HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 92-01; Aviara Phase III; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (5)i
--r. -
# STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY
July 28, 1994 CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SAN DIEGO COAST AREA
3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725
(619) 521-8036
TO: COMMISSIONERS AND INTERESTED PERSONS
FROM: CHARLES DAMM, SOUTH COAST DISTRICT DIRECTOR
DEBORAH N. LEE, ASSISTANT DISTRICT DIRECTOR, S
BILL PONDER, COASTAL PLANNER, SAN DIEGO AREA 0
CARLSBAD'S LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (For Public H
Action at the Meeting of August 9-12, 1994)
SUBJECT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON MAJOR AMENDMENT 1-94(B)
SYNOPSIS
BACKGROUND
The Carlsbad Local Coastal Program consists of six geographic segments. Pursuant to Sections 30170(f) and 30171 of the Public Resources Code, the
Coastal Commission prepared and approved two portions of the LCP, the Mello I
and I1 segments in 1980 and 1981, respectively. However, the City of Carlsbad
found several provisions of the Mello I and I1 segments unacceptable and
declined to adopt the LCP implementing ordinances for the LCP. In October, 1985, the Commission approved major amendments related to steep slope
protection and agricultural preservation to the Mello I and I1 segments, which
resolved the major differences between the City and the Coastal Commission.
The City then adopted the Mello I and I1 segments and began working toward certification of all segments of its local coastal program. Since the 1985 action, the Commission has approved several major amendments to the City of
Carl sbad LCP.
The Commission certified the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan portion of the Agua
Hedionda segment in 1982. In addition, two new segments were annexed to the
City, the West Batiqui tos Lagoon/Sammi s Properties segment and the East Batiqui tos Lagoon/Hunt Properties segment. Properti es LCP was certi fi ed i n 1985. The East Bati qui tos LagoonjHunt Properties LCP was certified in 1988. to three of the City's segments.
The West Batiqui tos Lagoon/Sammi s
The subject amendment request pertains
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT REOUEST/BACKGROUND
At the Commission's April 1994 hearing, pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30517,
the Commission waived the applicable time limits upon which to act on LCPA
1-94 for a period not to exceed one year. The City had individually submitted
three different amendment requests; and, then it requested all three elements
be reviewed at the next meeting in May as one amendment package. However, the
portion of LCPA 1-94 which would allow residential density bonuses to enable
the development of lower income affordable housing has been continued by staff
pending consul tation with the State Department of Housing and Community Development. This is necessary to clarify the Department's position with respect to this amendment request and another LCP amendment request before the Commission (Santa Barbara County LCPA No. 3-93-81.
-
Carl sbac 3PA 1-94(B) Page 2
involved the West Batiquitos Lagoon segment. The suggested modifications, an amendment to the LCP d replaced the formerly approved Batiquitos Lagoon er Plan with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan as
he subject of this report, involves the Mello I,
os Lagoon segments and would revise the previously
an, which controls development of 1,402 acres on the
Lagoon, east of 1-5 and west of El Camino Real. These changes include modification of planning area and open space boundaries, realignment of streets, addition of 37 units to the previously approved plan in Phase I11 of the master plan, alteration of residential product mix and revisions to the plan's development and design standards.
at its May, 1994 hearing.
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Prel imi narv Sta ff Recommendation/Pro.iect Hi storv. The subject coastal development permit application and the companion City of Carl sbad LCP Amendment #1-94 have been rescheduled on the August agenda at the request of the applicant and the City (see attached letters). This permit application, LCPA #1-94 and two other permi t appl i cations (CDP application #6-94-52
Bramalea and #6-92-57 Poinsettia Hills) were continued prior to the July
Commission meeting.
and LCPA at that time due to their potential inconsistencies with the long-term pl ann! ng options associ ated with the statewide Natural Communi ti es
Conservation Planning (NCCP) Program and the need to protect the California
gnatcatcher, a federal ly-1 i sted endangered species, and i t coastal sage scrub habitat.
protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas (esha). Coastal sage
scrub is considered such a sensitive habitat area.
Through Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act, a special rule published
with the listing of the gnatcatcher, there are conditions identified under
which development can proceed prior to resource agency review and approval of the City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP) through the NCCP process. The City
of Carlsbad is enrolled in the NCCP program, thus, in order to expedite the taking of coastal sage scrub habitat, the applicant must obtain an interim habitat loss permit from the Dept. of Fish and Game (DFG) and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS).
working with the resource agenci es to determi ne the modi fi cations which must
be made to the proposed development to conform to the NCCP guidelines and the 4(d) rule, and the appropriate mitigation for any impacts which are accepted.
Since the last hearing, there have been three meetings between staff, City representatives and resource agency personnel. First, Commission and City
staffs met to discuss City concerns and its HMP.
FWS personnel, along with City staff, to discuss future project reviews, the HMP/interim habitat loss permitting and the three projects under CCC review. Lastly, and most applicable to the subject permit and LCPA, Commission staff, DFG, FWS and the City of Carlsbad have met in the field to identify critical
Staff was recommending denial of the permit applications
Section 30240 of the Coastal Act requires preservation and
The applicant is currently in the process of
Then, staff met with DFG and
r - Carlst LCPA 1-94(B)
Page 3
linkages for habitat protection within the entire Preserve Planning Area 4 of the HMP, in which all three development sites are located.
The resource agencies have identified three areas on the Aviara Phase I11 property whi-ch would requi re modi fi cation i n order to preserve 1 ong-term
planning options for mu1 ti-species habitat planning through the NCCP.
modifications are considered to be feasible alternatives and are summarized
briefly as follows:
These
a. state to maintain the east/west connectivity and wildlife corridor; Preserve the northern portion of the Aviara park site in its natural
b. to approximately 300 to 400 ft. to be effective, which involves elimination of Lots 28-34 of Planning Area 17 (max. 7 lots);
Widen the corridor extending northeasterly from the Avi ara go1 f course
c. north/south corridor (Planning Area 22 - max. 16 lots) and reserve this
area for southern maritime chapparal revegetation efforts.
El i mi nate the road cross! ng and development wi thi n the westernmost
Because feasible a1 ternatives have been identified which would 1 essen the project ' s impacts on environmental ly sensi tive habitat areas and which are consistent with the long-term planning goals of the City's draft Habitat Management Program, staff continues to recommend denial of the project at this
time. A delay in re-scheduling the project until the September 1994 Commission meeting could have resulted in a recommendation of approval with conditions which address the resource agencies' concerns with regard to
project design and appropriate mitigation. However, the City's and applicant's original requests were for one month only, and the applicant was unwilling to grant staff any additional time to draft a revised recommendation. Staff believes that approval without conditions which require
a project redesign to maintain important habitat linkages and connectivity and mitigate the loss of almost 9 acres of coastal sage scrub, in accordance with the statewide Natural Communi ti es Conservation P1 anni ng (NCCP) Program guidelines, is not consistent with the habitat preservation policies of the
Mello I and Mello I1 local coastal programs. Staff recommends denial of the
Aviara Master Plan revisions as submitted.
Th e apr, roDri ate resolutions and motions mav be f ou n d o nPa aes 5 - 7. Fin d in US
~ for r iecti f the Lan mi d in n P 7. Findinas for rejection of the hmlementation Plan revisions. as sub mi tted,
beain on Paae 17.
AD
Further information on the City of Carlsbad LCP amendment may be obtained from Bill Ponder, at (619) 521-8036.
L Carlsbad -A 1-94(B)
Page 4
PART I. QVERVIEW
A. Local Coastal Proaram Historv-All Seaments.
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
Bati qui tos Lagoon/Sammi s Properties LCP segment wi th 200 acres ; the East Batiqui tos Lagoon/Hunt Properti es 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 Commi ssi on was requi red to- prepare and approve an LCP for identified portions of the City. This resulted in the two Carlsbad LCP segments commonly referred to as the Mello I and Mello 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 Agua Hedionda segment Land Use Plan was prepared by
The Mello I, Mello I1 and Agua Hedionda segments of the Carlsbad LCP cover the
majority of the City's coastal zone. They are also the segments of the LCP
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 hi 1 lsides and wet1 and habi tats and the provi sion of adequate vi si tor-servi ng 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 hi 11 sides to be unacceptable.
therefore did not apply these provisions in the review of local projects.
