HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 90-08; Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (7)CClRlTFlS compmnv
June 3, 1993
Mr. Bill Ponder Coastal Planner California Coastal Commission
3111 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 200 San Diego, California 92108-1725
Re: Coastal Development Application 6-93-34 - Carlsbad Ranch LCPA 1-93, Carlsbad
Dear Mr. Ponder:
I have received the staff reports for application 6-93-34 and LCPA for the Carlsbad Ranch.
By a separate letter, I will address the issue whether the use of agricultural lands in open space and public recreation is a
conversion to urban uses requiring application of the Mello I1
options.
The purpose of this letter is to suggest a couple of modifications in other staff recommendations clarify some of the matters.
1. Condition 3, the open space deed restriction, references Exhibit 7. The area which is delineated on Exhibit 7 as the entire remainder parcel is, in part, farmed and, therefore, is
constantly undergoing changes. Condition 3 would be difficult to comply with for most of the property. It may be appropriate to use sheet 7 of the Tentative Map enclosed and cross-hatched to show the specific areas of the remainder
parcel where the slope areas occur.
2. With respect to the Local Coastal Plan Amendment 1-93, I
requested that the architects who prepared the plan for the
Ranch review the one percent (1%) provision of paragraph 4 on page 10 and page 11 of the staff report. Based on their review, a slightly larger percentage would be desirable. For example, the conceptual feature shown in the Plan (a corner La Valencia Hotel type tower) is 2.3% of the roof area. We
request that you consider a 3% standard which will allow adequate flexibility without going beyond architectural embellishment.
5600 AVENlDA ENCINAS SUITE 100 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 U.S.A.
~fiim n?iscnn FA v mi QI A ?i -onw
Mr. Bill Ponder Coastal Planner
California Coastal commission
June 3, 1993
2
3. From the way in which you apply the Mello I1 rules in the
permit report, I understand that the LCPA provision to include
the Carltas area as a part of the Mello I1 agricultural area is intended to apply to any of the area designated as agricultural by the Specific Plan, which implements the mixed use concept. Thus, assuming the Specific Plan is approved
with the recommended changes, the conversion issue will apply only to areas outside the 92.6 which are approved for urban uses. Please let me know if this is incorrect.
I also noted in the staff report (LCPA) in paragraph 6, page 11 adding the Carltas site to the Mello I1 agricultural areas, the
reference should be to 5 sub-units rather than to 4 sub-units in the second line of subparagraph 1.
Please give me a call if you have any questions regarding the
foregoing or enclosed.
ns
CCC/dsf Enc .
1-80-248 1-90-019
06/02/1993 11:07 HOMA ESIGN GROUP 415 708 8728 P.02
MEMORANDUM
DATE; June 2, 1993
TO: Chris Calkins, Carltas Company
FROM: Boris and Carolyn, ROMA
RE: Proposed Architectural Feature Bulk Limitation
We havc rcviewcd the proposed language included in the Coastal Commission staff report
that would limit the bulk of the hotel tower to I% of the total roof surface, We have the
following comments and suggestions;
One-percent is a bit restrictive, The tower shown on the illustrative plan is
approxirnalely 2.5% of the roof area (assuming that dl exposed roof surfaces at every
level are included as "roof suflacc"). For flcxibility, we would recommend that the
standard be increased to 3%.
Jt would probably be a good idea to clan@ the term "roof surface". It should be
defined to include the horizontal roof arca exposed at every level, inchdin& both flat
and slopiiig surfaces.
Good luck with the Coastal Commission. If you are planning on attending the meeting in
San Rafael, it would be great to see you. Let US know if there is anything else we can do
to help.
I
i
i.
SEE SHEET 7 EXHIBIT 7
P77j = AREA OF OPEN
SPACE DEED RESTRICTION