HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 90-08; Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (15)PETE WILSON, Go-r -*- STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RLSOURCES AGENCY - -, -, -
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
5AN DIEGO COAST AREA
31 11 CAMINO DEL PI0 NORTH, SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725
December 2, 1993
1619) 521-8036
TO: COMMISSIONERS AND INTERESTED PERSONS
FROM: CHARLES DAMM, SOUTH COAST DISTRICT DIRECTOR
DEBORAH N. LEE, ASSISTANT DISTRICT DIRECTOR, SAN DIEGO AREA OFFICE
BILL PONDER, COASTAL PLANNER, SAN DIEGO ARIA OFFICE
SUBJECT: REVISED FINDINGS ON MAJOR AMENDMENT 1-93 TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM-MELLO I1 LCP: (For Public Hearing and Possible Action at the Meeting of December 15-17, 1993)
SUMMARY OF COMMISS ION ACTION
On June 10, 1993, the Commission approved the City of Carlsbad's submittal for the Mello I1 segment regarding 423.5 acres on the north side of Palomar Airport Road, south of the future extension of Cannon Road, and east of Paseo Del Norte known as the "Carlsbad Ranch". In its action, the Commission
certified the LCP amendment with suggested modifications which included making portions of the property subject to the agricultural conversion mitigation policies of the certified LCP. In addition to approving a specific plan to
guide future development on the site, the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan, the
Commission also approved the redesignation of approximately 113 acres located
north of Palomar Airport Road, south of future Cannon Road and east of Paseo Del Norte from Non-Residential Reserve (NRR) to a number of other commercial land uses and open space. bring the specific plan into conformance with the certified LCP with respect
to protection of vi sua1 and biological resources.
Other suggested modifications were approved to
Add? tionally, a zone change was approved from L-C-Q (Limited Control , Qual i f i ed Development Over1 ay Zone) to C-T-Q (Commerci a1 -Tour? s t , Qual i f i ed
Development Overlay Zone) on 2.3 net acres on the west side of Paseo Del Norte
located north of Pea Soup Anderson's. Culbertson rezoning. This revision is identified as the
COMMISSION VOTES
Carlsbad La nd Use Plan Amendment 1-93
n- <;a Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan, approve as submitted:
Commissioners Voting "Yes": None
Commissioners Voting "No": Calcagno, Cervantes, 000, Stevens,
Moulton-Patterson, Neely, Rick, Williams, ., Yokoyama, and Chairman GwynNone
-.
Carl ssd LCPA 1-93/RF Page 2
Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan, approve with modifications:
Commissioners Voting "Yes": Cal cagno, Cervantes, Doo, Stevens, Moulton-Patterson, Neely, Rick, Williams, Yokoyama, and Chairman Gwyn
Commissioners Voting "No": None
Carlsbad ImD 1 ementati ow P1 an Amendment 1-93
Cul bertson Rezoning, approve as submitted:
Commissioners Voting "Yes": None
Commissioners Voting IINo": Calcagno, Cervantes, Doo, Stevens, Moulton-Patterson, Neely, Rick, Williams, Yokoyama, and Chai rman Gwyn
Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan, reject as submitted:
Commissioners Voting "Yes": Cal cagno, Cervantes, Doo, Stevens, Moulton-Patterson, Neely, Rick, Williams, Yokoyama, and Chai rman Gwyn
Commissioners Voting "NO": None
Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan, approve with modifications:
Commissioners Voting "Yes": Calcagno, Cervantes, Doo, Stevens, Moulton-Patterson, Neely, Rick, Williams, Yokoyama, and Chai rman Gwyn
Commissioners Voting "NO": None
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT REOUEST
The proposed amendment modifies the certified land use and implementation
plans for the Mello I1 segment regarding 423.5 acres on the north side of
Palomar Airport Road, south of the future extension of Cannon Road, and east
of Paseo Del Norte known as the "Carlsbad Ranch". Specifically, the City of Carlsbad proposes to amend the certified Mello I1 LCP to: (1) Change references from Master Plan to Specific Plan, (2) Expand the uses permitted in the agricultural preserve to a1 low for pub1 ic recreation faci 1 i ti es, (3) Update acreage figures referenced i n various pol i ci es, (4) Designate 24.5 acres as open space to accommodate a public driving range, putting green, and
ancillary uses, and (5) Add new language to condition the specific plan to
preserve agriculture and/or public recreation uses on the areas of the site
not currently proposed to be developed for as long as feasible.
Proposed are amendments to the Mello I1 Land Use Plan Map to redesignate
approximately 113 acres located north of Palomar Airport Road, south of future
Carl -Ad LCPA 1 -93/RF Page 3
Cannon Road and east of Paseo Del Norte from Non-Residential Reserve (NRR) to Open Space (OS), Professional OfficeIPlanned Industrial (O/PI), Community Commercial/Professional Office/Planned Industrial (C/O/PI), Travel Services Commerci a1 /Community Commerci a1 (TS/C), and Communi ty Commerci a1 (C) . A1 so proposed are amendments to the Mello I1 Implementing Ordinances for a zone change from L-C-Q (Limited Control, Qualified Development Overlay Zone) to 0-Q/P-M-Q (Office, Planned Industrial, Qualified Development Overlay Zone), C-2-Q/O-Q/P-M-Q (General Commercial/Office/Planned Industrial, each with the Qual i fi ed Development Overl ay Zone), C-T-Q/C-2-0 (Commercial-Touri st/General Commercial , both with the Qualified Development Overl ay Zone), and C-2-Q (General Commerci a1 , Qual i fi ed Development Overl ay Zone). A zone change from E-A (Exclusive Agriculture) to 0-S (Open Space) is also proposed. Finally, a zone change (Culbertson) is proposed from L-C-Q (Limited Control, Qualified Development Overlay Zone) to C-T-Q (Commercial-Tourist, Qualified Development Overlay Zone) on 2.3 net acres on the west side of Paseo Del Norte located north of Pea Soup Andersen's. This property in not part of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan.
ADDITIONAL IN FORMAT I ON
Further information on the City of Carlsbad LCP amendment may be obtained from Bill Ponder, at (619) 521-8036.
Carl s%d LCPA 1-93/RF
Page 4
PART I. 0-
A. Local Coasta 1 Program Hi s torv-A1 1 Seame nts.
The City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP) consists of six geographic segments: 1,100 acres; the Carlsbad Mello I LCP segment with 2,000 acres; the Carlsbad Mello I1 LCP segment which includes approximately 5,300 acres; the West Batiqui tos Lagoon/Sammis Properties LCP segment with 200 acres; the East Batiqui tos LagoonIHunt Properties LCP segment with 1,000 acres and the Vi 1 lage Area Redevelopment segment with approximately 100 acres.
the Agua Hedionda Lagoon LCP segment comprised of approximately
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. to as the Mello I and Mello I1 segments. The Mello I and Mello I1 LCP segments were approved by the Coastal Commission in September 1980 and June 1981, respectively. the City and approved by the Coastal Commission on July 1, 1982.
The Mello I, Mello I1 and Agua Hedionda segments of the Carlsbad LCP cover the majority of the City's coastal zone. which involve the greatest number of coastal resource issues and have been the subject of the most controversy over the past years. 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 vi si tor-serving faci 1 i ti es. 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 I1 segments regarding preservation of agriculture and steep-sloping hillsides to be unacceptable. therefore did not apply these provisions in the review of local projects.
This resulted in the two Carlsbad LCP segments commonly referred
The Agua Hedionda segment Land Use Plan was prepared by
They are also the segments of the LCP
Among those issues
The City
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 I1 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 I1 segments of the
LCP. After certification of these amendments, the City adopted the Mello I and I1 LCP segments.
The West Batiqui tos Lagoon/Sammi s Properties segment and the East
Batiquitos/Hunt Properties segment were certified in 1985.
amendments paved the way for two large projects comprising the majority of
each segment: the Batiqui tos Lagoon Educational Park-Sammi s 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 I1 segment of the LCP. In August of 1984, the Commission approved the segmentation of this 100-acre area from the remainder of the Mello I1 LCP
These LCP
-.
Carlsuad LCPA 1-93IRF Page 5
f
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.
post-certification maps occurred in December and the City assumed permit
authority for this LCP segment on December 14, 1988.
A review of the
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 exi sting i nconsi stenci es between the Ci ty' s General P1 an , Zoni ng 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".
PART 11. LOC AL COASTAL PROGRAM SUBMITTAL - RESOLUTIONS
A. RESOLUTION I (Resolution to deny certification of the City of Carlsbad Mello I1 Land Use Plan Amendment 1-93, as submitted)
Resolution I (Carlsbad Ranch LUP)
The Commission hereby denies certification of the amendment request to the City of Carlsbad Mello I1 LCP Land Use Plan and adoDts the findinus stated
below on the grounds that the amendment will not meet the requirements of and conform with the policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200) of the California Coastal Act to the extent necessary to achieve the basic state goals speclfied in Section 30001.5 of the Coastal Act; the land use plan, as amended, will not be consistent with applicable decisions of the Commission that shall guide local government actions pursuant to Section 30625(c); and certification of the land use plan amendment does not meet the requirements of Section 21080.5(d)(Z)(i) of the California Environmental Quality Act, as there would be feasible measures or feasible a1 ternatives which would substantially lessen significant adverse impacts on the environment.