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 was certified in 1985
along with a coastal development permit for a project comprising the majority
of the uplands within that plan segment (Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park-Sammi s 1.
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
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
, Carlsb- LCPA 1-94(B) Page 5 .
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 City’ 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 may 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 assume permit authority for all LCP segments.
B. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of review for land use plans, or their amendments, is found in
Section 30512 of the Coastal Act.
certify an LUP or LUP amendment if it finds that it meets the requirements of
Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Specifically, it states:
This section requires the Commission to
Section 30512
(c) The Commission shall certify a land use plan, or any amendments thereto, if it finds that a land use plan meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200). Except as provided in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), a decision to certify shall require a majority vote of the appointed membership of the Commission.
.. Pursuant to Section 30513 of the Coastal Act, the Commission may only reject zoning ordinances or other implementing actions, as well as their amendments,
on the grounds that they do not conform with, or are inadequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified land use plan. action by a majority vote of the Commissioners present.
The Commission shall take
C. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City has held Planning Commission and City Council meetings with regard to
the components of the subject amendment request. All of those local hearings
were duly noticed to the public. distributed to a1 1 known interested parties.
Notice of the subject amendment has been
PART 11. LOC AL COASTAL PROGRAM SUBMITTAL - RESOLUTIONS
Following a public hearing, staff recommends the Commission adopt the
fol 1 owing resolutions and findings. resolution and a staff recommendation are provided just prior to each resolution.
The appropriate motion to introduce the
Carl sbac'?PA 1-94(8) Page 6
A. RESOLUTION I. (Resolution to deny certification of the Mello I and Mello I1 Land Use Plan Amendments 1-94, as submitted)
I move that the Commission certify the Mello I and Mello I1 Land Use Plan Amendments 1-94, as submitted.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends a !jo vote and the adoption of the following resolution and findings. Commissioners is needed to pass the motion. An affirmative vote by a majority of the appointed
Resolution I
The Commission hereby denies certification of the amendment request to the City of Carlsbad LCP and ado& t he findincls stated below on the grounds that the amendment does not meet the requirements of and is not in conformity 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 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)(2)(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.
8. RESOLUTION 11. (Resolution to deny certification of the Mello I and Mello I1 Implementation Plan Amendments 1-94, as submitted)
TION I1
I move that the Commission reject the City of Carlsbad's Implementation Plan Amendment 1-94, affecting both the Mello I and Mello I1 segments, as submitted.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends a
and findings.
present is needed to pass the motion.
vote and the adoption of the following resolution
An affirmative vote by a majority of the Commissioners
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 not adequate to carry out, the provisions of the
certified land use plan. There are feasible alternatives or feasible
., r Carl sb; LCPA 1-94(8)
Page 7
mitigation measures available which would. substantially lessen any
significant adverse impacts which the approval would have on the envi ronment.
PART 111. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF THE MELLO I AND MELLO I1 LAND USE PLAN
AMENDMENT 1-94. AS SUBMITTED
A. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION
The proposed amendment to the Aviara Master Plan, which serves, in part, as both the Land Use Plan (LUP) and Implementation Plan (IP) for those portions of the Mello I and Mello I1 segments that lie within its geographic limits, includes a number of changes. These changes include modification of planning area and open space boundaries, realignment of streets, addition of 37 units to the previously approved plan in Phase I11 of the master plan, alteration of resi denti a1 product mi x and revi sions to devel opment and design standards.
The Aviara Master Plan, previously known as the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort Master Plan, was originally approved by the Coastal Commission in April 1988. Currently, the Phase I area has been subdivided, graded and partially
developed, with the Aviara Golf Course and clubhouse in full operation and almost 100 occupied single family dwellings. Phase 11, in the western portion of the master plan, has also been subdivided and graded. The area comprising Phase 111, the final phase of the master plan and covering its northern portion, is undeveloped and is characterized by a north-south trending ridge and valley. Although much of the site has been disturbed by past agricultural production and contains trails and migrant worker settlements, portions of the site are populated by mature stands of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub vegetation, and a mature grove of eucalyptus trees. along the southwestern portion of Phase I11 and is part of a larger wildlife . corridor trending north to south.
The largest undisturbed area lies
The proposed master plan allows substantial encroachment into this corridor. In 1988 within the area comprising Phase 111, the Commission approved 490 multifamily units, 62 single family dwellings, a 13.5 acre neighborhood
commercial center, a 24.25 acre community park, and a 4.5 acre church/day care site.
dwellings, a 13.5 acre neighborhood commercial center, a slightly reconfigured
24.25 acre community park, and a 4.5 acre church/day care site.
Several design changes since the approval of the original master plan in 1988
have created the need for the proposed revisions to the local coastal plan.
The a1 i gnment for Poi nsetti a Lane, a major arterial whi ch traverses the
northern portion of Phase 111, has moved slightly southward, resulting in a
re1 ocati on and reconf i gurati on of some pl anni ng areas i ncl udi ng the communi ty
park site (Planning Area 32).
Planning Area 328 to the south of Poinsettia Lane and Planning Area 20 to the east of Ambrosia Lane.
The current proposal is for 449 multifamily units, 140 single family
Other map changes involve the relocation of
The proposed amendment would convert Planning Areas 17, 21 and 22 from
Carl sbad -PA 1-94(8) Page 8
multi-family development to single family neighborhoods with a corresponding
change in zoning to conform to the standards of the R-1-7500 zone. requires a minimum of 15 percent of the homes to be single story with a maximum height of 22 feet to the peak of the roof.
The remaining multifamily neighborhoods (Planning Areas 18, 19 and 20) would be increased by 37 units over what the Commission originally approved for
Phase I11 of the master plan.
entire master plan, the master plan is still below the 2,800+ units originally
approved. According to the City, unit reductions in Phases I and I1 and the redistribution of product mixes has created the need for higher density
residential near Poinsettia Lane and the community park churchlday care site.
While the densities of Planning Areas 18, 19 and 20 would be increased to an average of 13.5 du/ac, the City notes that these areas are located near a major arteri a1 (Poi nsetti a Lane) with communi ty servi ces, the overall densi ty
of the master plan was below that of the original approval, and the increase
of 37 units over the approximately 118 acres of Phase I11 would not represent
a substantial a1 teration of density.
This zone
However, at a maximum of 2,002 units for the
The Aviara Master Plan is covered by a combination district of RLM/RM/OS/RC/N
(Residential Low Medium and Medium density, Open Space, Recreational
Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial). Densities of the planning areas are based upon the total acreage of the planning area, including open space areas,
resulting in densities in the RLM to RM range of up to 8 units per acre. The
planning areas in Phases I and I1 include both the pad areas and the
surrounding natural open space. If the densities were calculated using only the pad areas, the resulting residential densities would exceed the RM range.
The Phase I11 proposal includes three planning areas (18, 19 and 20) that do not contain any open space and consist mainly of pad areas. space can be included in the density calculations, as with the planning areas in Phases I and 11, the resulting densities are beyond the range allowed by the existing combination district. The City proposes to add, with this
amendment request, higher density designations (Residential Medium High and Residential High) to the existing combination district, which allow up to 19 du/ac. a result of the new designations because the master plan dictates how many units each neighborhood could contain. From the City's perspective, the LCP
amendment only serves as a consistency update, rather than an increase in
a1 lowed density.
Since no open
The City found that no increase in dwelling unit count would occur as
The amendment also proposes changes to the boundaries of the open space program the Commission previously approved in the original LCP and CDP
#6-87-680. The proposed open space adjustments for Phase I11 would result in a negative 6.94 acre balance. A discussion of the Commission's open space program for Aviara and the implications of this amendment request is provided in the following "Sensitive Coastal Resourcesn section of this report.
B. QJN FORMANCE WITH SECTION 3000 1.5 OF THE COASTAL ACT
The Commission finds, pursuant to Section 30512.2b of the Coastal Act, that
Carl sb - LCPA 1-94(B)
Page 9
the land use plan amendment, as set forth in the resolution for certification as submitted, is not consistent with the policies and requirements of Chapter
3 of the Coastal Act to the extent necessary to achieve the basic state goals specified in Section 30001.5 of the Coastal Act which states:
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.
c) Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resource conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners.
