NOTE ON PAGE 2 Continued Hearing and Voting on Regular Calendar Public Hearing on Regular Calendar Substantial Issue Determination and Hearing and Voting on Appeals from Local Government Decisions Continued Hearing and Voting on Appeals from Local Government Decisions _X_ Other: Time Extension on Carlsbad LCPA 2-96/DNL Information on Coastal Commission meeting procedures is enclosed on Pages 3 and 4. If, after reading this information and the project description on Page 2, you have questions, please contact the Commission's San Diego District Office at (619) 521-8036. The file on this project is available for public review at the District Office during regular business hours. The staff report will be mailed to you upon request. -Over- Carlsbad LCP Amendment No. 2-96 Time Extension. Public hearing and action on request to extend time limit for action on the amendment request including Appellate Procedures; Accessory Structures Height Limitation; Mar Vista, MSP California L.L.C. and Ocean Bluff rezonings. (DNL-SD) - 2 - MIMMISSION HEARING PRQCED IF YOU ARE AN APPLICANT: In most cases, your application will be reviewed by the district staff and placed on the State Commission agenda for the earliest possible meeting. Staff will determine if the application can be put on either the consent or administrative calendar or whether it must receive a full public hearing. ADMINISTRATIVE CALENDAR: Administrative permits may be granted by the executive director for projects which are minor new developments, additions to existing structures (not exceeding $100,000. in cost), single family residences, or multi-family projects of four units or less. The Coastal Act requires that all administrative permits be reported to the Commission at its next meeting before they take effect. If four or more Commissioners request that an item be held for public hearing, the project will be removed from the administrative calendar and scheduled for a public hearing at the next regular Commission meeting. Conditions may be attached to an administrative permit. Applicants and other interested parties may speak in opposition to the project or its conditions. Testimony is limited to 3 minutes for each side. CONSENT CALENDAR: Projects considered by staff to be consistent with the Coastal Act but which do not qualify for the administrative calendar may be placed on the consent calendar. Projects on the consent calendar will be approved by the Commission with a single vote for the entire calendar. If three or more Commissioners wish to pull an item off consent, that item will normally be rescheduled for a regular public hearing and vote at the next regular Commission meeting. Conditions may be attached to consent calendar permits. Applicants who accept these conditions need not speak. Opponents should tell the Commission why the project is inconsistent with the Coastal Act. Three minutes will be allowed for each side to speak to the Commission. If there are several persons wishing to address an item, efforts should be made to consolidate presentations in order to stay within the time-limits. Interested persons should check with the Commission staff regarding subsequent hearings. REGULAR CALENDAR PERMIT APPLICATIONS: Projects potentially inconsistent with the Coastal Act or which can be approved only with conditions for which there are no clear presedents will be placed on the regular calendar and will be considered after a full public hearing. Persons supporting or opposing the project should tell the Commission why they think the project is or is not consistent with the Act. Testimony must address coastal act policies and environmental impacts of the project and should not be redundant. Each side is allotted 15 minutes, with the applicant speaking first and then the opposition. The Commission can, however, at its own discretion limit or extend this time period. The applicant may reserve some time for rebuttal after the opponents speak. After the hearing is closed, the Commission wi11 discuss the matter and vote. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION: An applicant may request that the Commission reconsider its previous action on a permit. The applicant must show that there is relevant new evidence which could not have reasonably been presented at the original hearing or that an error of fact or law occurred. Only the applicant and persons who participated in the original proceedings are eligible to testify. Testimony is limited to three minutes for each side. Should the Commissioners vote to grant the reconsideration request, the matter will be scheduled for a public hearing as if it were a new application. FINDINGS: Public hearing and voting on findings to support previous Commission action. Adoption of findings will not change the previous action. Only persons who participated in the original proceedings are eligible to testify. PERMIT AMENDMENTS and EXTENSIONS: Public hearing and voting on requests to amend or extend permits previously approved by the Commission. Five minutes will be allocated to each side. PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES: If the item you are interested in speaking on is scheduled for a public hearing, you must fill out a "Request to Speak" form and give it to a staff person before the hearing starts. Sign-up forms will be available on a table at the entrance to the hearing room. Time limits for spoken testimony vary according to the different calendars. In addition, because the number of speakers can vary, the Commission can also limit or extend the stated