HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 90-08; Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (10)State of California
MEMORANDUM
Cali f ornla Coastal Cam1 ssion Snn Dfego Dtstrict
TO: Commlssloners 8nd Interested Persons DATE: June 8, 1993
FROM: Staff
SUBJECT: Revisions to Carlsbad LCP Amendment 1-93 Staff Report, dated M8y 21, 1993
Staff recommends that the Commlssion p1DOP'I: the following revisions to the
staff report for the Carlsbad LCP Amendment 1-93, Where appropriate, language
to be added to the report fs underlfned 8nd language to be deleted Is struck-out. Where additional flndlngs are proposed or entlre sections art
proposed for substitution, they are so noted. These revisions are made in accordance with their order and appearance In the originally drafted report,
1. On Page 2, under the Summary of Amendment Request/Background, the
proposed amendments to the Mello II Implementlng Ordinances should be clarified to read as follows:
Also proposed are amendments to the Mello I1 Implementing Ordinances for a zone change from L-C-Q (Llmlted Control, Qualified Oevelopment Overlay Zone) to 0-Q/P-M-Q (Office, Planned Industrial, Qualif led Development Overlay Zone), C-2-O/O-Q/P-M-Q (General Commerclal/Office/Planned Industriel, each with the Qualified Development Overlay Zone) C-T-O/C-2-Q (Commerclal-Tourfst/General Commercial, both with the Qualified
Development Overlay Zone), C-2-0 (General Commerclal, Quallfied Development Overlay tone) and C-T-Q (Commercial-Tourist, Qualified Developflent Overlay Zone). This last proposed rezoning pertains to 2,3 acres on the west slde of Paseo del Norte located north of Pea Soup Andersen's and It is not part of the Carlsbad Ranch Speclflc Plan.
change from E-A (Exclusive Agriculture) to 0-S (Open Space) is also
proposed. Quallfied Development Overlay Zone) to C-T-p (Comerclal-Tourist, Quellfled Development Overlay Zone) on 2.3 net acres on the west slde of Paseo Del Norte located north of Pea Soup Andersen's.
A zone
Finally, a zone change is proposed from L-C-Q (Limited Control,
2. On Page 6, a new set of resolutlons and mottons must be included for the 2.3 acre Culbertson rezone 8s part of the Mello 11 LCP Implementation Plan
Amendment 1-93. thelr companion motfons, should refer to only the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan and be renumbered.
The orfginally drafted Resolutlons I11 'and IV, along wlth
The newly proposed resolution and motion are as follows:
RESOLUTION 111 (Resolution to approve certlficatjon of portlons of the Mello I1 LCP Implementation Plan Amendment 1-93, as submitted)
r
Memo to Commissioners/Carlsbad LCPA 1-93 June 8, 1993 Page 2
I move that the Comm'lssjon reject the Mello I1 Zmplernentatlon Ptan Amendment 1-93, as It pertains to the Culbertson rezone, as submitted.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recormends a a vote and the adoption of the following resolution and fjndings. An affirmative vote by the majority of the Commissioners present is needed to pass the motion.
Resolution I11
The Commisslan hereby certtfles the amendment to the City of Carlsbad's
Local Coastal Program on the grounds that the amendment does conform wlth, and 1s adequate to carry out, the provisfons of the certified land use
plan.
dval lable whlch would substantjally lessen any significant adverse impacts which the approval would have on the environment.
lhere are no feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures
3. Under Part 111, Suggested ModifdCatlonS 1, 5 and 6 need to be corrected with respect to the acreage cttations for the Carltas Property which will be subject to the agricultural conversion options of the presently certified Me110 XI LCP. As noted in the staff report, the Carltas Property
was not subject to the 1CP's agricultural conversions options, havlng chosen instead to pursue a "mlxed use option" specifically designed for the site's development and preservatlon of its agricultural resources. Under the certified LCP, a total of 92.6 acres of the Carltas Property may be comnltted
Lo urban uses with the remainder of the 423 acre site to be retained in
agriculture and open space. As the subject LCP amendment request proposed to convert an addltlonal 30.51 acres to urban uses beyond the already approved
92.6 acres, staff Is recommending that that acreage sheuld be subject to the
agricultural conversion options in the certified LCP. Therefore. the references in Suggested Modifications #s 1, 5 and 6 for the Carltas Property should read 30.51 acres, rather than the entire 423 acre holding.
rernainjng acreage, aside from the 92,6 acres already commjtted to urban development, must be retained in agriculture untll and unless a future LCP
amendment Is endorsed for its convers5on.