B. RFSOLUTIO N I1 (Resolution to approve certification of the City of Carlsbad
Mello I1 Land Use Plan Amendment 1-93, if modified)
Resolution I1 (Carlsbad Ranch LUP)
The Commission hereby certifies the amendment request to the City of
Carlsbad Mello I1 LCP Land Use Plan and bdoDtS the findinas stated be 1 ow
on the grounds that the amendment , with suggested modifications , wi 11 meet the requirements of and conform with the policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200) of the California Coastal Act to the extent necessary to achieve the basic state goals specified in Section 30001.5 of the Coastal Act; the land use plan, as amended, will contain a specific access
-. ,, , .-
Carlmd LCPA 1-93/RF Page 6
component as required by Section 30500 of the Coastal Act; the land use plan, as amended, will be consistent with applicable decisions of the Commission that shall guide local government actions pursuant to Section 30625(c); and certification of the land use plan amendment does meet the requirements of Section 21080.5(d)(Z)(i) of the California Environmental
Quality Act, as there would be no feasible measures or feasible a1 ternatives which would substantially lessen significant adverse impacts - - on the environment.
C. RESOLU TION I11 (Resolution to approve certification of portions
Mello I1 LCP Implementation Plan Amendment 1-93
submi tted 1
Resolution I11 (Cul bertson Rezone)
of the as
sbad's The Commission hereby certifies the amendment to the City of Car Local Coastal Program on the grounds that the amendment does conform with, and is adequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified land use plan. available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts which the approval would have on the environment.
There are no feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures
D. RESOLUTION I V (Resolution to deny certification of portions of the Mello I1 LCP Implementation Plan Amendment 1-93, as submitted)
R -V (Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan)
The Commission hereby denies certification of the amendment to the City of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program on the grounds that the amendment does not conform with, and is inadequate to carry out, the provisions of the
certified land use plan.
mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts which the approval would have on the environment.
There are feasible alternatives or feasible
E. RESOLU TION V (Resolution to approve certification of portions of the
Mello I1 LCP Implementation Plan Amendment 1-93, if
modified)
Resolution V (Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan)
The Commi ssion hereby cert ifies 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. mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts which the,approval would have on the environment.
There are no feasible alternatives or feasible
PART 111. SUGG ESTED MODIFICATIONS (underlining indicates where added policy language is recommended for City proposed policies; entirely new policies
'
i
I.. ..
Carldd LCPA 1-93/RF Page 7
-.
7
tr
recommended by staff are so noted)
A. Mello I1 Seame nt Land Use P1 an
1. On page 2, Policy 2-1 "Conservation of Agricultural Lands", new policy language shall be added to read:
1.
2.
3.
Consistent with the provisions of Sections 30241 and 30242 of the Coastal Act, it is the policy of the City to contribute to the preservation of the maximum amount of prime agricultural land throughout the coastal zone by providing for the balanced, orderly conversion of designated non-prime coastal agricultural lands. Non-prime agricultural lands identified on Map X includina t he 79 .97 acres o n the Car 1 tas Propertv are designated Coastal Agriculture and shall be permitted to convert to urban uses subject to the agricultural mitigation or feasibility provisions set forth in the LCP .
Conversion of designated coastal agricultural lands shall be permitted provided that: a) conversion would preserve prime agri cul tural 1 ands wi thi n the statewide coastal zone consi stent wi th sections 30241 and 30242 or concentrate new development consistent with section 30250 of the Coastal Act; or b) continued or renewed agricultural use is not feasible.
Conversion of non-prime coastal agricultural lands shall be permitted pursuant to either Option 1 (Mi tigation), Option 2 (Feasibility Analysis), or ODt ion 3 (Co nversion Fee) as set forth below in this policy. Consistent with Section 30242 of the Act, no feasibility analysis shall be required if a landowner selects Option 1 pr ODt i on 3A
Option 1 -- Mitigation
Non-prime coastal agricultural lands shall be converted to urban use consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan if, prior to approval of a subdivision map, a mitigation program is in effect that permanently preserves one acre of prime agricultural land within the statewide Coastal Zone for each acre of net impacted agricultural land in the LCP that is converted. mi tigation acreage, net impacted agricultural lands are the parcels and acreages designated on Map X and t he 29 .97 acre Carltas ProDertv, minus the acreages in steep slopes (25% or greater) and areas containing sensitive coastal resources that would preclude development.
For purposes of calculating required
The standards and procedures for such a mitigation program shall be set forth in LCP implementing ordinances. agricultural land interests pursuant to this policy shall be limited to: 1) local or state agencies; or 2) tax exempt organizations whose principal chari tab1 e purposes are consi stent with the agricultural
Recipients of prime
-.
Carlsbisd LCPA 1-93/RF
Page 8
mitigation program and qualify under Section 501 (cI(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. Further, mi tigation priority shall be given to preserving prime agricultural lands in the coastal zones of counties selected by the State Coastal Conservancy for pilot program funding, and other counties with similarly qualified programs.
Option 2 -- Determination of Agricultural Feasi bi 1 i ty
If the feasibility of continued agriculture is questionable, either the city or involved landowners may complete an agricultural feasibility study for: a) all coastal agricultural land lands in the LCP; b) 3 or 4 subareas which constitute logical subunits; or, c) contiguous landholdings in single ownership of at least 100 acres. If Option 2 is selected, that portion of the study area determined to be feasible for continued agriculture, if any, shall be converted upon request of the landowner to urban use subject to compliance with the provisions of Option 1 above. That portion of the study area determined not to be feasible for continued agriculture could be converted only after: a) the City approves the feasibility study; b) an LCP amendment is prepared and submitted to the Coastal Commission that provides for the conversion; and c) the Coastal Commission certifies the LCP amendment as to its conformance with the Coastal Act.
Option 3 -- Aaricultur a1 Conversion Mi tiaation Fee
In lieu of t he Drocedu res estab lished bv t he abo ve oDt ions. D ropertv nverted to urb an uses UDO n Da vment of an Aaricultural
Conversion Mi tiaat ion Fee.
mav be co
bv t he Citv Counc il at the t ime it co nsiders a coastal deve 1 ooment permit for urban develooment of the propertv. 1 ess tha n five thousa nd dollars nor more tha n ten thousand do 1 lars
Der ne! con f aaricultural land and shal 1 reflect the
gpDroximate cost o f preserv ina prime aa . ri cul tu ral land Dursuant tp verted acre o
the off -site mi tioation proa ram (ODt ion 1). The fees sha 11 be Da id . All prior to t he issuance of building Dermits for the Droject
mitiaation fees co llected u nder this sect ion shall be deDos i ted in the State Coastal Co nservancv Fund and shall be e xDended bv t he State stal Conservancv in the fol lowina order o f Driori tv:
The amount of the fee shall be dete rmi ned ..
The fee shall not be
& Restorat ion of natural resou rces a nd wildlife habitat in includina but not limited to oavment for
merat ion and maintenance of a laaoon enha ncement Droa ram.
Bati qui tos Laaoon.
b. DeveloDme nt of an intermet ive cente r at 6ue na Vi sta Laaoon .
& Bestoration 0 f beaches manaaed for public use in the coasta 1 zone in the C itv of Carlsbad.
4, Purchase 0 f aari cul tural 1 ands for continued aa ri cul tural D rodu ct ion within the Ca rlsbad Coastal Zone as dete rmined bv t he
Carl sbad C itv cou nci 1.
-.
Car mad LCPA 1-93/RF Page 9
2. Aaricultural Imurovements which will aid in continuation of aari cul tural product ion within the Ca rl sbad Coasta 1 Zone as dete rmined bv t he Carlsbad C i tv Cou ncil.
For purposes of implementation, neither Option 1 nor Option 2 nor Oution 3 shall have priority over the other.
4. To maximize and expedite the preservation of prime agricultural lands throughout the state coastal zone, a1 1 parcels designated coastal agriculture in the LCP includina the 29.97 acre Carltas Prooertv
shall have an underlying urban land use designation as identified on Map Y and the Ca rl sbad Ranch Suec ific Plan. Conversions of coastal
agriculture land permitted by the City in conformance with either Option 1 or Option 2 or ODtion 3 as set forth in Policy 2 shall be consistent with the land use designations on Map Y and t he Carl sbad
Ranch Suecific Plgn.
5. Conversions or parcels designated coastal agriculture that are requested for uses other than the underlying land use designation on Map Y and the Car 1 sbad Ranch Spec ific Plgn shall be subject to an LCP
amendment to allow the City and the Coastal Commission to determine the consistency of proposed urban uses with other applicable provisions of the LCP and the Coastal Act.
2. In Section I1 of the Specific Plan, the following statement shall be added:
The Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan is supplemental to the existing certified Mello I1 Land Use Plan. All the resource protection and land use provisions of the existing certified land use plan are appl i cab1 e to the Carl tas property.
On page 18, under "Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas", a new Policy 3. #3-7 shall be added:
Wet1 ands and riparian resources outside the 1 agoon ecosystems shall be protected and preserved. No direct impacts may be allowed except for the expansion of existing circluation element roads identified in
the certified LCP and those direct impacts associated with
installation of utilities (i .e., water, sewer, an electrical lines).
There must be no feasible 1 ess environmental ly-damagi ng a1 ternative to the proposed disturbance; any allowable disturbance must be performed in the least environmental ly-damagi ng manner. Open space dedication of sensitive resource areas is required.
Mi tigation ratios for any temporary disturbance or permanent
di splacement of i denti fi ed resources shall be determi ned in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Appropriate mitigation ratios shall
be determined based on site specific information. Such information shall include, but is not limited to, the type and size of the development and/or proposed mi ti gati ons (such as planting of
Car 1 srad LCPA 1 -93/RF Page 10
vegetation or the construction of fencing) which will also achieve the purposes of the buffer. The buffer shall be measured landward from the delineated resource. Game and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service shall be consulted in such buffer determinations. Buffer zones shall be protected through the execution of open space easements and passive
recreational uses are restricted to the upper half of the buffer zone.