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 implement coordinated planning and development for mutually beneficial uses, including educational uses, in the coastal zone.
C. CH APTER 3 CO NSISTENCY
Sensitive Coas tal Resources
Section 30231 of the Act states:
The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wet1 ands , estuaries, and 1 akes appropriate to mai ntai n optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasi bl e, res tored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, [...I, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats.. . .
Section 30240 of the Act states:
(a> Environmental ly sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses
dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas.
(b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed
Carl sbad -:PA 1-94(B)
Page 10
to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade such areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of such habitat areas.
Section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act states:
"Envi ronmental ly sensitive area" means any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and development.
Finally, 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,
Candl to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas....
Permitted development
As stated above,.the Master Plan serves, in part, as the land use plan and given its nature like a specific plan, it also serves like a specific development proposal. coastal development permit application (#6-94-25) wi 11 be discussed similarly.
Therefore, the subject LCP amendment and i ts companion
The LCP amendment would endorse the removal of almost 9 acres of coastal sage scrub, a vegetation type that includes a number of plant species including Coastal sagebrush, California buckwheat, Black Sage and other woody shrubs. This vegetation is widely recognized as habitat for the threatened California
Gnatcatcher but provides habitat for a number of other plants and animals i ndi genous to Southern Cal i forni a. Within Southern Cal i forni a, more than 50%
of coastal sage scrub's historical watershed coverage has been removed to
accommodate development proposal s. Because of its rapid decline and continuing development pressure which further threatens the remaining
significant stands of coastal sage scrub, programs at all levels of government
have been put in place for its protection.
environmentally sensitive habitat as defined under the above Coastal Act
section. As such, the Coastal Act provides that it must be protected.
.
Thus, coastal sage scrub is
One of the measures that is currently in place to protect coastal sage scrub i s the Natural Communi ties Conservation Planning program (NCCP). The program
was established by state law, the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act
of 1991. The Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP Program is the first
such program developed under the law. Game is the principal state agency implementing the NCCP program.
The Regional Coastal Sage Scrub Planning Area is roughly 6,000 square miles and includes parts of five counties: Angeles and San Bernadino. provate landowners are affected. Coastal sage scrub is an ecological community that supports a diverse assemblage of native California plants and animals.
The California Department of Fish and
San Diego, Orange, Riverside, Los Numerous local jurisdictions and public and
Human activity in this five-county area has reduced the extent of
Carlsb LCPA 1-94(8) Page 1'1
coastal sage scrub to the point where conservation action is critical to prevent endangerment of many species.
The goals of the NCCP, Coastal Act, and the certified Mello I and Mello I1 LCP segments (Phase I11 has lands in both segments, the majority in Mello I) are mutually compatible, which include protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Although directed to preserving habitat for the gnatcatcher, the more important function of the NCCP planning process is to preserve habitat used by many species, i .e multispecies habitat planning, and a range of dimi ni shi ng habitat communi ties.
Phase I11 lands also includes southern maritime chaparral that would be impacted by the project. Department of Fish and Game (DFG), southern maritime chaparral is more threatened as a habitat from development than coastal sage scrub and may soon be listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Similar to
coastal sage scrub, it provides habitat for a number of species including, in
this case, Del Mar Manzanita and summer holly, the former another plant that
is being considered for listing under the ESA.
not specifically protected under the Federal 4d rule or the City's Habitat
Management Plan (to be described in detail later) but its importance as a multispecies habitat is being addressed as part of the evolving NCCP planning
process, which is focusing more on multispecies habitat protection than protection of solely coastal sage scrub and the gnatcatcher.
According to a representative from the California
Southern maritime chaparral is
In addition, three other projects on the Commission's agenda, a companion permit (#6-94-25) for Aviara Phase I11 and Coastal Development Permit Nos.
6-94-52, Bramalea and 6-94-57, Poinsettia Hills, are within the same planning area identified in the City of Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan. All three
projects would affect sensitive habitats, the former as a result of off-site
improvements, and the latter from both on-and off-site impacts. When taken
together, they result in cumulative and significant impacts to the resources of the planning area and should be reviewed for consistency with the NCCP's long range planning goals or some other comprehensive effort, rather than prejudicing the mu1 ti speci es habitat planning effort that is underway.
The Process and Conservation guidelines of the NCCP were developed by the
Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and the California Resources Agency in
coordination with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) in November 1993.
They were subsequently referenced as a basis for Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), a special rule which was published in December
1993, from the listing of the California Gnatcatcher as a "threatened" species
under the ESA on March 23, 1993 and specifying conditions under which a "take" of gnatcatchers would not be violation of ESA. conditions under which coastal sage scrub communi ties would be protected. These condi tions i nvol ve 1 ong-term conservation pl ans whi ch woul d be devel oped by local governments under guidelines provided through the State's Natural Community Conservation Program (NCCP), and subject to approval of DFG and the
Servi ce.
These guidelines identify the
Various local governmental agencies have enrolled in the NCCP process,
Carl sbad '"PA 1-94(8) Page 12
i ncl udi ng the Mu1 ti pl e Speci es and Mu1 tip1 e Habitat Conservation Programs of San Diego County, the Mu1 ti species Habitat Conservation Planning effort of
Riverside County, and Carlsbad's Habitat Management Program (HMP). Carlsbad's
HMP has completed an inventory of existing resources and designated
preservation-areas, and is working towards establishing a funding mechanism.
However, at this time, it is the Commission's understanding that the City and
Service have ended discussions and the City will not be submitting its HMP in
the near future.
The 4(d) process allows for a 5% interim loss of coastal sage scrub within the City of Carlsbad or any other jurisdiction while long-term preserve plans are being developed, provided that this interim loss does not preclude long-term planning options. In this case, there would be a direct loss of almost 9 acres of coastal sage scrub to accrue to the 5% allowable interim loss.
Pursuant to the 4(d> process, the proposed buildout of Phase I11 may qualify
for an interim "take" under Section 4(d) only if it maintains consistency with
the NCCP Conservation and Process guidelines, as determined by the City with
concurrence by the Service and DFG.
The NCCP guidelines emphasize directing impacts to lower value habitats and mitigating those impacts that are authorized. In completing California
Environmental Qual i ty Act (CEQA) project reviews, 1 ead agenci es are directed
to identify mitigation sufficient to reduce impacts to levels of insignificance. The mitigation should result in no net loss of coastal sage scrub habitat value. No net loss of habitat value means no net reduction in the ability of the subregion to maintain viable populations of target species over the long term. allowed under the 4(d) rule, such as the mitigation program adopted with this LCP amendment, are expected to be directed toward areas that have lower long-term conservation value. Such habitat areas are those smaller in size, supporting poorer quality coastal sage scrub, more isolated, supporting smaller populations of target species, and which do not involve linkages or corridors. Effective mitigation areas should be of sufficient size, configuration and condition to accommodate the specified mi tigation activities. Section 4.3 of the Process Guidelines lists a number of potentially acceptable options for mitigating impacts. mitigation include the following:
Under the NCCP guidelines, interim mitigation projects
Examples of acceptable
1.
2.
3.
Acquisition of habitat lands or other actions that maximize the
potential for enhancing connectivity to natural habitat lands and
minimize the isolation of high and intermediate value lands.
Habitat enhancement, creation, and/or transplantation of CSS species
may be considered as mitigation.
Land acquired for mitigation obtained at a ratio of not less than 1:l
(one acre acquired for each acre of habitat removed by the project).
Projects that are proposed in high and intermediate value habitats will be mitigated at higher ratios. To the maximum extent possible, habitat acquisitions should be directed to core areas or corridors
anticipated to be retained in the final NCCP reserve system. The
c Carl st- LCPA 1-94(6)
Page 1,
Conservation Guidelines acknowledge that full mitigation may not be
practical during the interim period because reserve acquisition programs and enhancement techniques have not been established. If appropriate mitigation lands cannot be identified, acquired, or otherwise protected, until after the NCCP is completed, security must
be provided in an amount sufficient to ensure that the appropriate habitat can be obtained and the mitigation accomplished.