The site's
In additlon, on Page 8, Optlon 3 under Suggested Modlficatlon #7 Is properly entitled as follows: Agricultural Conyerslon mqatlon f 69.
4. On Page 10, sttiff has agreed to revise Suggested Hodificatlon #4. After discussions with City staff and the project proponent, staff has agreed to amend the suggested modification to more accurately reflect the desfgn of the proposed hotel with respect to its archltectural embeltlshmtnt. Staff's
primary concern was the need to set some parameter on the accent feature In
Memo to commlss+oners/Carlsbad LCPA 1-93 June 8, 1993
Page 3
order to preclude any slgnlflcant adverse Visual impacts. Therefore, staff recommends that the accent feature be restricted in bulk to no more than thraa
percent (3%) of the hotel's overall roof surface.
5. On Page 10, Suggested Modification #5 should be corrected to read: Section 21.83.020 of the Coastal Agricultural Zone .... and the date of the
Land Use Plan certification to be added Into $UbSeCtfon A. Is June 3. 1981,
Sectfon 21.82.060, subsection C. af the Coastal AgrScultural Zone .... 6. On Page 11, Suggested ModSfScatSon 446 should be CQrrQCted to read:
1. On Page 71, Suggested Modlflcatlon #8 should be revlsad to read in its ent 1 rety:
A single archftectural accent feature, not to exceed 65 feet, may be allowed for the hotel development as long as ft is restricted in bulk to no more than three Dement (3%) of the hotel's over8ll roof surface. Roof surface 1s deflned to include the horlwtal roof area exoosed at B very level, Includins both flat and sloPSna surfaces. All other developments wlthin the vlllage center shall not exceed 45 feet In helght, lncluslve of architectural embelllshments,
8. On Page It, a new suggested modification, Suggested Modification #9, should be added In It$ entirety as follows:
9. Adrninlstration, the following statement shall be added; All amendments, whetherhinor or major, Shall be submitted to the California Coastal Commtssion for thdr review and approval, prior to thetr enactment, in accordance wlth the Coastal Act of 1976 and the Callfornla Code of Regulations.
In Section IX of the SpecffIc Plan, under Specfftc Plan
9. a,, Proposed 1CP Amendment, should be corrected to read as follows: The City
proposes to change the underlylng land use desfgnatlons for approximately 113 acres From Non-Residential Reserve (NRR) to a number of other designations: Professional Office/Planned IndusWal (O/PI), Comuitv Comerc~a~ Office/Planned Industrial (C/ O/PI), Community Comerclal (C), Travel ServiceICommunity Commerclal (TWC) and Open Space (OS).
On Page 16, under Land Resources/Agriculture, the last paragraph on the page should be amended to read in Its entirety 8s follows!
The Clty also proposes amending language to the text of Policy 2-2 B.l Of the Me170 I1 LCP to add public recreational uses as a permitted use within the agricultural preserve on the aroposed 24.5 acre Parcel 11. wh Ich will be
developed as a Public uo3f driving ranpa.- Item 8,7. of Ql iCY_ 2 -2 clatCfia
On Page 14, the first sentence of the flrst paragraph under Subsection
10.
Memo to Commlss)oners/Carlsbad LCPA 1-93 June 8, ,1993
Page 4
that a rnaxtmum of 24,s acres of the aqrlcultural presetye can be devoted t~
public recreatqonal LIS e$. The remainder of ltlhis policy provides that residential, commetclal, and other nan-residential uses may be doveloped on up
to 92.6 acres of the slte subject to a Muster Plan for the site, The text change spec.lf.les that lldeuelopment of land wjthin the Agricultural Preserve
will be subject to the provisfons of the Wllllamson Act and specifically the Land Conservatlon Contract In effect at the tlme of development." property owner is amending the Williamson Act contract to allow for the
Policy 2-2 to preserve In wblic recreationaJm Parcel 11) and/or
aqrluural uses for as long as is feaslble those areas. of the Carlsbaw nch
not proposed for develwment at this time. It should be noted that a notice
of non-renewal of the applicant's contract was recorded on the property on October 4, 1991 beginning the start of a 10 and 15 year period at the end of
dhfch the contract wlll have expired, Therefore, by the years 2002 and 2007,
none of the site will remain under Williamson Act contract, proposed future converslon of agrlcultural lands within the Carlsbad Ranch would be the subject of a locei coastal program amendment.