The California Department of Fish and
4. In Section IV of the Specific Plan, the following provision shall be
added:
Jieiaht I imi tations/Archi tectural Embell i shments
The basic height limit for the Carlsbad Ranch development shall range
from 35 - 45 feet. One architectural embellishment or accent feature, not to exceed 65 feet in height, may be permitted for the
proposed hotel as long as the accent feature is unusable space and restricted in bulk to no more than three percent (3%) of the hotel's overall roof surface.
B. Bello I1 Sea ment I mp 1 emen t ina Ord i nances
5. Section 21.83.020 of the Coastal Agricultural Zone shall be amended as fol lows:
A. "Coastal Agricultural Lands" means those agricultural lands identified on Map X attached to the Land Use Plan certified on June 3, 1981. The following are the lands identified on Map X:
Site I1
Site I11 275 Site IV 109 Lusk 93 Bankers 27 Hunt (Portion Thereof) 200 Carltas 30
377 approxi mate acres
I1 I1
I1 I1
I1 I1
I1 I1
I1 I1
I1 II
E. "Net impacted Agricultural Land" means for purposes of
cal cul ati ng requi red mi ti gation acreage, the parcel s and acreages
designated on Map X and the 29 .97 acre Carl tas Property sui tab1 e for agricultural use minus the acreage in steep slopes (25% of greater)
and areas containing sensitive coastal resources that would preclude
development.
6. Section 21.82.060, subsection C. of the Coastal Agricultural Zone shall be
amended as follows:
1. An applicant or group of applicants may complete an agricultural feasibility analysis for one or any combination of the following study areas : (1) all coastal agricultural lands in the LCP area; (2) individual feasibility analyses for each of the four subunits in
-.
Carl soad LCPA 1-93/RF Page 11
the LCP (refer to Map X)
Site 7 approximate acres Site I11 275 'I I1 Site IV 109 'I I1 Lusk/Bankers Site 120 'I Carltas Site 30 'I
or, (3) an individual study for the Hunt property may be submitted as part of a submitted master plan for each of its subunits.
I1
I1
7. In Section VI1 of the Specific Plan, the following statement shall be
added:
The Carl sbad Ranch Speci fi c P1 an i s suppl emental to the exi sting certi fi ed Me1 lo I1 Imp1 ementi ng Ordinances. A1 1 of the municipal
code provisions and implementing ordinances of the existing Mello I1
Implementation Plan are applicable to the Carltas property.
8. Archi tectu ral Embell i shment /Hotel Site
In Section IV of the Specific Plan, under Design Guidelines, the following
provision shall be added:
A single architectural accent feature, not to exceed 65 feet, may be allowed for the hotel development as long as it is restricted in bulk to no more than three percent (3%) of the hotel's overall roof
surface. Roof surface is defined to include the horizontal roof area exposed at every level, including both flat and sloping surfaces. All other developments within the village center shall not exceed 45 feet in height, inclusive of architectural embellishments.
9. In Section IX of the Specific Plan, under Specific Plan Administration,
the following statement shall be added:
All amendments, whether minor or major, shall be submitted to the Cal ifornia Coastal Commi ssion for thei r rev! ew and approval, prior to
their enactment, in accordance with the Coastal Act of 1976 and the
California Code of Regulations.
PART IV. F INDINGS F 0 R D E NIA L Of AMENDMENT 1-93 TO THE MELO I1 S EGMENT
LAND USE PLAN
The following is a more detailed description of the proposed land use
designations and text changes to the Mello I1 Land Use Plan proposed for that
portion of the LCP relating to the Carlsbad Ranch property under the Carltas ownership. thi 5 property. It is preceded by a brief history of the LCP policies regarding
A. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
This LCP amendment proposal involves changes to both the Land Use Plan and Implementing Ordinances of the Mello I1 segment of the LCP regarding the
-.
Carl Mad LCPA 1-93/RF Page 12
Carlsbad Ranch. The 423 acre property is located to the north of Palomar Airport Road, east of Interstate 5. It is generally characterized by gently to moderately sloping lands overlooking the Pacific to the west, Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the north and Canyon de las Encinas to the south. The majority of the property has been used for agricultural production which predates the Coastal Act. Flowers, tomatoes, and strawberries are grown on the property. Other on-site uses include a palm tree nursery, produce sales stand, and a packing shed located near existing roads, Paseo del Norte and Palomar Airport Road. Surrounding land uses include agricultural land to the north, Car
Country Carlsbad adjacent to the site at the northwest corner, Pea Soup Andersen's to the southwest across Paseo Del Norte, a 7-11 convenience store,
Nurseryland, and the Price Club to the south across Palomar Airport Road, and
undeveloped property to the east.
The primary land use and environmental issues on this property can be limited
to preservation of agricultural lands and the area's scenic resources. There
do remain, however, scattered areas of steep sloping hillsides covered with
native vegetation along the northeastern and southeastern portions of the property along with a riparian area in the south central portion of the site.
Section 30242 of the Coastal Act calls for the preservation of non-prime agricultural lands. In an effort to preserve the agricultural lands of the site consistent with Section 30242 of the Coastal Act, the LCP as originally certified by the Commission in 1981, included special provisions for use of
the contiguous 423 acre Ecke (Carl tas) holdings. Previous LCP amendments
reference the Carlsbad Ranch as being 500+ acres; however, a recent survey indicates the site i s approximately 423 acres. Simi 1 arly, previous LCP
amendments reference that the site contains 137 developable acres which have
been corrected to 92.6 acres by the survey. As with all of the agricultural
lands of the Carlsbad LCP, the subject lands were treated as non-prime lands
even though some of the property could have met the "prime" criteria because of the economic return the land was providing from agricultural production.
The Commission's rationale for treating all lands in the LCP as non-prime was that the majority could not meet the prime status and to treat those that
could meet the criteria solely based on economic return would penalize owners of such lands and would provide incentives for taking the most productive lands out of production.
Major amendments to the LCP certified by the Commission in 1985 significantly
changed the pol i ci es of the LCP regarding agricultural preservation.
amendments essentially allowed for conversion of all of the agriculturally designated lands within the City's Mello I and Mello I1 segments. conversion was to be allowed pursuant to either (1) a determination of infeasibility of continued agricultural use based on area wide studies or, (2)
participation in a mitigation program designed to offset the loss of agricultural lands or (3) payment of an agricultural mitigation fee. The
funds accrued from the fees required under the third option are used in the
restoration and enhancement of natural resources, pub1 i c access opportunities,
and agricultural preservation in Carlsbad.
Those
Such
However, at the request of the subject owner, the Carltas property was not included in the the LCP amendments approved by the Commission for the
-.
Carbad LCPA 1-93/RF Page 13
remainder of the Mello I and Mello I1 segment agricultural lands. Thus, the policies regarding preservation of the agricultural resources of the site
remain those which were originally approved with certification of the Mello I1
segment LCP in 1981 and subsequently amended twice in 1988 (Local Coastal Program Amendments 2-87 and 1-88). Carltas property allows for two different options for use of the overall
acres. site.
The LCP as it now exists for the subject
Each addresses retention of agricultural uses over the majority of the
The first option allows activities that are consistent with continued agricultural production on the various (existing) parcels within the contiguous ownership. crop production, truck farms etc. of some structures, those normally associated with agricultural operations or
family farms, such as silos, barns, roadside stands and a single family
residence.
floral auction houses were added as allowable agricultural uses, subject to size and location limitations.
These uses are defined and include such activities as The permitted uses also allow development
With the certification of LCP Amendment 2-87, farmer's markets and
The second option is a "mixed use" approach to development of the overall
site. Under this option, a portion of the lands are allowed to convert to
urban uses while the remainder of the property must be retained in long-term agricultural production. The rationale for the mixed use approach is that by
allowing conversion and development of a portion of the property, a
supplemental income can be provided which may relieve development pressures and allow for continued agricultural uses on the remainder of the site. With
the certification of LCP Amendment 1-88, the Commission approved the real i gnment of agri cul tural and urban boundari es associated wi th preparing the site to be developed under the mixed use option. However, while the boundaries were changed, the overall acreage devoted to agricultural uses and urban uses were not modified. The Specific Plan proposes the development of the site under the mixed use option.
Under the mixed use option, the LUP allows conversion of a total of 92.6 acres of the overall 423 acres with a requirement that such conversion be done subject to a master plan, in this case, the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. The LCP specifically requires that conversion of any of the acreage is subject to the approval of a master plan which addresses the entire property, including development within the potentially developable area and continued agricultural use of the remaining lands. With the subject amendment request, the City is requesting the approval of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan (CRSP) which
defines permitted land uses, provides detailed development and design
standards, and describes the method by which the Specific Plan will be implemented.
Currently, the 92.6 acres of developable area includes area that is adjacent to existing urban services and roads (Lot #lo, 10.7 acres) and 81.9 acres of developable area located in the middle of Carlsbad Ranch, in an area that has been used for agricultural production. ri dgel i ne, where the Speci fi c P1 an proposes the bulk of new development. It is in this area, on top of the
Carl sba LCPA 1-93/RF Page 14
In addition to the LCP provisions regarding agricultural preservation, the site i s a1 so subject to Wi 11 i amson Act Agri cul tural Preserve contracts which provide for tax assessment at a rate lower than fair market value for those acres retained in agricultural use. The contract has been amended twice. The first amendment adjusted the contract boundary in addition to adding botanical gardens, farmer's markets, and a floral auction to the list of permitted uses. present configuration of the preserve. Currently, the Carltas acreage now
under contract is the same as that designated for continued agricultural use in the "mixed use" option of the LCP.