4. Projects that contain low CSS habitat value as defined in the
Conservation Guidelines, and are less than 10 acres, may be mitigated for by payment of a fee. The jurisdiction shall obtain mitigation
funds within one year of project approval , resulting in equivalent
habitat value to that which is lost. The local jurisdiction would be
responsible for priori tizing the acquisition areas within their
subregion/subarea preserve planning area. Guidance from the Service
and DFG will be available.
5. Protection of the mitigation area from adverse impacts caused by an
applicant's planned adjacent land development and ancillary
activities (such as fuel clearance, trash dumping, grading, and
excessive recreational use), any natural habitat buffer zone will be established within the project's development boundary not in the mi tigation area.
The Cal i forni a gnatcatcher was 1 i sted as "threatened" by the Uni ted States Department of Interior on March 25, 1993. Federal Court ruling that the Secretary of the Interior had failed to make available to the public all the data it relied upon when it declared the gnatcatcher threatened, the court ordered that the Secretary's decision to list the gnatcatcher be vacated. The Department of the Interior responded by making the information public and petitioning the judge to, in effect, put a IIstay" on his decision while federal authorities provide evidence to prove that the listing is needed. On June 16, 1994, the federal court amended its judgement and provided that the federal government will have 100 days in which to accept and evaluate public comment on newly available scientific data before making a final decision.
On May 2, 1994, as a result of a
If the gnatcatcher remains listed, it is afforded protection under the federal Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is administered by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the "Service"). Section 9 of the ESA
speci fi cal ly prohibits "take" of 1 i sted species.
interpreted to include intentional , negligent and omitted acts which disrupt
normal behavioral patterns.
habitat, which in the case of the gnatcatcher is coastal sage scrub.
"take" of species 1 i sted as endangered i s enti rely prohi bi ted. the gnatcatcher remains 1 i sted as threatened , "incidental take" i s a1 lowed under certain circumstances.
A "take" i s broadly
"Take" restrictions apply to the species and its
Any However, if
Sections 7 and 10 of the ESA specifically identify those instances in which a "take" of endangered and threatened species may be permi tted. include federal , sci enti fi c and other activities that sati sfy requirements
These instances
Carl sbad -PA 1-94(B) Page 14
specified in pertinent sections of the ESA and its imp1 ementi ng regulations.
Section 10 of the ESA allows the Service to permit, under certain
circumstances, "taki ngl' of a 1 i sted species that would otherwi se be prohibited
by Section 9. The NCCP process does not supplant the endangered species protection of existing state or federal law. If other species become listed, or if an already listed species is found in the NCCP area, the affected jurisdictions may still need applicable federal and state permits if they
propose activities that would result in a "take" of a listed species.
The area comprising Phase I11 is undeveloped and is characterized by a
north-south trending ridge and valley. mature stands of coastal sage scrub vegetation. lies along the southwestern portion of Phase I11 and is part of a larger
wildlife corridor trending north to south.
encroachment into this corridor. in the southwesterly portion of Phase 111, although the presence of gnatcatchers have not been confirmed by subsequent surveys, one as late as 1992. Because of the abundance of coastal sage scrub in the area, which is the recognized habitat of the gnatcatcher, and the fact that almost 9 acres of coastal sage scrub would be removed to accommodate Phase 111, approval of the
LCP amendment and project would result in a potential "take" of gnatcatchers
and their habitat.
Portions of the site are populated by The largest undisturbed area
In addition, a gnatcatcher was sited in 1986 The project proposes substantial
In its approval of Phase 111, the City relied upon the property owner's
proposed coastal sage scrub habitat mi tigation and enhancement program with respect to minimizing adverse impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat and
sensitive species, Del Mar Manzanita and summer holly. The total area of the
coastal sage scrub enhancement is 15.5 acres, which is a mitigation ratio of 1.75: 1. General ly, the sage scrub revegetation areas constitute an expansion of an existing natural corridor or enhancement of ruderal (weedy) open spaces but also include manufactured slopes associated with the Phase I11 road system. As a component of the enhancement plan, three sensitive plant species (wart-stemmed ceanothus, summer hol ly and Del Mar Manzani tal within the western areas proposed for preservation will also be preserved. As noted, Del
Mar manzanita is a species also proposed for federal listing. individuals to be saved are slated for removal in the existing master plan. There are also a number of Del Mar manzanita and summer holly individuals along the eastern edge of Phase 111, within the area designated for residential development and construction of Ambrosia Lane in Planning Area
17. The plants are in three small groups. As mitigation for their removal and to maintain the diversity of plant species within the Phase I11 area, both species will be repopulated at a ratio of 1O:l for the Del Mar manzinita and 3:l for the summer holly.
Many of the
Subsequent to the City's approval and in response to Commission staff comments regarding the gnatcatcher, the coastal sage scrub mi tigation program has been
revised to include provisions designed to mitigate project impacts to gnatcatchers should they be found prior to grading the site. These provisions
include conducting a survey of the site to identify any nests of birds prior
to the nesting season (March 1 to June 1 of each year). If birds are found, a minimum 100 foot buffer zone must be created around nesting sites. These
---- Carl sbPLCPA 1-94(8)
Page 15
provisions were approved by the Commission in its approval of another site in
Carlsbad that proposed removal of coastal sage scrub to accommodate new development (CDP #6-92-183, Altamira Park).
According to -the resource agencies and biologists, a mitigation project should connect adjacent undisturbed habitat, include a mix and variety of native plants and animals that might have been found before the area was disturbed, and create a habitat that, once established (which may take as long as 10 years), will be stable and resistant to invasion by introduced plants and people. Based upon the above mitigation criteria, the proposed coastal sage scrub mitigation plan may be found at least partially acceptable by DFG and the Service in its review of Phase I11 coastal sage scrub impacts because, under the Process and Conservation guidelines, habitat enhancement, creation, and/or transplantation of CSS species may be considered as mitigation. However, while the mitigation plan contains maintenance and monitoring provisions to assure presribed performance standards, it will be at least 5 years and most likely closer to 10 years before mature vegetation would be realized. Additionally, mitigation programs rarely, if ever, approach what was once on the ground. Thus, only under the most optimistic scenario, and only then after 5 to 10 years, would the mitigation plan potentially meet the
NCCP guidelines test requiring no net loss of coastal sage scrub habitat
value. test. That is, even if the mitigation program eventually created habitat that was identical to what pre-existed, some habitat value affecting the ability of the subregion to maintain viable populations of target species over the long term would inevitably be lost in the growout period before maturity of the revegetation effort.
In the interim, it could not meet the no net loss of habitat value
However, there are also several factors which are deficient and inconsistent with the NCCP guidelines posed by the mitigation program. on SANDAG mapping, the Phase 111 area qualifies as an area that has "higher" . rather than "lower" long-term conservation value because it is a segment of a larger wildlife corridor. its identification as a wildlife linkage, it can be argued that the impacts may not be acceptable due to the significance of the on-site habitat. In any event, the proposed mitigation program does not include acquisition of any
"high-quality" habitat to offset the loss of that habitat, thus, the
mitigation plan would not be found to be adequate to protect the sensitive resources and preserve long-term planning options, or to comply with the NCCP process and conservation guidelines. That is, it is likely that, once reviewed for consistency with the 4d provisions, additional mitigation would be required if the proposed impacts could be found acceptable. According to
the above mitigation guidelines, this may take the form of acquiring additional mitigation lands or providing an in-lieu fee or both. event, absent resource agency review, it is unclear if the proposed mitigation plan could be found consistent with the ESA 4(d) provisions.
In this case, based
Thus, because of the site's high habitat rating and
In any
Further, although the NCCP is not the standard of review, compliance with the process and conservation guidelines does represent a feasible less environmental ly-damaging a1 ternative which must be explored before the Commission can find the proposed revisions to the Phase 111 portion of the
Carl sbad -PA 1-94(B)
Page 16
approved Master Pl an acceptable.
plan has not occurred either through normal CEQA circulation and because the proponent chose to not specifically request comments from the resource agencies on the mi tigation plan.
simply conditioned Phase I11 to obtain resource agency approval prior to the actual grading of the site and not as a filing requirement.