The
recreational use only on Parcel 17. lhe proDosed amendment includes- 1
H~wever, any
11. On Page 29, a new part must be added as FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF PORTIONS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD MELLO I1 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT 1-93,
AS SUBMITTLO. These findings should read as follows:
A. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION
The subject amendment request involves two components, is the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan, emcompasslng the 423 Carltas Property, and it wjllbbe discussed separately in the followlng findings 8s 9t 1s proposed first for rejection and then subsequent approval with suggested
modif fcallons. The other portion of the Implernentatjon plan lrmendrnent addresses a smaller, 2.3 acre site located an the west slde of Paseo del Norte across from the Carlsbad Ranch. Whlle the site is located outsIde the boundarles of the speclflc plan, It 1s under the same ownership. presently referred to as the Culbertson slte. rezone the property from L-C-Q to C-T-Q or from limlted control to commercial tauri st uses.
The larger component
It 4s
The proposed amsndmsnt would
8. FINOINES FOR CERTIFICAW
1 , Cul bertson Rezone
a) Purpose and Intent of the Ordfnance. The purpose and intent of the
rezone is to 'permit commercial tourist uses and travel serv4cts on the subdect property consistent with its land use designation.
b) Ma.iar Provisions of the Ordinance. The certified HI110 If
Implementing Ordinances specify the range of permltted USIS and development
,
Memo to Commissioners/Carlsbad LCPA 1-93 June 8, 1993 Page 5
standards for the proposed C-T-Q rezoning. The rezoning Is Intended to
accommodate a proposed wine tasting facility for an tnterlm period; and, if it is successfu1, It may eventually expand and develop at Carlsbad Ranch to include an small demonstration vineyard on the property.
c) Adeguacy of Ordinance to Implement the Ce rtif1.d ' L UP. The standard of review for an implementation plan amendment is Its conformity wlth, and ability to carry out, the certlfied land use plan. In this case, the subject ' parcel is desjgnated TS/Travel Services in the certifled land use plan and the proposed rezone is fully consistent wlth and will Implement Its land us8 designation. Norte was realigned, vls!tor-servfng use; therefore, the proposed rezone may be accepted as submitted,
designation and rezoning for Parcels 6 & 7 should be corrected to read:
The property was b4sected from the Ranch proper when Paseo del The subject amendment wl11 accommodate a proposed
b
12. On Page 29, under Subsection A., Amendment Description, the proposed
6&1 18.0 acres C-2-Q/Q-O/P-M-Q
13. On Page 30, in the findings for rejection of the speclflc plan us submitted, the fourth paragraph should be revised in its entlrety to read:
As noted in the prevfous section regardlng agricultural preservation, the land use and tonjng changes proposed on Parcel 11 to accommodate a drlving range on agriculturally desdgnated lands, as well as the pedestrian promenade, the east-west non-arterial road and the desiltation basin on Parcel 17, are not conslstent wikh the mlxed use provisions of the certlficd Mello XI LCP. These uses go beyond the previously-endorsed 92.6 acres committed to urban development in the LCP. In addltion, the Speciflc Plan falls to provide for
suitable agricultural mitigation for the driving range and other uses, totaling 30.51 acres, and the Speclflc Plan must therefore be rejected, The
suggested modification provides that these portions of the Carltas property, that exceed the permitted 92.6 acres of urban development, be subject to the agricultural conversion policies of the Mello 11 tUP within the Coastal Overlay tone.
of the specific plan as submitted, the reference to restrlctlng the bulk of the proposed hotel's accent feature should be amended to read "no more than three percent (3%) of the hotel I s overs1 1 roof surface".
the findings for rejection of the specific plan us submltted, should be amended to read in their entlrety as follows:
Regardlng the resource protection measures of the Speclflc Plan, the plan IS
14, On Page 31, at the top vf the page, under the findings for rejectjon
15. On Page 31, the flrst and second full paragraphs on the page, under
Memo to Commlssloners/Car7sbad LCPA 1-93 June 8, 1993 Page 6
basically silent on preservatlon of naturally-vegetated steep slopes and any wetland/riparian habitats that are present on the Carltas slte, :here are no direct impacts proposed far the vast majortty and most sensitive of these areas, the plan 4s nonetheless deficient by beJng silent as to their eventual preservation or specifying the parameters for any possible alteratfun. In addition, while there are satlsfactory provislons within the presently certified Mello II LCP to protect sensftfve resources, it Is unclear what the relallonshlp .Is between the speclfic plan and the exlstlng Mello 11
LCP, It is the Comm4ssionls position that the specific plan is only supplemental to the presently-certifled LCP and such clarlficatlon is warranted, In addltlon, the draft specific plan Includes language OR potential rninor and major amendments to It (at the CJty level) whlch may be contemplated in the future, such amendments must be addressed by the Coastal Commission. reasons, the speclflc plan must be rejected as submitted.
Although
However, the speclflc plan I$ ag8ln silent on how For these
(8553A)