The second amendment adjusted the contract boundary resulting in the
B. THE PROPOS ED LCP AMENDMENT
The City proposes to change the underlying land use designations for approximately 113 acres from Non-Residential Reserve (NRR) to a number of other designations: Professional Offi ce/Planned Industrial (O/PI) , Community Commercial/Office/Planned Industrial (C/O/PI) , Community Commercial (C) , Travel Service/Community Commercial (TS/C) and Open Space (OS). The site is presently designated as NRR on 384.4 acres with the remaining designation as Open Space (OS) on 39.1 acres. requires new development to be accompanied by a master plan prior to its redesignation to another land use and permits only continued agricultural use
in the interim. The current Open Space area on 39.1 acres corresponds to a
portion of the property designated for continued agricultural use and includes
the flower fields.
The NRR designation is a holding zone that
The City also proposes to change the underlying NRR land use designation on 24.5 acres to OS. Identified as Parcel 11 of the Specific Plan, this acreage is currently designated in the LCP as agricultural lands retained for continued agricultural use under the mixed use option of the LCP. It is also part of the agricultural preserve under Wi 11 iamson Act contract. The proposed 1 and use desi gnations are accompani ed by correspondi ng modi fi cations to the
zoning designations of the implementing ordinances of the LCP.
The Specific Plan proposes non-residential designations to allow for a mix of uses (office, research and development/l i ght i ndustri a1 , retai 1 , hotel, and accessory uses) to create a "village center" along the ridgeline. The remaining developable portion of the Specific Plan, Parcel 10 located off the ridgeline adjacent to the existing auto retail center, is planned to support a variety of uses. The Specific Plan proposes to develop 92.6 acres in office, research and development, retail, and hotel uses; 24.5 acres for a driving range and putting green: and retain 306.4 acres for agriculture. Development
would result in approximately 1,450,000 sq.ft. of office, research and
development uses; 220,000 sq.ft. of retail uses, and a 280 room hotel.
the exception of the 24.5 acres now proposed as open space, the Specific Plan
is consistent with the "mixed use" option of the Mello I1 LCP with respect to
conforming with the urban/agri cul tural boundary establ i shed in previous Commission actions on this property. As noted, LCP Amendment 1-88 determined the location and total acreage of the site which could be proposed for development .
With
I
Carmad LCPA 1-93/RF Page 15
Additionally, the amendment proposes text changes to the si te-specific policy regarding the Carltas property in the Mello I1 LCP, Policy 2-2. The changes include a change in LCP references from Master Plan to Specific Plan, amendment of the Mello I1 LCP to include the city's latest building height regulations , an update of acreage figures referenced i n various pol i ci es , and adding language to condition the specific plan to preserve in agriculture and/or public recreation uses the areas of the site not currently proposed to be developed for as long as feasible.
All of the proposed LCP modifications are found on Exhibits 1 - 5. The exhibits include maps of the existing and proposed LCP land use designations for the Carltas property. The exhibits also include a copy of the text changes whi ch are proposed as modifications.
C. CONFORMANCE WITH SECT10 N 3000 1.5 OF THE COAS TAL ACT
The Commission finds, pursuant to Section 30512.2b of the Coastal Act, that the land use plan amendment, as set forth in the resolution for denial as submitted, is not consistent with the policies and requirements of Chapter 3 to the extent necessary to achieve the basic state goals specified in Section 30001.5 of the Coastal Act. It reads:
The Legislature further finds and declares that the basic goals of the state for the coastal zone are to:
a> Protect, maintain and, where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and manmade resources.
b) Assure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources taking into account the social and economical needs of the
people of the state.
recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consi stent with sound resource conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners.
c> Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public
d> Assure priority for coastal-dependent and coastal-related development over other developments on the coast.
e) Encourage state and local initiatives and cooperation in preparing procedures to imp1 ement coordinated planning and development for mutually beneficial uses, including educational uses, in the coastal zone.
D.
1.
to is
BAPTER 3 CONSISTENB
_Land Resources /Ami cul tu re. Section 30242 of the Coastal Act states:
All other lands suitable for agricultural use shall not be converted
nonagricultural uses unless (1 1 continued or renewed agricultural use not feasible, or (2) such conversion would preserve prime agricultural
-.
Carl s'dad LCPA 1-93/RF Page 16
land or concentrate development consistent with Section 30250. Any such permitted conversion shall be compatible with continued agricultural use on surrounding lands.
The proposed LUP amendment would allow the land use designation of 113 acres of the site to be changed from an agricultural designation to multiple non-residential designations. As noted, in its previous reviews on this site, the Commission established those areas that could be developed for urban uses and those areas that would remain in agriculture. Thus, the Commission has clearly anticipated the development of this site under the mixed use concept identified in the Mello I1 LCP and subject to various mitigation and land use control measures designed to enhance agricultural preservation and to minimize conflicts between agricultural and urban uses. acres identified as Parcel 11 in the Specific Plan, the acreage proposed for redesignation corresponds to those areas identified as sui table for urban development under the certified LCP.
With the exception of 24.5
The City proposes the redesignation of 24.5 acres associated with Parcel 11 from NRR to OS. the driving range proposed for this site in the Specific Plan. However, this
area is currently identified in the LCP and the Williamson Act as lands to
remain in the agriculture preserve. The proposed driving range appears to be an acceptable use under the provisions of the contract. The City found that
removal of this parcel from agricultural production would not significantly
reduce the acreage remaining in agriculture (306 acres), and that the use of
the parcel for recreational activity would be consistent with LCP policies
regarding public access and recreational uses. Currently, both the Mello I1 LCP and the land conservation contract limit land uses within the preserve to agricultural uses as well as accessory uses for agriculture. As noted, those lands identified in the Mello I1 LCP as agricultural lands are identical to those lands covered under the Williamson Act contract for the property.
The existing OS designation certified in the LCP would permit
The City also proposes amending language to the text of Policy 2-2 B.l of the
Mello I1 LCP to add public recreational uses as a permitted use within the
agricultural preserve on the proposed 24.5 acre Parcel 11, which will be
developed as a public golf driving range. Item B.7. of Policy 2-2 clarifies that a maximum of 24.5 acres of the agricultural preserve can be devoted to public recreational uses. The remainder of this policy provides that residential , commercial, and other non-residential uses may be developed on up to 92.6 acres of the site subject to a Master Plan for the site. change specifies that "development of land within the Agricultural Preserve will be subject to the provisions of the Williamson Act and specifically the Land Conservation Contract in effect at the time of development." The property owner is amending the Williamson Act contract to allow for the recreational use only on Parcel 11. The proposed amendment includes revising Policy 2-2 to preserve in public recreational use (on Parcel 11) and/or agricultural use for as long as is feasible ,those areas of the Carlsbad Ranch
not proposed for development 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
which the contract will have expired. Therefore, by the years 2002 and 2007,
The text
Carlsmd LCPA 1-93/RF Page 17
none of the site will remain under Williamson Act contract. However, any proposed future conversion of agricultural lands within the Carl sbad Ranch would be the subject of a local coastal program amendment.
In effect, the City's proposal to redesignate Parcel 11 from its agricultural designation under the certified LCP to an urban use is a request to adjust the agricultural/urban boundary between the two uses. While, in past actions, the Commission has approved boundary changes between the two, the overall acreage
devoted to agricultural uses and urban uses was not modified. Thus, the amendment request indirectly amends the boundary by seeking approval to add recreational uses as a permitted use within the agricultural preserve. Whi le, in 1988, the Commission approved the redesignation of 39 acres of agricultural lands to open space to preserve the flower fields located on the western portion of the site, that action preserved an agricultural use within the open
space designation. The current proposal would not preserve an agricultural use within the open space designation.
The Commission cannot find that the conversion of agricultural lands to an urban use without mitigation is consistent with the certified Mello I1 LCP. The site specific policy in the LCP regarding the Carltas property does not
include a provision to mitigate the conversion of agricultural lands to other
uses. However, the Mello I1 LCP provides three mitigation options for such
conversions for projects in areas outside of the Carltas property: (1) "Prime
Land Exchange"; (2) "Determination of Agricultural Feasi bi 1 i ty"; and (3)
"Agricultural Conversion Mi tigation Fee". Briefly, the options are:
#l. Conversion of non-prime agricultural lands subject to a mi tigation program wherein prime agricultural lands el sewhere in the California coastal zone would be preserved for agricultural uses on a 1:l basis.
#2. Conversion to urban uses on lands on which, after appropriate analysis, continued agricultural production proves infeasible from a
f i nanci a1 s tandpoi nt .
#3 Conversion to urban uses through payment of a mitigation fee of between $5,000 and 810,000 per net acre of agricultural lands converted. The fees collected through such conversion would be deposited with the State Coastal Conservancy for use on projects within the City of Carlsbad which, serve to enhance coastal lagoons and beach areas or, preserve agricultural lands within Carl sbad' s
coastal zone.
Under the first option, a property owner could elect to participate in a
mitigation program which would preserve prime agricultural lands in the California coastal zone on a 1:l ratio. For each (net) acre of non-prime agricultural land affected within the Mello I1 plan area, an acre of prime
agri cultural 1 and would be preserved el sewhere in Cali forni a' s coastal zone. The lands would be preserved through acquisition of interests over such property which would in turn be conveyed to local or state agencies or non-profi t organizations whose principal purposes are consistent with the agricultural mi tigation program. Under the program mi tigation priority would
CarTSbad LCPA 1-93lRF Page 18
be given to preserving "prime agricultural lands in the coastal zones of count1 es selected by the State Coastal Conservancy for pi lot program funding, and other counties with similarly qualified programs."