As noted, the HMP is the City's attempt to be consistent with the state NCCP process. The City of Carlsbad has indicated that the proposed Phase I11 open space system was designed to be consistent with the HMP and notes that because
the subject area lies within a HMP preserve planning area, concerns such as open space connectivity and sensitive species preservation/enhancement were addressed during project review. i ncl udes an open space corridor, whi ch extends from the preserve planning area to the Aviara Golf Course and eventually to Batiquitos Lagoon. result of cooperation with the HMP efforts, smaller open space areas that are not part of the connected open space system will be enhanced with sensitive
species, such as Del Mar manzanita and summer holly.
the help of multi-species planning efforts, the Aviara Phase I11 area was
redesigned to be much more environmentally sensitive than the previously
approved development. Based on this redesign, the environmental review
documents for the Phase I11 proposal concluded that the proposed development was consistent with the HMP.
Resource agency revi ew of the mi ti gation
Furthermore, the City, in its approval,
The City states the Phase I11 amendment
Also as a
The City notes that with
Despite the above statements by the City, the incomplete status of Carlsbad's Habitat Management Program and the lack of progress irt implementing the NCCP process makes it difficult for the Commission to approve the proposed LCP amendment at this time. Despite the City' s contentions regarding the subject site's conformance with the HMP and its regional placement as far as connectivity and relative value, the Commission is not assured that approving
the master plan revisions would not be precluding future planning options.
Habitat evaluation maps prepared by the San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG) as part of the NCCP process place the majority of Phase I11 lands in
the highest habitat category, "Very High", which evaluates habitat for the
gnatcatcher, target and habi tat value index model s , and potenti a1 wi 1 dl i fe
corri dors . In addition, SANDAG' s Biologi cal Core and Linkage Area Resources Map also identifies Phase I11 lands as areas of "biological importance". City ' s approval however re1 i ed on the appl i cant I s mi ti gati on plan and subsequent review of the project by the resource agencies.
Thi s 1 ack of consul tati on and a1 ternati ves analysi s precludes the Commi ssion ' s ability to find that there are no less environmentally-damaging alternatives and that the revisions conform with the cited Chapter 3 policies. the Commission's original approval of the Pacific Rim Master Plan authorized a
greater impact to coastal sage scrub communities by acceptance of the
submitted open space program, it did so finding that the circumstances
associated with the habitat proposed for development at that time allowed a
trade-off, which resulted in encroachment onto dual criteria slopes. This was
done fully acknowledging and accepting the apparent conflict with the dual
criteria slope policies contained in the Mello I, Mello I1 and East Batiquitos Lagoon LCP segments.
The
Although
. Carlsba*LCPA 1-94(B)
Page 1;
The same circumstances do not apply today with regard to the long-range mu1 ti-speci es planning efforts and Federal 11 sting of threatened and endangered species under the ESA.
Phase I11 of the Aviara Master Plan result in a substantially different
project than-what was reviewed by. the Commission in 1988. The considerations and trade-offs which were part of Commission acceptance of the submitted open
space program related to the entire Master Plan area, i .e. Phases I, I1 and
111. To consider substantial revisions to Phase I11 only, in the same
context, is not possible; therefore, the project as proposed can not be found to be in conformance with Sections 30107.5 and 30240 of the Coastal Act.
Additionally, the subject revisions to
Additionally, the City did not take into account the requirements of the NCCP process and conservation guidelines. Given today's circumstances, review under the guidelines would offer a feasible less environmentally-damaging a1 ternative to the present proposal, which must be considered before it can be found consistent with the Coastal Act. Specifically, the Commission must be able to find that adverse impacts to existing native coastal sage scrub and southern maritime chaparral have been adequately mitigated or that no net loss of habitat value would occur. Therefore, the Commission finds the proposed revision to Phase I11 is premature and does not meet the requirements of the Coastal Act with regards to resource protection and long-range planning. Since it is not consistent with Coastal Act Sections 30107.5 and 30240, it must be denied.
PART IV. FINDINGS FOR REJECTION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD MELLO I AND MELLO I1
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT 1-94. AS SUBMITTED
A. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION
The proposed amendment to the Aviara Master Plan, which serves as the Land Use Plan (LUP) and Implementation Plan (IP) for those portions of the Mello I,
Mello I1 and East Batiqui tos Lagoon/Hunt Properties segments that lie within its geographic limits, includes a number of changes. These changes apply specifically to Phase I11 lands that lie within the Mello I and Mello I1 segments. boundaries, realignment of streets, addition of 37 units to the previously approved plan in Phase I11 of the master plan, alteration of residential
product mi x and revi sions to development and design standards.
.
These changes include modification of planning area and open space
The topography of the Phase I11 area subject to the proposed amendment is characterized by a series of north-south trending hills and valleys. The
valley areas have served as drainage courses carrying runoff from the northern portion of the watershed to the downstream lagoon. composed of slopes of 25% grade and greater and are covered with native vegetation, primari ly coastal sage scrub and chaparral plant communi ties. A number of eucalyptus groves are scattered over the property.
Some of the hillsides are
B. CO NFORMITY WITH CERTIFIED LAND USE PLAN
Re1 evant pol i ci es which address protection of environmental ly sensitive
Carl sbad '-A 1-94(B) Page 18
habitat areas include Policy 3-1 of the certified Mello I1 LCP, "Slopes and Preservation of Vegetation" which addresses environmental ly sensitive habitat areas. It states:
Certain areas of the Carlsbad coastal zone have very high habitat value. These areas are not suitable for farming. number and diversity of both plant and animal species, several of which
are threatened because of extensive conversion of mixed chaparral and
coastal sage scrub habitats to urban or agricultural uses. Also,
we1 1-establ i shed and we1 1-maintained vegetation is a major deterrent to
soil erosion and attendant difficulties.
These areas exhibit a large
Unless specifically addressed in other policies of this Land Use Plan, the vegetation on steep slopes shall be maintained so that natural habitats are preserved and soil erosion is minimized.
In addition, to more specifically address development of steeply sloping hillsides with native vegetation, the certified LCP contains the following provision:
Grading and Erosion Control
a) For those slopes mapped as possessing endangered plant/animal species and/or coastal sage scrub and chaparral plant communi ties, the following shall apply:
1) Slopes of 25% grade and over shall be preserved in their natural
state, unless the application of this policy would preclude any
reasonable use of the property, in which case an encroachment not to
exceed 10% of the steep slope area over 25% grade may be permitted.
For existing legal parcels, with 25% grade, encroachment shall be
permitted, however, any such encroachment shall be limited so that at
no time is more than 20% of the entire parcel (including areas under
25% slope) permitted to be disturbed from its natural state. This
policy shall not apply to the construction of roads of the City's
Circulation Element or the development of utility systems. Uses of
slopes over 25% may be made in order to provide access to flatter
areas if there is no less environmentally damaging alternative avai 1 ab1 e.
Lastly, Subsection 4 of Mello I LUP Policy #1, which pertains directly to
Phase I11 lands, provides:
4. A11 land uses a nd intensitv of use s hall be comDat ible with the protect ion of sensitive coasta 1 resources.
Of the roughly 310 acres of slopes of 25% grade or greater contained within the entire Master Plan area, about 160 acres or one-half of those on site meet the dual criteria of 25% grade and coastal sage and chaparral plant communities. Of the 160 acres which meet the dual criteria, the Master Plan as approved by the Commission allowed encroachment onto about 50 acres. Some
CarlsbA LCPA 1-94(B) Page i
of this encroachment involves small and isolated pockets of slopes meeting the dual criteria. However, the topography of the site is such that it also included some of the major continuous steep slope landforms.
In its findings for the approval of the original Master Plan, the Commission
found that a system of weighted values could be applied to the site.
weighted values were assigned to the various steep slope areas which met the dual criteria and were protected under the LCP policies. critical slopes, based on local review after application of the weighting system, were designated for permanent open space while other steep slope areas meeting the dual criteria were determined to be less important as viable speci es habitats.