time limits. Because of this limited time, applicants and opponents are encouraged to submit written comments to the Commission office at least one week in advance of the hearing. Comments will be copied and forwarded to the Commissioners by the staff. If it is convenient, you may also wish to bring 25 copies of your spoken testimony to the hearing for distribution to the Commissioners. Speakers may use maps, slides, photographs, models, and other visual materials in their presentations to the Commission. Since material become part of the public record on the permit, reproductions of the materials shown must be submitted to the Commission staff before or during the Commission meeting, or the originals will be retained by the Commission for 60 days. A carousel slide projector and screen will be available at the meeting. MEN HILL AN AGENDA ITEM BE HEARD? Unfortunately, no one can predict how quickly the Commission will complete agenda items. Each session begins at the time noted on the meeting notice. Each item is considered in order listed, except in extraordinary circumstances. The Commission will consider items even though the interested persons are not present. Staff at the appropriate Commission office can give you more information prior to the hearing date and you can call the staff at the hearing location for last minute information. CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS: Government Code Section 84308 requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution of $250. or more from an interested party. If you intend to speak on any hearing item, please indicate on the speaker slip and/or in your testimony, if you have made campaign contributions of $250. or more to any Commissioner within the last year, and if so, to which Commissioners you contributed. HQN MANY VOTES DOES IT TAKE TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION? Each permit must be approved by a majority of the Commissioners who are authorized to vote and who are present in the room. All permi-ts on the administrative and consent calendars will be voted upon at one time with just one motion and one roll call. PUBLIC RECORDS: Public records on matters before the Commission will be available for inspection at the meeting and at other times in the Commission office. Extra copies of staff reports will also be available at the meeting. ACCESS TO HEARINGS: Commission meetings are in centralized locations and are accessible to persons with disabilities. - 4 - State of California MEMORANDUM •Tit. tea TO: FROM: SUBJECT: and Interested California Coastal Commission San Diego District DATE: AprilCommissioners Persons Staff Request to Waive Time Limits for the City of Carlsbad Lo.cal Coastal Program Amendment 2-96, Coastal Commission meeting of May 7 - 10, 1996 On April 9, 1996, the City of Carlsbad's second LCP amendment request package, LCPA #2-96, was received in the San Diego Area Office. The submittal was deemed complete and filed as of that date. The amendment package consists of four unrelated zoning code amendments or rezonings of specific properties. The amendment includes: LCPA #94-04/Mar Vista and MSP California L.L.C. rezonings; LCPA #95-06/Appellate Procedures; LCPA #95-09/Ocean Bluff rezoning and LCPA #95-12/Accessory Structures Height Limitation. Pursuant to Section 30514 of the Coastal Act, amendments to certified LCPs are required to be processed within the same time limits as the original land use plan or implementation plan. Therefore, LCP amendments involving land use plan revisions must be acted upon by the Commission within 90 days; LCP amendments involving implementation plan changes must be acted upon by the Commission in 60 days; and combined land use plan and implementation plan amendments must be acted on by the Commission within 90 days of their filing. Based on the above-cited-time limits, the proposed LCP amendment package, which involves changes to the City's zoning code and rezonings of individual properties, constitutes several implementation plan amendments and they must be acted on within 60 days. The amendment package has been scheduled for the June 11 - 14, 1996 hearings in San Rafael; however, given an additional week between the May and June hearing dates, action on the items would not occur within the prescribed 60 days. However, Section 30517 of the Coastal Act and Section 13535(c) of the California Code of Regulations state that the Commission may extend for good cause the applicable time limits for a period not to exceed one year. Due to the date of the amendment request's receipt in the San Diego office, the amount of work already agendized for Commission review in May and the May meeting production schedule, staff was unable to review and prepare recommendations for this second amendment package for the May agenda. In most instances, these items cannot be heard at the next immediate meeting and would usually be agendized for the following month. However, with the added week between the May and June hearing dates, these items will not carry over even to the June hearing without the extension of the time limits by the Commission. Memo to Commissioners April 23, 1996 Page 2 SUMMARY: Staff recommends that the Commission extend the 60-day time limit for a period not to exceed one year on the City of Carlsbad's LCP Amendment #2-96 submittal. However, in fact, the amendment request will be scheduled for the June 11 - 14, 1996 hearings in San Rafael. MOTION: I move that the Commission extend the 60-day time limit to act on the City of Carlsbad's LCP Amendment #2-96 for a period not to exceed one year. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a YES vote. An affirmative vote by a majority of the Commissioners present is needed to pass the motion. (1056A) Cfl CDflSTflL COMMISSION TEL.r!Tl9-521-9672.*.Jun 1 13:46 No.004 P.01 STATE Or CAUFOHNIA—THE RESOUKCES AGENCY PETE WUSON. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO COAST AREA 3111 CAMINO OH. RIO NORTH, SUITE 200 SAN OltOC, CA 93I09-1729 |«1V) M1-8034 June 16, 1995 VIA FACSIMILE Post-It1" brand fax iransmittal memo 7671 Anne Hysong Assistant Planner City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Us Palmas DriveCarlsbad* CA 92009-1576 Re: "Oceanbluff" Property/Zone 20 Specific Plan Area Dear Ms. Hysong, In response to your letter, dated June 5, 1995, directed to me and referencing the above property, I have asked Bill Ponder to review the certified Hello II Local Coastal Program (LCP) and we have reached the following conclusions,First, we confirmed that the Hello II LCP does Indeed delineate the subjectproperty with an RLM land use designation and the site 1s presently zoned L-C. Second, we would also concur that a zone change for the site from the l-C holding zone to R-1 would be an acceptable Implementing zone for the certified RLM land use designation, However, your correspondence 1s silent on the need for a local coastal program amendment to authorize the rezonlng of the site from L-C to R-l to allow the residential development. Although I was not directly Involved with the HelloII LCP at the time of Its original certification, It 1s my understanding that the L-C zone was designed as an Interim holding zone and applied to siteseither committed to agriculture or awaiting further specific planning. Since the zone only allowed agriculture, H was therefore accepted as an appropriateImplementing zone for the certified Hello II land use plan on certainproperties. However, as more specific planning occurred, any subsequent zonechange would necessitate a local coastal program amendment. All rezonlngs related to land use regulation or administration within the coastal zppe, which occur after the certification of a local government's local coastalprogram, require an LCP amendment In order to be effective. In summation then, we would 'disagree with your June 5, 1995 scenario for thisproperty since 1t did not specify the need for an LCP amendment to authorize the R-l rezonlng. Bill Ponder has mentioned that this situation may have .riSTRL COMMTSSTfiM 19-521-96 7 2 Jun 13U6 No.004 P.02 Anna Hysong June 16, 1995Page 2 arisen once before on another property (Eagle Canyon) and we did not requirean LCP amendment. While I cannot recall the particulars of that situation, It was his recollection that the application had received all of Its local approvals and been submitted here before the question of whether or not an LCP amendment was required became apparent. In this Instance, however, where we are apprised of the situation earlier, our direction must conform with the Commission's regulations and an LCP amendment Is necessary to Implement therezonlng. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contactPonder or me at the above office. Sincerely, eborah N, LeeAssistant District Director DNL:dK0344A) cc: Gary WayneChris DeCerbo STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO COAST AREA 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725 (619) 521-8036 June 7, 1995 Jeff Gibson City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Pal mas Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Mar Vista Project Dear Jeff, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above. Staff has reviewed the subject document and has the following comments. General Comments According to the above document, the proposed project would be confined to an area currently in agricultural use, and no impacts to. native vegetation on the slopes or the on-site riparian drainage would occur, from the development itself. However, utility impacts from a sewer line in the northwest portion of the site would occur to on-sjte riparian resources; additionally, a proposed trail along Hidden, Valley Road north to Palomar Airport Road would impact off-site riparian resources associated with Encinas Creek. The LCP provides that riparian resources located outside lagoon ecosystems shall be protected and preserved. No direct impacts may be allowed unless it is found that there is no feasible alternative, and the work will be performed in the least environmentally-damaging manner. Regarding the sewer line impacts, an alignment is proposed northerly to Palomar Airport Road through biologically sensitive lands associated with Canyon de las Encinas. Apparently, this alignment is parallel to and near a sewer alignment the Commission approved in CDP #6-94-131 (Toyohara), a 68 acre site adjacent to the project site to the southeast. In that action, the Commission approved a sewer alignment within Hidden Valley Road. The Commission found that part of the resource impacts associated with the construction of this road were justified under the LCP's provision that utilities could be accepted in sensitive areas, subject to the Commission finding the alignment represented the least environmentally-damaging alternative. Based on that finding and information provided by the City regarding the above alignment now being considered to sewer the Greystone project, Poinsettia Park, and other properties north to Palomar Airport Road, any other sewer alignment that is being considered in this