Under the second option the City or involved property owners could contest the feasibility of agricultural lands, and, consistent with Section 30242, conduct a analysis to determine the feasibility of agriculture in the affected area. The language calls for such study to be conducted for "a) all coastal agricultural lands in the LCP; b) 3 or 4 subareas which constitute logical subunits; or, c> contiguous land holdings in single ownership of at least 100 acres." Should the analysis show agriculture to be infeasible, the land designated as such could be converted to urban uses consistent with proposed underlying land use designations. The policy provides, however, that such conversion could occur only after: "a> the City approves the feasibility study; b) an LCP amendment is prepared and submitted to the Coastal Commission which provides for the conversion; and c) the Coastal Commission certifies the amendment request as to it's conformance with the Coastal Act. I'
Under the third option, the owner of designated agricultural lands could mitigate the conversion of such lands through payment of a fee of "not less than $5,000 nor more than $10,000 per acre". The amount of the fee would be determined by the City of Carlsbad at the time of a development proposal and would be based on the cost of preserving prime agricultural lands in the state coastal zone pursuant to the off-site mitigation program (option #1) of the Basic Agricultural Pol i ci es. The fees coll ected would be deposited with the State Coastal Conservancy. The proposed conversion fee funds would then be expended by the Conservancy in the following order of priority:
1. Restoration of natural resources and wi ldli fe habitat in Batiqui tos Lagoon, including, but not limited to, payment for operation and mal ntenance of a 1 agoon enhancement program.
2. Development of an interpretive center at Buena Vista Lagoon.
3. Restoration of beaches managed for public use in the coastal zone in the . Ci ty of Carl sbad.
4. Purchase of agricultural lands for continued agricultural production within the Carlsbad coastal zone as determined by the Carlsbad City Counci 1.
5 Agricultural improvements which will aid in continuation of agricultural production within the Carlsbad coastal zone as determined by the Carlsbad City Counci 1.
As noted, the above options do not currently apply to the Carltas property but are applied within the Mello I1 plan area on lands subject to the Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone. As noted, the Carltas property was subject to a site-specific LUP policy that allowed the 423 acre site to be developed under a mixed use option incorporating both urban and agricultural uses but with the majority of the site to remain in agriculture. The driving range, although a
-.
Carwad LCPA 1-93/RF Page 19
public recreation and visitor-serving use, is nonetheless an urban use and
goes beyond the urban/agriculture boundary set in previous Commission actions. support the redesignation of the land and changes to the text of the site specific policy regarding the Carltas property subject to one of the above agricultural conversion options. The alternative would be to deny the redesignation of Parcel 11. Because preservation of agricultural lands is not
achieved with the proposed redesignation, there is a conflict with Section
30242 of the Coastal Act and the agricultural preservation policies of the
certified LCP. Therefore, the Commission finds that the amendment is
inconsistent with the Coastal Act and must be rejected.
While not subject to the overlay zone, the Commission can only
2. Visual Resources . Section 30251 of the Act states, in part:
The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance vi sual qual i ty in vi sual ly degraded areas.
Permitted development
The site is composed of gently rolling topography and contains three north-south trending ridges. Elevations range from a high of 280 mean sea
level (msl) in the northeastern portion of the site to a low of 60 feet MS1 in the southwestern portion of the site. agricultural production.
Because the proposed development is planned for the top of the ridge, the buildings would be visible along the top of the ridge from many points along
1-5, Palomar Airport Road, and Cannon Road, all listed as Scenic Highways in the LCP.
are in bloom; therefore, any development on the site would draw viewer
attention, particularly in the spring. Other factors that affect visual resources include grading, which i s proposed at 1,145,000 cubic yards and building height. All the buildings in the village center are planned at two levels at 35 feet or three levels at 45 feet with the exception of one 65-foot non-habi tab1 e architectural accent feature associated with the proposed hotel.
Much of the site is currently in
The site is a Carlsbad landmark in the spring when the ranunculuses
The proposed 280-room hotel is sited on the ridgeline at a maximum height of
65 feet, the highest 20 feet as an architectural embellishment (tower). The
City has recently passed an amendment to the municipal code to allow for building height to fifty-five feet for large developments (over 40 acres) subject to a number of conditions, one of which is that the site must develop with a regional commercial use that would accommodate large anchor tenants. Also, certain architectural projections are allowed in a number of zones,
including the C-2 and C-T zones that govern development on the hotel site. The ordinance provides that architectural features may be permitted up to
fifty-five feet through a site development plan provided they (1) do not
function to provide useable floor area; (2) do not accommodate and/or screen
Carl smd LCPA 1 -93/RF Page 20
building equipment; (3) do not adversely impact adjacent properties; and (4) are necessary to ensure a building's design excellence. As proposed, it would
be setback approximately 150 feet from the edge of agricultural uses, and 1,000 feet from Palomar Airport Road. The EIR states that the hotel 's
architectural feature would add visual diversity to the profile of the project
by breaking up the line of development along the ridge and further enhance the visual identity of the area. The Commission approved a hotel of similar height and scale (4 levels and 45 feet and 254 rooms, however without archi tectural embell i shments extending beyond the roofl i ne) within the Aviara
development on a ridge above Batiquitos Lagoon. The visual impact of both
hotels are partially mitigated by their distance from scenic features and by vi rtue of thei r location wi thi n urbanizing areas.
Gradi ng and bui 1 di ng simulations have been performed from key vi ewpoi nts. These simulations indicate the proposed development is compatible with views
of similar urban uses in the adjacent area which include Pea Soup Anderson,
Car Country Carlsbad, and other development along Paseo del Norte, Palomar Airport Road, and Cannon Road. In addition, the proposed building setbacks, agricultural buffers, and landscape features provide screening from many viewpoints. The Specific Plan contains development standards and design gui del i nes (i . e. , bui 1 di ng coverage standards , agri cul tural setbacks , bui 1 di ng and 1 andscape setbacks, tree planting standards , vari ed height and roofl i nes to reduce appearance of bulk, varied compositional elements of street level storefronts to create pedestrian interest, color buildings to surrounding
areas, etc.), that will protect the visual quality of the area.
However, the Commission remains concerned over the visual impact of the hotel
as it is sited on the ridgeline in a visually prominent area.
recently amended its municipal code to allow certain architectural projections in a number of zones, including the C-2 and C-T zones that are proposed on the
hotel site. Regarding those zones, the amended ordinance states that buildings shall not exceed 45 feet and three levels; it also provides that architectural features may be permitted to 55 feet upon specific findings that the features: (1) do not function to provide useable floor area; (2) do not accommodate and/or screen building equipment; (3) do not adversely impact adjacent properties; and (4) are necessary to ensure a building's design excellence. The proposed hotel includes a tower that would extend to 65 feet high, apparently inconsistent with the zoning requirements as amended. Additionally, the Specific Plan is si lent with respect to spatial requirements
regarding the hotel's design. Thus, the Commission is concerned with the visual impact of the proposed tower. A large, bulky architectural feature at this location has the potential to cause adverse visual impacts because of its ridgeline siting.
The City has
For this reason the Commission rejects the Specific Plan.
3. Sensitive Resources
I
Sections 30231 and 30240 of the Coastal Act protect and preserve sensitive coastal resources such as wetlands and riparian habitat. comprised of three gently sloping parallel ridges that traverse the site in a north-south direction, providing for an overall vertical change of 200 feet. The 423 acre site is gently sloping with only a small portion of land, about
The site is
Carlsdad LCPA 1-93/RF Page 21
30 acres, achieving slopes of 25% of greater. No naturally-vegetated steep slopes would be impacted by the Specific Plan; dual criteria steep slopes are concentrated at the northeast corner of the site adjacent to Macario Canyon.
The ridges that run through the site provide panoramic views of the ocean, Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the City of Carlsbad, and are prominent landforms that are highly visible from the west. Cultivation of flowers on the west
facing slopes create a colorful landscape that are unique visual resources of
Carlsbad. Natural plant communities that occur on the site are limited, due
to the history of agricultural uses on the site. Coastal sage scrub and mixed
chaparral occur within two areas along the eastern perimeter of the site not proposed for development with the Specific Plan. There is also 2.65 acres of
riparian scrub within the site including a stand of riparian habitat (willows)
located within an existing desilatation basin on the southern portion of the property.
With respect to addressing indirect impacts to the nearby Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the Canyon de las Encinas watersheds, the Specific Plan proposes a comprehensive system of water detention basins and conveyance systems which are intended to improve the quality of water runoff prior to being discharged off-site and ensures that urban runoff does not flow over agricultural land and vice versa.
integrated system of detention basins, grassed swales and catchment basins which filter storm water runoff before discharging it into the City's storm drainage system which eventually enter the above watersheds. notes this system would minimize impacts of sedimentation and erosion to sensitive areas.
The drainage system calls for the development of an
The Commission
However, while no adverse impacts to resources are anticipated in the Spec Plan, the Commission notes the Specific Plan does not contain policies
regarding habitat protection and defers subsequent environmental rev1 ew of
on-site resources to a later local coastal program amendment. The Commiss
fi c
on finds that based on this lack of specificity regarding resource protection, the Specific Plan must be rejected as it cannot be found consistent with Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. A Suggested Modification is attached to indicate that the resource protection policies of the Mello I1 LCP are a supplement to the Specific P1 an to assure adequate resource protection absent such policies in the Specific Plan. This Suggested Modification was
previously adopted by the Commission in Local Coastal Progam Amendment 1-92 to
protect sensitive wetland and riparian resources that exist outside lagoon
ecosystems within the City of Carlsbad. However, this requirement was not adopted by the City within six months as required under the Commission's regulations and has expired. in this case. Only with the modification can the Commission find that the
Specific Plan can be found consistent with Sections 30240 and 30231 of the Coastal Act.
Therefore, the Commission finds it appropriate
PART V. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE CIT Y OF -0 MELLO I1 LAND USE PLAN
PIMEND MFNT 1-93. I F MODIFIED
A. SUMMA RY FINDINGICO NFORMANCE WITH SECTION 3000 1.5 OF THE COAS TAL ACT
As previously stated, the proposed Mello I1 land use plan amendment is not
-.