These
Only the most
Another major factor in a-llowing encroachment into the dual criteria areas was that the Master Plan called for other habitat areas and sensitive vegetation on more gentle terrain of the site, not ordinarily subject to the development prohibitions contained in the the LCP, to be retained as natural open space. These other open space areas, exclusive of the wetlands of Batiquitos Lagoon or the golf course, include 132 acres.
The determination to retain this additional acreage in natural open space was due to a variety of factors. In some cases, the areas in question included flora or fauna, such as the California gnatcatcher, which through the CEQA review process was determined to be appropriate for protection. In other
cases, the additional areas to be retained in natural open space involved other development constraints, such as major overhead electrical transmission 1 i nes. Other areas were constrained pursuant to project requi rements appl i ed
at the local level. For instance, the City required, primari ly for visual
reasons, that large stands of mature eucalyptus groves be preserved, even
though the LCP, either as previously certified or as now amended, would not
have specifically required their retention. The importance of these groves has been recognized for their ability to screen portions of the development from views from 1-5, a major coastal access route, and in recognition of their
historic character as a visual resource.
The Commission found that adding non-dual criteria areas to the open space
system of the Master Plan committed substantial acreage to permanent open space, retained sensitive habitats and preserved natural landforms consistent with the applicable Coastal Act sections. The Commission further found the
proposal mi tigated the proposed encroachment into sensitive steep slope
areas. However, the same circumstances do not apply today, recognizing the long-range mu1 ti-speci es planning efforts and Federal 1 i sting of threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. In addition, while
certain tradeoffs may have been supported to adopt the master plan at that time, there were no revisions made to the applicable policies. When one
applies the certified land use plan provisions to the proposed Phase I11
proposal and considers the current resource issues being raised in this
proposal and throughout the County, the subject amendment cannot be found
consistent.
Certainly, as identified, given today's circumstances, coastal sage scrub
h Car1sbad-L-CPA 1-94(B)
Page 20
qualifies as a sensitive coastal resource. Therefore, the proposed master
plan revisions cannot be considered compatible with the protection of said
resources. In its review of implementation plan changes, the Commission must find that such changes are in concert with the policies of the certified LUP.
Clearly in this case, such a finding cannot be made.
In addition, the Aviara Master Plan provides in its "Open Space" section (p.
26 of the Master Plan) that one of the four open space categories which are included within the Master Plan LUP under "Open Space For the Preservation of Natural Resources" is "Natural Slopes". It does not define whether these slopes are steep or non-steep but states there are approximately 240 acres of them. when that protection is vital for the preservation of natural resources and is invoked only when such preservation is critical. Commission's position that such a finding can be made.
Clearly the intent to protect limited non-steep areas is only desired
In this case, it is the
As noted in the preceding LUP findings denying the Phase I11 revisions, the Commission found that the proposed Master Plan changes would result in adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat, namely the almost 9 acres of coastal sage scrub that is proposed to be removed in the amendment request. As discussed, this habitat meets the Coastal Act definition of environmentally sensitive habitat based on Section 30107.2 which defines "environmentally sensitive area" as any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats
are either rare or especially valuable because of their special role in an
ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by buman activities
and development. In addition to meeting the Coastal Act definition,
protection of coastal sage scrub is the focus of planning efforts at all
levels of government; most notably under the statewide NCCP process.
In its findings for denial, the Commission found the City did not take into
account the requi rements of the NCCP process and conservation guide1 ines when
approving the master plan changes. By failing to do so, an opportunity was
missed which would offer a feasible less environmentally damaging alternative to the present proposal. Specifically, the Commission was unable to find that adverse impacts to existing native coastal sage scrub and southern maritime chaparral were adequately mitigated or that no net loss of habitat value would occur. Therefore, the Commission finds approval of the implementation plan amendment at this time, as approved by the City, is premature. The Commission
finds the proposed revision to Phase I11 does not meet the requirements of the
Coastal Act with regards to resource protection and long-range planning, and is not consistent with the certified City of Carlsbad LCP.
demonstration that impacts to existing native coastal sage scrub and southern
maritime chaparral wi 11 be adequately mitigated, consistent with the mandates of the certified land use plans, the Commission cannot find the Phase I11 revisions are consistent with or adequate to carry out the habitat policies of the LUP and therefore must be denied.
Without
PART V. CONSISTENCY WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY ACT (CEOAl
Section 21080.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exempts
CarlsbaL-LCPA 1-94(B)
Page 2i
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 .
Section 21080.5 (d)(2)(i) of the Public Resources Code requires that the
Commission not approve an LCP or LCP amendment if these are feasible
a1 ternati ves or mi ti gati on measures whi ch would substanti a1 ly 1 essen any
significant adverse impact which the activity may have on the environment. In
the case of the subject LCP amendment request, the Commission finds that approval of the amendment -to the Mello I and Mello I1 segments would result in
potentially significant environmental impacts under the meaning of the
Cal i fornia Environmental Quality Act. Impacts to coastal sage scrub resulting from Phase I11 implementation, could also endanger the threatened California gnatcatcher, which has been previously sighted in the Phase I11 area. Also, absent development and incorporation of a comprehensive multi-species habitat protection program into the LCP, the Commission finds that there are feasible alternatives and mitigation measures which would substantially lessen significant adverse impacts the amendment would have on the environment. Therefore, the amendment is being rejected.
(9548A)
.. .* . .... \
EXHIBIT 3
.
......... .......... ......... ................... ................... ................... ...................
PORTION OF THE PACIFIC RIM MASTER PLAN REGULATED BY THE EAST BATIQUITOS LACOON! . ........
:;$;:;$;:;:;<: HUNT PROPERTIES LCP SEGMENT .
pLbQ+!'j+!jjmG - mi.4.s -
-.
4 3.. .:i: .I n.. .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 94-41
A RESOLUTION. OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, APPLICATION FOR A MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT, TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP AND HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
CASE N0:MP 177 (GI /GPA 93-06/LCPA 92-01/CT 92-03/HDP 92 -04
CASE NAME: AVIARA PHASE I11
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on December 1, 1993
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider
amendments to Master Plan MP 177(G) , General Plan GPA 93-06, Local
Coastal Plan LCPA 92-01, Tentative Subdivision Map CT 92-03 and
Hillside Development Permit HDP 92-04 and adopted Planning
Commission Resolution Nos: 3574, 3575, 3576, 3577 and 3578
respectively, recommending to the City Council that they be
approved: and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, did on
January 25, 1994 hold a duly advertised public hearing to consider
said amendments and at that time heard all persons interested in or
opposed to Master Plan MP 177 (G) , General Plan GPA 93-06, Local
Coastal Plan LCPA 92-01, Tentative Subdivision Map CT 92-03 and
Hillside Development Permit HDP 92-04; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that MP
177(G), GPA 93-06, LCPA 92-01, CT 92-03 and HDP 92-04 will not have
a significant impact on the environment and the City Council has
concurred and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued and
approved in satisfaction of the requirements of the City of
Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance
California Environmental Quality Act: and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-L- A
WHEREAS, the City Council, after considering all proposed
changes, directed the City Attorney to return with appropriate
documents ,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the findings and conditions of the Planning
Commission in Resolution Nos. 3573, 3574, 3575, 3576, 3577 and 3578
constitute the findings of the City Council in this matter.
3. That the two conditions in Planning Department
memorandum dated November 17, 1993 be added and an additional
condition as stated at the City Council meeting be added to read as
follows:
"(1) The applicant shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code unless previously excluded by the Parks Agreement between the City and Aviara Land Associates dated June 1, 1989, as determined by the Parks and
Recreation Director.
"(2) The applicant shall provide school fees .to mitigate conditions of overcrowding as part of building permit application. These fees shall be based on the fee schedule in
effect at the time of building permit application. All or a
portion of said fees may be waived subject to the approval of the Carlsbad Unified School District,
Developer shall provide a 30' wide temporary
access easement along the easterly boundary of Lot 3, as shown on
Exhibit *An, until such time as a permanent alternate access
easement is dedicatedto allow pedestrian and vehicular access from
the residential areas east of the project to Aviara Park and the
Aviara Oaks School to the satisfaction of the City Council."
