Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 90-08B; Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (4)STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Gowmor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION .SAN DIEGO COAST AREA 31 11 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725 (619) 521-8036 September 15, 1995 Don Neu Senior P1 anner Ci ty of Carl sbad Planni ng Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 Re: Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment-Legoland Comments Dear Mr. Neu, As you know, on June 10, 1993, the Commission approved the City of Carlsbad's submittal for the Mello I1 segment regarding the "Carlsbad Ranch" (LCPA #1-93). 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. 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. plan into conformance with the certified LCP with respect to protection of vi sua1 and bi ol ogi cal resources. In Other suggested modifi cations were approved to bring the spec! fi c The currently proposed amendment to the specific plan changes the land uses the Commission certified in the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan, and increases the land area of the specific plan by almost 24 acres to approximately 447 acres. non-residential uses in nine planning areas, including office, research and development, related light manufacturing, commercial, hotel, destination resort, golf course, agriculture, a vocational school campus and Legoland. The proposed land uses for the amended specific plan include a mix of Previously, the Carlsbad Ranch site was recognized in the LCP as subject to the "mixed use" option, where the LUP allowed urban conversion of a total of 92.6 acres of the site with a requirement that such conversion be done subject to a master plan, in this case the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. 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 whi ch may re1 i eve development pressures and a1 low for continued agricultural uses on the remainder of the site. In LCPA #2-93, the Commission The Don Neu September 15, 1995 Page 2 found that while a vocational school campus was proposed which would revise the parcel configuration of the specific plan and replace office uses that were originally approved in LCPA 1-93, the amended tentative map would still reflect a total of 92.6 acres of urban development, consistent with previous Commission actions regarding allowable developable area, and consistent with Section 30242 of the Coastal Act which requires agricultural lands to remain as such unless continued or renewed agricultural use is not feasible or such conversion would preserve prime agricultural land or concentrate development cons! stent with Section 30250. The current amendment significantly rev1 ses parcel configuration and preserves only 53.42 acres as agriculture with the remaining 394 acres proposed to be converted to a variety of urban uses. As before, the primary land use and environmental issues on this property relate to preservation of agricultural lands and the 3rea's scenic resources. Also, scattered areas of steep sloping hillsides covered with native vegetation occur along the northeastern and southeastern portions of the property along with a riparian area in the south central portion of the site. The amended plan only preserves the sensitive vegetation in the northeastern part of the site. Regarding the preservation of agricultural lands, the amended specific plan proposes to convert all but 53 acres of the Carlsbad Ranch to urban uses. As identified in our June 16, 1995 letter regarding low-cost visitor accommodations and agricultural preservation issues on the site, this office will adhere to the policy direction established in the currently certified Mello I1 LCP and Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan which is to consider the possible conversion of designated agricultural lands subject to compliance with one the three conversion options specified in the Mello I1 LCP. letter states: The ... While we are prepared to support agricultural land use changes subject to the conversion options, it will still be incumbent on the City and project proponent to demonstrate that agricultural conversion is appropriate in order to support retained agricultural use either el sewhere in the coastal zone or on the Ranch or that conversion serves to concentrate urban development in an appropriate manner. A1 ternatively, the burden would be to demonstrate that agricultural operations are no 1 onger vi ab1 e. In addition, for those areas to be retained in agriculture, the amended specific plan should still address necessary buffering and means to reduce the conflicts between urban and agricultural uses which could lead to future proposals for additional agricultural land conversions. Lastly, relative to agricultural land conversion, consistent with the Commission's previous action on the Ranch, staff would not accept the golf course as an alternative form of continued agriculture even though the Williamson Act contracts may allow it as an interim use. that any proposed conversion of designated agricultural 1 ands to urban uses, including the proposed golf course, beyond the boundaries in the presently adopted specific plan be subject to compliance with the i denti f i ed conversion options . We would therefore recommend Don Neu September 15, 1995 Page 3 While the amended specific plan addresses necessary buffering and means to reduce the conflicts between urban and agricultural uses, it does not specifically address the conversion options. Conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses without mitigating the adverse effect of such conversion cannot be found consistent with the Coastal Act. Regarding biologi cal i ssues , the specific plan states that a1 1 resource protection and land use provisions of the certified Mello I1 LCP are applicable to the subject site. However, areas previously identified as possessing native vegetation in the southeast corner of the site, along with a riparian area in the south central portion of the site, would be impacted by specific plan development. The standard of review for the land use plan amendment will be the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. Section 30240 of the Coastal Act requi res that environmental ly sensitive habitat areas be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and that development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas must be sited and designed to prevent impacts which which would significantly degrade such areas. Section 30233 of the Coastal Act requires that filling of wetlands shall only be permitted for specifically cited activities where there is no feasible less environmental ly-damaging a1 ternative, and where feasible mi tigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects. Similar provisions of the certified Mello I1 LCP implement the above Coastal Act sections. The certified Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone protects dual criteria slopes and Policies 3-7 and 3-8 of the Mello I1 LUP require that riparian resources outside the lagoon ecosystems shall be protected and preserved. The amended speci fi c plan must speci fi cal ly address how new development on the property will be found consistent with these Coastal Act and LCP policies. Regarding dual criteria slopes, the overlay protects slopes of 25% grade and over unless the application of this policy would preclude reasonable use of the property, in which case an encroachment not to exceed 10% of the steep slope area over 25% may be permitted. The overlay also provides that this policy does not apply to circulation element roads, the development of utility systems, or that slopes over 25% may be developed to provide access to flatter areas if there is no 1 ess environmental ly-damagi ng a1 ternative avai lab1 e. Because reasonable use of the property would not appear to be precluded by preservation of the dual criteria slopes in the southeast portion of the site, they must be preserved unless one of the above exceptions apply and can be demonstrated. Policy 3-7 of the Mello I1 LUP requires the preservation of riparian resources outside lagoon ecosystems and provides that no direct impacts may be allowed except for the expansion of circulation element roads and installation of utilities. Thus, the riparian area in the south central portion of the site must be preserved unless one of the above exceptions apply and can be demonstrated. Should one of the exceptions apply, the LCP requires that the proposed disturbance be found the least environmentally-damaging alternative, and that mitigation ratios for impacts to sensitive vegetation be determined in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Don Neu September 15, 1995 Page 4 Fish and Wildlife Service. 50 feet must be maintained around riparian areas, unless it is demonstrated that a buffer of lesser width will protect the resources. Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must be consulted in such buffer determinations. resource agenci es on habi tat i ssues i s 'encouraged. Additionally, Policy 3-8 requires buffer zones of The California Early consultation with these The amended plan is projected to generate 51,455 average daily trips. access/circulation may be adversely affected as Palomar Airport Road, the main road serving the subject site, is a major eastlwest roadway that provides public access to the shoreline from inland areas. A traffic analysis evaluating onsite impacts within the project area in addition to offsite impacts to intersections and major roadways is needed due to the change in land uses and proposed phasing of the plan. related to proposed road improvements would need to be analyzed. amendment exhibit indicates that Kelly Road would be extended into the northeast corner of the site in an area that is presently designated as open space. south of this area as has been represented by several City representatives familiar with the circulation element of the specific plan. modeling indicates that Kelly Road will need to be extended either due to this amendment or cumulative development impacts at bui ldout, it should be presented now and evaluated. Regarding visual issues, in LCPA #1-93, the Commission found that although the specific plan contained a number of provisions to mitigate the visual impacts of new development on this ridgeline site, the Commission remained concerned over the visual impact of the hotel in what is now proposed as Planning Area #3 because of its prominence. must be restricted in bulk to no more than three percent (3%) of the hotel's overall roof surface. Similarly, the amended specific plan should contain a similar provision with respect to any proposed structure, including .its architectural embellishments, that exceed the plan's 45 foot height limit. Public . In addition, any resource impacts At least one Please confirm that Kelly Road would terminate in a cul-de-sac well If traffic The Commission found the hotel's accent feature 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 bas! ns , grassed swal es and catchment basins which filter storm water runoff before discharging it into the City's storm drainage system which eventually enter the above watersheds. This system should minimize impacts of sedimentation and erosion to sensitive areas. The drainage system calls for the development of an Our June 1995 letter identified the Coastal Act's mandate for the provision of affordable vi si tor accommodations , as we1 1 as low-cost recreational facilities, and the Coastal Commission's recent concerns over the privatization of visitor-serving uses and public recreational facilities. Our letter identified the need for the amended plan to promote broad recreational use such as providing a public trail system, with lagoon overlooks, .. Don Neu September 15, 1995 Page 5 intermittent seating areas and appropriate support facilities, which could be designed in concert with the proposed golf course as a public recreational use. Our letter also advised that public accessibility could not be limited to the golf course and be found consistent with Section 30213 of the Coastal Act. A detailed discussion of how to address these concerns is provided in that letter; a copy of the letter is attached. Finally, our review of the amended specific plan has been based on that document only. Any subsequent changes to specific plan provisions, standards, or design gui del i nes resul ti ng from further envi ronmental review or development revi sions wi 11 require further review from this off1 ce to assure consistency with Coastal Act provisions. Please call me at the above number if you need further information or have comments. Sincerely, DA.e4 Bill Ponder Coastal P1 anner cc : Chri s Cal ki ns, Carl tas Company Bill Hofman, HPA Mi chael Hol zmi 11 er Lauren Sevri n Chuck Damm Deborah Lee (0473A)