Carlsad LCPA 1-93/RF Page 22
acceptable in its current form. For this reason, and as stated in the following section of this report, suggested modification language has been provided to speci fi cal ly i denti fy what agricultural preservation and resource protection provisions are necessary to find the request approvable under
Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. Section 30512.2b of the Coastal Act, that the land use plan amendment, as set
forth in the resolution for certification with suggested modifications, is consistent with the policies and requirements of Chapter 3 to the extent
necessary to achieve the basic state goals specified in Section 30001.5 of the Coastal Act, as previously cited.
The Commission finds, pursuant to
B. CHAPTER 3 CO NSISTENCY
1. Aari cul tural Preservatio n. Sections 3024 and 30242 of the Coastal
Act concern the protection of agricultural lands. Mello I1 LCP segment was certified by the Commiss on, the two major concerns were preservation of agricultural uses and protection of environmentally sensitive habitats. Regarding agricultural preservation, a major i ssue was
minimizing agricultural versus urban impacts by developing stable
urbanlagri cultural boundaries . accompli shed this objective by concentrating development along 1-5, Palomar Ai rport Road, and the El Cami no Real transportation corridors and preservi ng the interior areas, where public infrastructure is lacking, for continued agri cul tural use.
Major amendments to the LCP certified by the Commission in 1985 significantly changed the policies of the LCP regarding agricultural preservation. Those amendments essentially a1 lowed for conversion of a1 1 of the agriculturally designated lands within the City's Mello I and Mello I1 segments. conversion was to be allowed pursuant to either (1) a determination of infeasibility of continued agricultural use based on area wide studies or, (2)
participation in a mitigation program designed to offset the loss of
agricultural lands or (3) payment of an agricultural mitigation fee. funds accrued from the fees required under the third option are used in the restoration and enhancement of natural resources, pub1 i c access opportuni ti es,
and agricultural preservation in Carlsbad.
However, as noted, the Carltas property was not included in the the LCP amendments approved by the Commission for the remainder of the Mello I and Me1 lo I1 segment agri cul tural 1 ands . preservation of the agricultural resources on the Carltas site remain those which were originally approved with certification of the Mello I1 segment LCP
in 1981 and subsequently amended twice in 1988 (Local Coastal Program
Amendments 2-87 and 1-88).
property allows for two different options for use of the overall 423 acres. Each addresses retention of agriculture uses over the majority of the site.
In 1981, when the Carlsbad
For the most part, the certi fi ed LCP
Such
The
Thus, the pol i ci es regarding
The LCP as it now exists for the subject Carltas
As noted, the property is being developed under the mixed use option provided in the LCP. by the City of Carlsbad and the Commission in their previous reviews to reduce
land use compatibli ty impacts between urban and agricultural uses as follows:
The Specific Plan incorporates a number of features recommended
Carl smd LCPA 1 -93/RF Page 23
Regrade the road cut adjacent to Palomar Airport Road in the area designated as "Open Space" to a1 low agricultural use of the land. Soi 1 s in the regraded area should be amended to be equivalent to the existing Class I11 Marina Soils.
A grade separated crossing for farm vehicles and pedestrians at the northerly end of Road A.
Farm vehicle crossings incorporated into the design of the pedestrian connection between the Paseo Center and the Village Center.
A 50-foot setback between buildings and adjoining agricultural uses.
A 6-foot solid wall or landscaped berm installed around the perimeter of the area designated for development, to provide a physical barrier between urban and agricultural uses, and to restrict access into agricultural areas.
Disposal of irrigation and storm water runoff from buildings, streets, parking lots, and landscaped areas through a system of detention basins and storm drains.
A storm drain system to segregate urban and agricultural runoff.
Landscaping which includes windbreaks to aid in reducing the effects of farm sprayi ng and dust generati on.
Landscape plant material selected for resistance to pests, particularly aphids , thrips , whitefly, and spider mi tes which could affect agri cultural crops.
Project sponsor shall notify all future tenants, users, or landowners of the developable area that the area is subject to dust, pesticides, and odor with adjacent farm operations. The notice shall be included on all deeds to parcels created, as well as in the rental and lease agreements.
Farm operators shall regularly water roads to minimize the drift of dust to adjoining uses. All agricultural leases for the property shall contain thi s requirement.
Should water rates increase as a result of urban development on the Carlsbad Ranch, the project sponsor wi 11 subsidize water rates for agricultural operations so that they equal agricultural water rates. 1 eases for the property shall contain this requi rement. A1 1
The cost of all mitigation measures shall be borne by the project sponsor and not passed on to the agricultural operators. Should the property owners choose not to farm on a yearly basis, a reasonable effort shall be made to offer the agricultural land for lease or rent for agricultural uses at a value equal to or less than the average market rents for
Carl sl5'ad LCPA 1-93/RF Page 24
similarly situated agricultural land within a 30 mile radius of the Carl sbad Ranch.
With respect to the first measure listed, the regrading of the road cut adjacent to Palomar Airport Road to allow agricultural use of the land, the Commission notes that although this grading would occur in the open space area associated with flower growing and outside the developable area for urban uses, the policy can be found consistent with the certified LUP. This was a previous policy adopted by the Commission in local coastal program amendment
1-88 and would enhance flower growing by lowering the existing steep slope to a 6:l grade. As noted, the policy calls for the amending of the soils after grading to further enhance farming opportunities. Similarly, the Commission notes that a number of other agricultural areas would be graded under the Speci fi c P1 an. required by the City of Carlsbad for road construction and to smooth out contours within agricultural areas to better sustain farming and flower growing operations. Commission's previous actions on the site and with the agricultural preservation policies in the certified Mello I1 LCP.
Thi s grading i s proposed to meet engi neeri ng standards
Grading of this sort can be found consistent with the
As noted in the previous section of this report, the currently proposed amendment would not provide sui tab1 e protection for agricultural preservation and cannot be found consistent with the Mello I1 LCP or with the above Coastal Act sections. lands to urban uses without mitigating the adverse effect of this conversion. For example, Road tlB1l, a two lane road planned to provide east-west access to the site, encroaches 2.07 acres into agricultural lands. The road is a permanent use and represents about two acres of encroachment which would not be returned to agriculture. Similarly, a promenade trail connection (3.4 acres) , which provides access between the Paseo Center parcel and development on the ridgeline, represents a permanent encroachment into lands designated as agriculture both under the LCP and the Williamson Act. above 5.47 acres of unmitigated encroachment to the 24.5 acres of encroachment associated with the golf facility on Parcel 11 results in conversion of 29.97 acres of agricultural lands to urban uses beyond what was envisioned in past Commission actions on this site.
That is, the amendment request seeks to convert agricultural
However, adding the
Another encroachment includes a proposed desiltation basin (.54 acres) on Lot 17. However, while this encroachment supports urban use, it also supports the existing and continuing agricultural operations. In addition, the specific plan will provide for retention and enhancement of the present riparian and freshwater marsh habitat values in the natural drainagecourse. As such, the Commission finds the desiltation basin will serve to support the on-going agricultural production and it will maintain other important coastal resources. computation of lands subject to the agricultural conversion pol i ci es.
The Commission recognizes that development pressure to convert agricultural land to urban uses is great within Carlsbad and that sustaining agriculture within the City will be difficult at best. In this case, the Commission notes that some conversion of agricultural lands on the Carltas property is
Therefore, this acreage does not need to be included in the
Carl s-d LCPA 1-93/RF Page 25
beneficial to the long-term viability of agricultural operations, as the Mello I1 LCP provides that urban uses subsidize the remaining agricultural use of the site.
However, while the Commission can accept that conversion of certain agricultural lands is an economic reality, the Commission cannot allow the these lands to be converted without adequate mitigation. Therefore, the suggested modifications require that the existing agricultural conversion policies within the certified Mello I1 LCP be applied to the 29.97 acres of land which exceed the amount of property planned for urban development under the mixed use option. identifies that the Carlsbad Ranch property is subject to the requirements of the Coastal Agriculture Zone, including provisions for the conversion of
agriculturally designated lands within the plan area to urban uses.
conversion, as approved in both the LUP and ordinances, would be subject to a mi tigation program, a determination of infeasibility of agriculture or payment of an agricultural conversion mitigation fee. proposed amendment be found consistent with Sections 30241 and 30242 of the Coastal Act.
The suggested modification to the land use plan
This
Only as suggested can the
2. Visual Resource5 . Section 30251 of the Act provides that new development be sited and designed to preserve and protect visual resources.
As noted in the preceding section of this report, the proposed 280-rOOm hotel is sited on the ridgeline at a maximum height of 65 feet, the highest 20 feet
as an architectural embell i shment (tower). contains a number of provisions to mitigate the visual impacts of new
development on this ridgeline site, the Commission remains concerned over the visual impact of the hotel. spati a1 requi rements regarding the hotel I s design. A 1 arge , bulky architectural feature at this location has the potential to cause adverse
visual impacts because of its ridgeline siting. For this reason, the
Commission rejected the Specific Plan. that the basic height limit for the Carlsbad Ranch development shall range
from 35 - 45 feet. One architectural embellishment or accent feature, not to
exceed 65 feet in height, may be permitted for the proposed hotel as long as the accent feature is unuseable space and restricted in bulk to no more than
three percent (3%) of the hotel's overall roof surface. Therefore, the
Commission finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with Section 30251 of the Coastal Act.
A1 though the Specific Plan
The Specific Plan is silent with respect to
The suggested modification requires
3. -went Intensitv . Section 30250(a) of the Coastal Act states, in part:
(a) New residential , commercial , or industrial development, except as otherwise provided in this division, shall be located within, contiguous
with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to
accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in
other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have a
significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on
coastal resources.
-.