"(3)
4. That the alignment of Poinsettia Lane be approved as
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
5. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration is approved
as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3573 on file with
the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference.
6. That the application for Master Plan Amendment (MP-
177(G) to change planning area boundaries, internal street
alignment and residential product mix on property generally located
along future Ambrosia Lane, north of Alga Road in LFMP Zone 19 is
approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3574 on
file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference.
7. That the General Plan Amendment (GPA 93-06) to add
the residential medium high density (RMH) and residential high
density (RH) designations to the existing combination district for
property generally located north of the Batiquitos Lagoon, east of
1-5 and west of El Camino Real in LFMP Zone 9 is approved as shown
in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3575 on file with the City
Clerk and incorporated herein by reference.
8. That the Local Coastal Plan Amendment (LCPA 92-01) is
approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3576 on
file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference.
9. That the Tentative Subdivision Map (CT 92-03) to
subdivide and rough grade the individual neighborhood and major
streets on property generally located along future Ambrosia Lane,
north of Alga Road in LFMP Zone 19 is approved as shown in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3577 on fila with the City Clerk and
incorporatea herein by reference.
10. That the Hillside Development Permit (HDP 92-04) to
rough grade the neighborhood and major streets on property
generally located along future Ambrosia Lane, north of existing
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
Alga Road is approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolution
No. 3578 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by
reference.
11. This action is final the date this resolution is
The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the adopted by the City Council.
Carlsbad
apply:
Municipal Code, @'Time Limits for Judicial Review" shall
"NOTICE TO APPLICANT"
"The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094 . 6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad
by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision
becomes final a request for the record of the
proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008."
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the
City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 8th day of FEBRUARY
1994, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Stanton, Kulchin, Nygaard, Finnila
NOES: None
ATTEST:
.
5
NOT TO SCALE
POINSETTIA LANE
ALIGNMENT STUDY
I I I ALTERNATE *A'' I OrSASKA
. - _- - _.C_
EXHIBtT 'T
Dated November 17, 1993
PRASE III
MASIZR PLAN AMENDMENT
REPLACEMENT PAGES
2:SCX'YT'gN:
-::s 7 23. L acre ?Laming area includes -:-:- -- - ?ntaekcd shglr famfLY decached hOmeS.
:>.e ucs; -5v :he L&:h and 15th holes of :Sa 3olf course.
Ilannz.3 .Area 21
- ., - , . - ..
The neighborhood is Sounded :a the ea$: 5y *A" Street and z3
Zha boundary vi:h
:he norrhves: is Suffered by a nrtxral open space area.
s c .I I ' 3CA:':y : .. " . .--
63 single family residential unics (q 1.7 tiaxixm of --
~U/AC) . ?ri*ra:e recreation Caci1F:Les a?. allowed in
conjunc=ion ;ri:h :Sa residancial ,nix.
.- . . - .. . .. .
Sfnglr family resFdrntfa1 housing. trivatr
r'acilizzes 6 ~9 ais0 be inciuded Ln chis planning area.
recreation
The saximm height 1s 30 frat as measurrd to tha peak of tha highart roof
Z&. -- AC Least 4& 15X of cha structures
13 =his ?Laming Area shall be no more than on. stoq rad shall
not exceed a height of 22 fret to che roof peak. -:. --
, ..
& .. ... .- -. ..
acks :
>e sacaack along "Ag Streee shall ba not Lass ch.n 26 20 feet for all
s:?.x=ures. . The minimum front yard setback for str~~curas along
ineertor streets shall ba noc lass th.n 20 fret. P
e all structures shall be satback a mfnlma of ZS faet from che planning area boundary. - AU other setbacks rh.11 be fn confora~ncr with Section 21.10 of th8 Carlsbad lZuniclp.1 Code.
*. ..
€he .. ..
Parking shall conform eo che standards of Chaptar 21.W of ch0 Carlsbad
Xunicipal Cod..
l35
Legend
Key Map --
.e -
&---
Design Criteria - Planning Area 17 Exhibit V- 18
Jurldrnqs ra zh~s zorghbot?ood shal!. relato stronqly co tho sLoprzg
JLZQ and shall avord larqo flat sad aroaa.4
3ut?aor zaurtyardr. ?&tror and SLdraa should bo iacluded uhonevor
20s 1 rb I..
Spocral attontron shall bo gtvon zo tho Fncorporation of ad)acont
=pen sprco aroa and golf =ourso as an amonicy to zho norqnborzood
An own fmnco shalL 50 Locatod at :ho top of slop. Fn all d8volopmd aroaa
adjacont =a :ho golF course or ochmr opn sprco a10aI.
ALL eolmounity-uida l.nd8cap. stmdardr d8rcrrbod in Soceion A. Cornunity
3errgn Sloamnts of Chaptor IV rh.11 50 rncorporatod Lnto thrr ?l&nnrng at...
:n addrtron, tho following rpocrfic Landscapo concmptr shall 50 rncludod rn
tho dovolopnone of this plannrng aroa:
tmd8caping rk&ll bo incotpot8t.d to rcroon all r~~~czuroa and
aarkrng facilitioa from “A‘ Strrnt .
‘Jiewm to and from tho golf course and Lagoon rhalf bo preao~od.
* Cornon stro8trc~p. aroaa shall conform to camaunity r.quir.montr.
Stroat tr088. hnd8C8p. plantrng Lntonrity zon.8, prvmq, entry
.mnumclnts, irrrq&tLon syarm8. w8llr. foncor, lighting, ote., havo
3.011 prcdot0rmtn.d to prov~do consrrtoncy in do8rgn and qualizy.
137
3=er! isace:
Zko 5anu?ac=uzed 3:opo areas 3SalL 50 3al.?taL.?.d as spon spacm. Additronal
areas along :ko wostor3 aoundary 3f :ha ?lannL.?g axma shall 30 aa~xa~nod as
.?at;tral ;pori space rncLudraq eucalyptus jrovms Locatad at :?.e nor=huost and
sout?.wosc =or2mrs of t30 ?Lanning droa xhLc3 nay bo thrnnod. A :fa* thLnnLnq
?lan snall ~r suornrztod =s ::a ?lannrzq 3rroctor fot approval. 2m above open
3paca areas snail 30 marncainad Sy t58 =mmunLty opon spaco aa~ntenanc8
dr3tttct.
rm:
Any ~ovoiopmont Yrthrn %his pirnning at.. shall comply vtth zh8 City's
3iLLs~d8 2ovmLopnmnt Rqulrtrons and tha slop. and C~SOU~CO prmsorvat~on
aolrcrms of err8 undarlyrnq Local coastal program and SubSOqWnt coastal
pmt:. Any applxation for dovolopnont atthrn this planning arm shall
:.viZe 3 3lOQO a~.lyS&8/bLOlogLcaL resourea durrng
Tontativo Hap ,C~YL.Y.
138
>.e iaxzwrn hei3nc shall me exceed 35 feac. All heighes shall be dacermined
?er 5ac:zan 21.3L.365 at' zhe Crrlsbad Yunicipal Coda. At Least 50% of cna
;here :.'.rea scary structures are proposed. no aore chan one-half of =ha
szrxrce snail 3a :hree scories in neigitt.
ac,Jc=ares - -- Lr! ~his ?',arming Area shail ba no aore Zhan tvo stories in heiac.
Seebacks.
7Lanninq area boundary sholL be SO feet fully Landscaped for scaccures and
open ?orking. Front y8rd seebacks from ocher st re at^ and drives shall be in
cc~nr'oraancr with Saction 21.&5.090(b) of cha Carlrbad Xunfcipal Coda. ma
miniaurn buiLdlng seprratlon shdL be 20 feet.
public xciliq earecoenc shall be 30 feet.
Zhe minimu setback from ;he
Barking shall conform co the standards of Chapter 21.U of the Carlrbad
Xunicipal Code.
139
\
18
SI000 preser
Legend
surric Pourl @
Design Criteria - Planning Area 18 Exhibit V-19
- : awc zg:
6 snaL: be required along =he easterly ?Laming area boundary.