area other than the approved Hidden Valley location cannot be the least environmentally-damaging alternative and would likely not be accepted by the Commission. Why can't sewerage for the project site be directed to the proposed sewer line in Hidden Valley Road? It must be shown that no less environmentally-damaging alternatives exist for project impacts to be considered. Jeff Gibson/Mar Vista Comments June 7, 1995 Page 2 Similarly, an alternatives analysis regarding riparian impacts associated with a proposed trail along Hidden Valley Road to Palomar Airport Road must be done to find the project consistent with the LCP. The trail is not a LCP public access requirement but a City requirement and it is not presently listed as a permissable use of riparian areas. Therefore, how would such resource impacts be acceptable under the Mello II LCP? Can the trail alignment be moved to a location where no impacts would occur? If the trail alignment cannot be moved to a location where no impacts would occur, isn't "no project" a feasible alternative for the trail? Notwithstanding sewerage and trail impacts, does the project incorporate a 50 foot buffer from riparian resources as required in Policy 3-8 of the certified Mello II Local Coastal Program (LCP)? Five sensitive wildlife species were observed on the site or within the sewer easement, including the California gnatcatcher. The document states that to reduce the potential for indirect impacts to the gnatcatcher during sewer construction, the sewer line should be installed during the non-breeding season (August through December). Again, does the sewer line in this location represent the least environmentally-damaging alternative considering its indirect impacts on the gnatcatcher, its direct impacts on riparian resources and the fact that a sewer line has been approved in the nearby Hidden Valley Road that could possibly accommodate project sewage? Nhy can't sewerage be handled through the sewer line proposed in Hidden Valley Road? Specific Comments The document notes that the least Bell's vireo is not likely found in Encinas Creek, but directed searches for this species according to USFWS protocol would be required. Has a recent check for this avian species been done? The document notes that no coastal sage scrub would be directly impacted by sewer construction. What would the indirect impacts to coastal sage scrub be? The document identifies erosion control and water quality measures which would be used by the project to prevent sedimentation and water quality impacts to Encinas Creek. However, an additional protective measure should be required with this project to find it consistent with the LCP. Given its proximity to Encinas Creek, grading should be prohibited during the rainy season pursuant to Policy 3-4 of the Mello II LCP. The document states an oversized culvert under Hidden Valley Road at Encinas Creek is required to mitigate the effects of fragmentation of the open space and wildlife corridor caused by the roadway, and to enhance wildlife mobility in the area. It is our understanding that the culvert that was originally proposed within the creek channel has been deleted. The crossing of Encinas Creek is now proposed with a bridge structure (Murrieta crossing) that is more accommodating to wildlife movements according to wildlife experts, and has received the support of the California Department of Fish and Game in this regard. What is the status of this project component? Jeff Gibson/Mar Vista Comments June 7, 1995 Page 3 With regard to long-range planning issues, the project must also be found consistent with the City's draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The goal of the HMP is to preserve and protect contiguous stands of coastal sage scrub and other habitats that are important as habitat to a number of plants and animals. These habitats are protected within Preserve Planning Areas (PPA) of the HMP. Is the proposed residential project and all off-site improvements located outside of any PPA? What role does the site play relative to connectivity or habitat preservation for the HMP? The project will require review by DFG and USFWS to determine the project's conformance with the NCCP guidelines, prior to filing the coastal development permit application, and preferably prior to completion of the local environmental review. We believe the project site's importance as a wildlife corridor and role in providing connectivity between sensitive habitat areas located between Batiquitos Lagoon and Encinas Creek should be thoroughly analyzed in the environmental document to determine the project's consistency with both the HMP and the NCCP guidelines. I apologize for these late comments. We would like to coordinate with the City in determining the most appropriate action on the project site. In addition, as part of this coordination, we again mention that it would be advantageous for the City to submit the Zone 20 Specific Plan as a local coastal program amendment. This would allow the Commission the opportunity to review the access and utility requirements, as well as the associated resource impacts, for this large undeveloped area on a comprehensive basis, rather than on a project-by-project review. Once again, we would be willing to try and meet with City staff to conduct such a Zone 20 Specific Plan review informally to identify issues early and determine what would be the next appropriate step. If you have any questions, please contact me at the above number. Sincerely Bill Ponder Coastal Planner BP:bp(0232A)