Carlsadd LCPA 1-93/RF Page 26
In addition, Section 30252 of the Act states, in part:
The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public access to the coast by (1) facilitating the provision or extension of transit service, Candl (2) providing commercial facilities within or adjoining residential development or in other areas that will minimize the use of coastal access roads ....
Finally, Section 30253(d) requires that new development “minimize energy consumption and vehi cl e mi 1 es travel ed. I’
The proposed LUP amendment would allow the land use designation of 113 acres of the site to be changed from a holding zone for agricultural uses (NRR) to multiple non-residential land use designations. The site is located at the northeast quadrant of the Palomar Airport Road/Paseo Del Norte intersection, approximately 200 yards east of the Palomar Airport RoadIInterstate 5 interchange. The site is primarily in agricultural production, and is surrounded by commercial development to the west and south, and by lands that
are either vacant or in agricultural production to the north and east.
Palomar McClellen Airport is located about three miles easterly of the site.
The proposed Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan will significantly increase the intensity of development in this area. As proposed, development includes 92.6 acres in office, research and development, retai 1, and hotel uses; 24.5 acres for a driving range and putting green, and accommodates approximately 1,450,000 sq.ft. of office, research and development uses; 220,000 sq.ft. of retai 1 uses, and a 280 room hotel.
In order to determine if the proposed land use change is consistent with relevant Coastal Act policies, however, the increase in traffic resulting from the proposed land use change must be evaluated as to whether or not it will have significant adverse impacts on coastal access, by, among other things, impeding coastal vi si tors through increased traffic congestion on coastal access routes or precipitating development of other pub1 i c faci 1 i ti es that could adversely impact sensitive resources.
Palomar Airport Road is a major east-west street in the City of Carlsbad. Generally speaking, coastal access in north San Diego County is impeded by the relative absence of east-west traffic arteries capable of accommodating large numbers of coastal visitors from inland communities. At present, the only major highway serving as an east-west connector in North County is Highway 78. All other east-west traffic occurs on surface streets such as Palomar Airport Road. The next nearest freeway is Highway 52, located over 20 miles to the south of Highway 78. access routes in the North County area, the additional increment of traffic on
Palomar Airport Road resulting from the land use designation change could
result in significant impacts on coastal access, particularly given the
current status of the 1-5 overcrossing of Palomar Airport Road.
Given this relative paucity of east-west coastal
In this area, Palomar Airport Road has been widened to six lanes (three lanes in either direction). The six lane configuration extends from about Paseo Del
-.
Carl &ad LCPA 1-93/RF
Page 27
Norte and continues to the east, well past the project site. Westerly of Paseo Del Norte, however, the road narrows to two lanes (one lane in either direction) at the 1-5 overcrossing. The Commission has recently approved the widening of the 1-5 overcrossing (CDP #6-90-270), and construction is currently underway.
Currently, the City adopted performance standard for intersections (LOS "D") is not met at the intersections of Palomar Airport Road/Paseo del Norte and Palomar Airport Road/I-5 northbound ramps. However, at present , the peak period for traffic occurs on weekdays between 4:OO PM and 6:OO PM. At other
periods, the identified critical intersections meet the adopted performance standard for intersections in Carlsbad, including morning peaks. In other
words, at those times when beach visitor traffic is of concern, both traffic along Palomar Airport Road and traffic resulting from the proposed land use change appear not to be of concern.
Because the retail commercial uses associated with this development would be more likely to result in traffic on weekends, however, there still remains a potential for beach visitor traffic impacts resulting from the proposed land use change. In response to concerns raised by Commission staff regarding the nearby Price Club site, a supplementary traffic study specifically addressing weekend traffic impacts for commercial retail uses was prepared in 1991. Trip generation data taken from this study indicates that trip generation is higher on the weekends than weekdays with Saturday trip generation being higher than Sundays.
While the increase in weekend retail trips is of concern, the majority of
traffic on Palomar Airport Road at this time appears to be traffic generated
by the extensive industrial/business park areas along Palomar Airport Road and
along El Camino Real. Generally, this traffic would be expected to be limited to weekdays, and total weekend approach volumes at the 1-51 Palomar Airport Road interchange, even with the proposed land use changes, are anticipated to be considerably lower than on weekdays. Given that the proposed increases in traffic resulting from the land use change would be off-day and off-peak from typical beach visitor travel days and times, it is not anticipated that the proposed land use changes would result in any impacts upon the ability of the public to gain access to coastal areas.
Cannon Road currently passes under 1-5 to the west and extends approximately 1,600 feet east of 1-5 along the northern boundary of the site. It would provide access to the site at its intersection with Road A. It is planned to extend easterly to the City's eastern limit and carry 10,000 vehicle trips per day along its east segment, while the segment west of 1-5 carries about 8,000 vehicle trips per day. traffic circulation impacts on Cannon Road resulting from buildout of the
Specific Plan, it is concerned with potential adverse impacts to coastal resources that exist near the planned alignment of Cannon Road and the
potential effect the Specific Plan may have on its ultimate design and alignment.
While the Commission is not concerned with immediate
As originally submitted by the City in 1978 in its Agua Hedionda LUP
submittal, Cannon Road would have resulted in about 11 acres of wetland fill.
-.
Carl sWad LCPA 1-93/RF Page 28
Subsequent to the Commission's action to deny the submittal, a negotiating committee was formed to address the remaining issues of the Agua Hedionda LUP, including Cannon Road. The committee developed a conceptual alignment involving the least amount of adverse impacts upon lagoon resources. agreed upon alignment resulted in wetland fill in two locations. The
As stated In Policy 5.8 of the certified LUP, the policies regarding the protection of resources in conjunction with the extension of Cannon Road are as follows:
a.
b.
C.
No portion of the road construction shall involve the filling or
dredging of fresh or saltwater marsh wetlands, except as noted in the
letter from the Coastal Commission to the State Department of Fish
and Game.
To the extent that there any portion of the road construction would
occur in or adjacent to an environmental ly sensitive habitat area other than a wetland, the road shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade such areas, shall avoid significant disruption of habitat values, and shall be sited and designed to be compatible with the continuance of such habitat values.
To the extent that are no feasible 1 ess environmental ly-damagi ng alternatives and the road as designed would nonetheless result in adverse impacts to environmental ly sensitive habitat area, such
impacts shall be fully mitigated in accordance with the recommendations of the State Department of Fish and Game.
In Coastal Development Permit #6-89-195, the Commission approved the
construction of Reach I of Cannon Road, identified as a circulation element
major road in the LCP. Reach I was approved at 1.25 miles long, running from
Paseo Del Norte to the eastern side of Macario Canyon. approved as a four-lane major arterial, with a 102-foot right of way. Macario
Canyon would be crossed by a bridge of about 500 feet in length resulting in wet1 and and riparian fi 11 . The permit was approved with conditions regarding mi tigation for resource impacts. In Coastal Development Permit #6-90-217, the Commission approved the Reach I1 Cannon Road sewerline from an existing sewerline in El Camino Real to the sewerline that was approved as part of
Reach I on the west side of Macario Canyon subject to mitigation of resource
impacts .
The roadway was
The site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 13 within the City
of Carlsbad. To ensure adequate public facilities and services are available,
Zone 13 requires certain performance standards must be met prior to
development of the Specific Plan. Regarding traffic generation, a total of
70,000 ADT is assumed for the proposed buildout of Zone 13 in 2005. associated with the bui ldout of the Carlsbad Ranch is 51,456 vehicle trips per
day which reflects development proposed with the Specific Plan and future unspecified development of the agricultural lands. The submitted traffic analysis also considered other projects located within Zone 13 including the SDG&E property located to the north of Cannon Road and immediately east of
Traffic
,
Carlwad LCPA 1-93/RF Page 29
1-5. This property is designated Travel Service (TS) in the LCP and is
expected to generate 18,544 vehicle trips per day.
With the assurance that new development has been planned for and would not result in additional vehicle trips that would trigger Cannon Road's widening or realignment from that currently approved or planned for and with the existing resource protection policies in place in the Agua Hedionda LUP, the Commission notes the Specific Plan can be found consistent with Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. LUP amendment, as submitted, is consi stent with Sections 30250(a) , 30252 and 30253 of the Coastal Act.
Therefore, the Commission finds that the subject
4. Sensitive Resources
Sections 30231 and 30240 of the Coastal Act protect and preserve sensitive coastal resources such as wetlands and riparian habitat. In its denial of the Specific Plan, the Commission found that while no adverse impacts to resources
are anticipated in the Specific Plan, it does not contain policies regarding habitat protection and defers subsequent environmental review of on-si te
resources to a later local coastal program amendment.
The Commission finds that based on this lack of specificity regarding resource
protection, the Specific Plan must be rejected as it cannot be found consistent with Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. A suggested
modi fi cation i s attached to i ndi cate that the resource protection pol i ci es of
the Mello I1 LCP are a supplement to the Specific Plan to assure adequate resource protection absent such policies in the Specific Plan. modification provides that all wetlands and riparian resources outside the lagoon ecosystems shall be protected and preserved and that no direct impacts may be allowed except for the expansion of existing circulation element roads identified in the certified LCP and those direct impacts associated with installation of utilities (i .e., water, sewer, an electrical lines). Additionally, open space dedication of sensitive resource areas is requi red as well as mitigation ratios are specified for any temporary disturbance or
permanent displacement of identified resources. Such ratios wi 11 be
determined in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Commission find that the Specific Plan can be found consistent with Sections
30240 and 30231 of the Coastal Act.
This suggested
Only with the modification can the
PART VI. F INDINGS F OR APPROVAL OF PORTIONS OF THF CITY OF CARLSBAD MELLO 11 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT 1-93. AS SUB MITTU
A. AMENDMENT DESCRIP TION
The subject amendment request involves two components. is the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan, encompassing the 423 Carltas Property, and it will be discussed separately in the following findings as it is proposed first for rejection and then subsequent approval with suggested modifications. The other portion of the implementation plan amendment
The 1 arger component
-.
Carl sWad LCPA 1-93/RF Page 30
addresses a smaller, 2.3 acre site located on the west side of Paseo del Norte across from the Carlsbad Ranch. While the site is located outside the boundaries of the specific plan, it is under the same ownership. presently referred to as the Culbertson site. rezone the property from L-C-Q to C-T-Q or from limited control to commercial tourist uses.
It is The proposed amendment would
6. FINDINGS FOR CE RTIFICATION
1. Culbertso n Rezo ne
a) Puroose and I ntent of the Ordinance. The purpose and intent of the
rezone is to permit commercial tourist uses and travel services on the subject
property consistent with its land use designation.
b) Majj r in . The certified Mello I1 Implementing Ordinances specify the range of permitted uses and development standards for the proposed C-T-Q rezoning. The rezoning is intended to accommodate a proposed wine tasting facility for an interim period; and, if it
is successful , it may eventually expand and develop at Carlsbad Ranch to include an small demonstration vineyard on the property.
c) Uauacv of 0 rdi nance to Imolement t he Certified LUP . The standard of
review for an imp1 ementation plan amendment is its conformity with, and
ability to carry out, the certified land use plan. In this case, the subject
parcel is designated TS/Travel Services in the certified land use plan and the
proposed rezone is fully consistent with and will implement its land use
designation.
Norte was realigned. The subject amendment will accommodate a proposed visi tor-serving use; therefore, the proposed rezone may be accepted as submitted.
The property was bisected from the Ranch proper when Paseo del
PART VII. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF PORTIONS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD MELLO I1
IMPLEME NTATION PLAN AMENDMENT 1-93. AS SUBMITTED
A. AMENDMENT DESCR IPTION
The Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan (CRSP) is proposed as the implementing measure for the Carltas property. The Specific Plan consists of both a text and diagrams which specify the following in detail: (1) distribution and location of land uses; (2) infrastructure; (3) development standards; (4) implementation measures; and (5) a statement of the relationship of the
specific plan to the General Plan.
The proposed zone change wi 11 change the zoning from Limited Control,
Qualified Development Overlay Zone (L-C-Q) and Exclusive Agriculture (E-A) (on 24.5 acres) to the zones listed in the following table:
-.
Carldd LCPA 1-93/RF Page 31
PARCELS TOTAL ACRES
1-5 & 9 6&7 8 10 11 18
47.6 acres 18.0 acres 12.2 acres
10.7 acres 24.5 acres 2.3 acres
PROPOSED DESIGNATION
0-01 P-M-Q
C- 2-Q / 0-0 / P-M-Q C-T-Q/C-2-9
C-2-Q 0-s C-T-Q
0 (OFFICE) P-M (PLANNED INDUSTRIAL) C-2 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) C-T (COMMERCIA L-TOUR I ST
' 0-S (OPEN SPACE) Q (QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE)
6. FINDINGS FO R CERTIFICATION
1. Carlsbad Ranch Suec ific Plan
Specific Plan is to define the distribution and location of land use, infrastructure, development standards, and implementation measures for 113 acres of Carlsbad Ranch, with the remaining acreage to remain in agriculture and open space.
a) Puruose and Inte nt of the Ord inance. The purpose and intent of the
b) Maior Provisions of the Ordinance. The Specific Plan provides development and design standards with respect to the development of the site. The Specific Plan is divided into 17 lots with development standards and design guidelines separated into the following areas: Headquarters and Research and Development Parcels, (2) Vi 1 lage Center, (3) Paseo Center, (4) Open Space Areas, and (5) Non-Residential Reserve. The focal point of the development i s a pedestri an-ori ented vi 11 age center 1 inked to the other development sites along a main ridge road. The village center is proposed to serve a mix of community and business uses and mixed use buildings
are encouraged. The 280-room hotel is proposed at the most prominent location
at the southern end of the site and is proposed as a major landmark for
Carlsbad. Office buildings are planned around the periphery of the village center. Regarding open space areas, a public putting course and driving range is proposed on Parcel 11 (24.5 acres); approximately 39 acres of land near the southwestern corner of the site is presently designated as open space and
would remain in floriculture as long as feasible.
(1) Office, Corporate
The remainder of the property is designated Non-Residential Reserve and is proposed to be held in agricultural use through the buildout of the Specific Plan. with the adjacent agricultural and/or recreational uses. The amendment a1 so proposes to adopt recent height regulations adopted by the City of Carlsbad
for the CRSP plan area. The Specific Plan also contains goals, objectives,
and policies that will assist in guiding and directing development within the Carl sbad Ranch.
The standards address development of the lots as well as compatibility
Car mad LCPA 1 -93/RF Page 32
c> Adeauacv o f Ordinance to ImPlement the Ce rtified LUP. The standard of review for LCP imp1 ementation 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 concept underlying the Specific Plan is to concentrate urban uses within a limited area so that the majority of the site can continue to be used for agricultural use, which is the theme endorsed by the certified Mello I1 LCP. However, a number of zoning measures associated with the Specific Plan cannot be found consistent with the policies of the Mello I1 LUP and must be rejected.
As noted in the previous section regarding agricultural preservation, the land use and zoning changes proposed on Parcel 11 (24.5 acres) to accommodate a driving range on agricultural ly designated lands, as we1 1 as the pedestrian promenade (3.4 acres), and the east-west non-arterial road (2.07 acres), are not consistent with the mixed use provisions of the certified Mello I1 LCP.
These uses go beyond the previously endorsed 92.6 acres committed to urban development in the LCP. agri cultural mi ti gation for the driving range, the promenade, and Road "Bl', totaling 29.97 acres, and the Specific Plan must therefore be rejected.
suggested modification provides that those 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 I1 LUP within the Coastal Over 1 ay Zone.
The Specific Plan fails to provide for suitable
The
Another encroachment includes a proposed desiltation basin (.54 acres) on Lot 17. However, while this encroachment supports urban use, the Commission finds no agricultural mi tigation is required for conversion of agricultural lands to accommodate the proposed desilting basin because the basin will also serve the
continuing agricultural operation as well. In addition, the plan will provide for retention and enhancement of the exi sti ng habi tat values in the
drai nagecourse, thus preserving other important coastal resources. As such, the Commission finds this acreage may be excluded from any requirements for
agricultural mitigation.
As noted in the previous findings regarding the land use plan amendment, the height of the proposed hotel could have adverse visual impacts. To address these impacts the following suggested modification to the Specific Plan is required within its Design Guidelines.
architectural accent feature, not to exceed 65 feet, may be allowed for the hotel development as long as it is restricted in bulk to no more than three
percent (3%) of the hotel's overall roof surface and that all other
developments within the village center shall not exceed 45 feet in height,
i ncl usi ve of architectural embell i shments.
It requires that a single
Regarding the resource protection measures of the Specific Plan, the plan is
basically si lent on preservation of natural ly-vegetated steep slopes and any
wetlandiriparian habitats that are present on the Carl tas site.
there are no direct impacts proposed for the vast majority and most sensitive
of these areas, the plan is nonetheless deficient by being silent as to their eventual preservation or specifying the parameters for any possible a1 teration.
A1 though
In addition, whi 1 e there are sati sfactory provi sions within the
-.
Carl 5-d LCPA 1-93/RF Page 33
presently certified Mello I1 LCP to protect sensitive resources, it is unclear what the relationship is between the specific plan and the existing Mello I1 LCP. supplemental to the presently-certified LCP and such clarification is warranted. In addition, the draft specific plan includes language on potential minor and major amendments to it (at the City level) which may be contemplated in the future. However, the specific plan is again silent on how such amendments must be addressed by the Coastal Commission.
reasons, the specific plan must be rejected as submitted.
It is the Commission's position that the specific plan is only
For these
PAR
The Me 1
VIII. FIN DINGS FOR APPROVAL OF PORTIONS OF THE CIT Y OF CARLSBAQJIFI IQ I1 IMPLEMFNTATION PIAN AMFNDMENT 1-93. IF MODIFIER
Commission finds that Amendment 1-93 to the Implementation Program of the o I1 segment of the Carlsbad LCP may be found adequate to carry out the provisions of the certified land use plan, as amended, if modified in accordance with the previously stated suggested modifications. with the suggested modifications, the Commission finds that the amendment may be certified.
Therefore,
PART IX. CO NSISTENCY WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL OU ALITY ACT (C EOA 1
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 land use plan and zoning amendments to the Mello I1 segment of the City's LCP deal with changes to the land use designation and zoning of two areas within the City's coastal zone. The Mello I1 amendment raises the potential for adverse impacts to coastal agriculture. As submitted, 29.97 acres of designated agricultural lands would be converted
to urban uses without adequate mi tigation. The proposed suggested modification would add a new policy to the land use plan that would assure that the conversion of these lands was justified and adequately mitigated.
Suggested modifications regard1 ng vi sua1 resources and resource protection have also been added to mitigate any adverse impacts associated with the Specific Plan. Given these suggested modifications, the Commission finds that the approval of Mello I1 LCP amendment will not result in any significant adverse impacts to coastal resources and can be found consistent with Chapter
3 Coastal Act policies. Additionally, existing land use plan policies in the Mello I1 LUP would mitigate the impact of new development on this property below a level of significance.
Carl Gad LCPA 1-93/RF Page 34
Finally, the individual project to which the new LCP policies would apply will require a coastal development permit. The specific impacts associated with this project would be assessed through the environmental review process; and, its compliance with CEQA would be assured. Therefore, the Commission finds that no significant, unmitigable environmental impacts under the meaning of CEQA will result from the approval of the proposed amendment and that the proposed changes can be made.
--' '1
L/ I
(8770A)