&CSC 334 : .LL c~mmuniyr-~ide Landscape standards descrlbed Ln Section A, Comrmmi:y
2esF3n Elernants or' Chapter IV shall bo incoqorarod into chis planning area.
:a add::,on. =he following specific Landscape concepts shall be included in
:?.e devt Lopmant o E' this p Lrnning area:
c :amon sttoetscapo areas sh8lL conform eo community raquirrmonts. jcrset :=,os, landscapo planting intrnsity zonos, paving, entry
nonuments , irrigation systoas , valls , fences, Lighting, acc. , have Soen pre-doterminod co provide consirtoncy in dosign and quality.
* 'Landscaping adjacent to the public ueilicy corridors shall utiliro
zrees. shrubs and walls to visually screen utflicy stnictures and
?rovide security and privacy for tho hoaaovner.
* Existing troes identified during Wrrer
Tentative Kap revirv Shall be prrsorved.
* -4 fire supprosslon zone subject to tho approval of :ho Planning
Dfrrctor and Fire .Y.rshal shall bo established bowoon
141
nativa/na.curalized arras and st?JC:Ured.
should incorporace scTJctJra1 setbacks from nacive areas 13
combination with a ?togtarn of selecctve Ehinning of nati'rt
vegacation subject ;o =he approval or' the ??annir.g 3ftec:ot.
%e fife suppression
f - ;%ere aarking lots are ?rovided, a Binham 320 square foot
:andscaped island snalL be provided for every :en ?arkin3 spaces
Xes idenc parking vichln the SWL easemeat sbll ba ninisized.
* Passfva recraaefonal usas ba alloved within the SDW casement.
Acciva usas shall ba avoldad vfthfn this earemant.
4 >e :rea srjle for this planning shal1 5e
Lnr'ormal.
?Den Space' .. Yanufacntrad slopes along tha easterly planning araa boundary
# shall be oaintainad as open
space. This area shall Sa maintainad by the coamuriey open spaca nrintenance
district.
..
-A portion of the arjor
community :rail syscen shall aeandrr through the SX&E easement from che sour!~
east CQ cha north vast portions of chr Plmnlng &ea. The onsite sec=;ons 35
=his crail shall be construczed as a condieion of davelopment for :his
71anning area.
--
c;radLnn:
- .uy developmene within this plannfn5 arra shall comply vlth the City's
Yillside Developmane Ragulaefonr and tha slopa and resource preservation
policies of tho undarlying local coastal prograa and subsrquant coastal
?emit. Any applfcrcion for drvrlopmant vithin this pLanning area shall
require a slop. andysis/biological resource map during V
Tenratlva !hp reviev.
142
" ATTCN: .. s. - i~~nc - i84 aul:L-famiiy rcsidcncial +nits arc aLLovad by =ke Grovth Yanagerner.~
concroi ?oint (q 19.8 DU/AC), hovrver this number nay be increased if
?laming Area L9 is utilized to comply vlch Avlara's oblfgatton for
kcluslonary Affordable housfng to the extent th8t excess units are available
*rltSfn :he Aviarr Ustar Plan area.
?=:*race rccrcacion faci1i:ies are required in conjunc:ion with :ha rasidentiai
mi :s .
- .. -.
?E,9?IITTED :'S'S.
.Yulci-ZamiLy tesidential housing.
Xecraational facilities.
b
:-laizht:
The oaxiaum bight Ln thfr phnnfng arm shall not exceed 35 faet. All
heighcr shall be dot8rmin.d per Section 21.04.065 of the Carlsbad 3unfcipd
Code. Scyxtures shall noc exceed 28 fret in height within 50 feet of :he
?ark. At Lcosc 501 of the sfruccures in this P1urninS Ar8r shall ba 30 more
zhan rao scotfes in height. Vhetr chree story stmcmrrs are proposed, no
aore :!tan one-half of cho structure shall be chree stories in height.
SecSackr;
38 ainimtm setback from el10 Poinsettia kne right-of-vay shall be 50 feat for
stNcNrrs and 30 free for open parking.
scraaned from PoLnsactia bo. Zho minimum front yard setback along "2"
Street shall bo 20 frat for stnaccures and 15 foot for opon parking. No
direct garaqo access shall be cakon from *2' Str8et. Fronty8rd setbacks from
ocher sereacs and drfves shall be in conformnco with Soctfon 21.15.090(b) of
the Carlsbrd Xuniclpal Cod.. Rm ainFmrn setback along chr eutotly planning
area boundary shall bo 50 faat for st-curas and GO fret for open parking.
The minima srtbrck from cho park shall ba 30 feet.
adjiicmt to tfia park shall be lurdrcaped urd voll maintained.
parking shall be screened from dre park slte and Poinsettia kn..
building separation shall ba 20 frat.
All open parking shall be fully
All und.voloprd areas
All open
The minimum
143
Legend
VI Trul
19
Desigrr Criteria - Planning Area 19 Exhibit V- 2Q
c 3ucCoor =ourfyatds. ?reios and ?lazar shall be included.
c Special aczencton shall be given :o incoqorace :,Le adjacent ?ark
areas as an amenizy :o :he nridhborhood. - -_ . z;.arze~.t : I C", -
- jizeec.
A na:or sner:? yay shall be located ac :he ineersoctfon of Poinrectia Lane and
It 7 11
- . omc i "p :
f:ar':Lc zoise alOn5 Poinsettia bne shall 50 ac=rnurrd if t8qUir8d chrough
z5e zzcorToratFon of a roLid oaronry uaLl,, earthen berm or combination or' =he
r.0. An ouen fence or vall shall bo Locacrd alon5 310 alanning area boundav
adjacent =3 :he ?ark sieo. h docoracivo solid fence or rall shall be located
along :he aas:er!.y planning area boundary.
dsc aDq :
ALL communicy-wid. Landwape standards describd in Section A, Cornnunicy
2esig Sleoents of Chaptor IV shalL be incoqoratrd inco :his planning area.
I3 addi:ion. tho follovlng specific Landscape concepts shall bo included in
;he developmane of this planninq areal:
* Comaon strrocrcape areas shall conform co community rrquiremoncr .
Screet zrres, landscape plancinq inconsfey zonos, paving, rncry
3onunencs. irrigation rystopr. vallt, fences, Lighting, OCC., havo
been ?re-decorminod to provido consirtmcy in design and qurlicy.
* randreaping and borming shall be requfrrd co screen all structllres
and open parking from Poinsoctir Lane, tha adjacenc park to the
north and the adjacent proporty ea cho ..it.
145
-. * :xisting :tees Iden?’ ,,-,ed :; 5urlng .rt=: .: !taster Tentative Yap revisv snai: be ?reser-d.
A fi:e suppression :ana suofec: zo :he approval of :Se Plannin~
-3i:ec:or and ?ire Yarsnal snaLL be es:ablished bardern
?.acL*re/nacuralizrd areas and s;tuc:xres.
ip.OULd Lxor?ora:a s;ruc:*~rai secbacks from native areas Ln
:3no:na;:an 7i:h a ?togram of se1ec:ivr :hinnrng or‘ nacr-ze
.:e3”=acLan suo:ec: :a :?e approval of :he ?Lannrng 3i:ec:sr.
*
The fire suppression ?:an
c ;%ere ?arkins lots are ?raviied. i niniaua 320 square fooc
landscaped zsLar.d snaLL be ?rovLded for aver- Zen 2arkir.g ipaces
Zoer? 5:ace. .
Yanuiaczzred lopes areas shai: be nain:aLned by :he community open space <is--* I - c. -- -.
Any :eveLo?ment -Ji:hin =Sis ~Lanning area shall comply wirh :he ‘1L::r’o
3iLlsLCe 3eveiopmen; XeguLaclons and =he siope and resource ?reserfation
?ernmrz. .Any appiication for development within chis planning area shall
Fentative Yap :evtev.
- .oiiczes ai =he mderLyFng Local coas:al grogram and subsequenc coascal
raauire a J Lope anaiysisibioiogical tesource map during --
hff3rdable !lousinn:
Zf Flanninq uea ?9 is utllFzrd to srtlsfy Aviara’s obligation tor
hclurionary Affordable Housing, che above darelopment standards and Speclrl
hsign criteria my be v8lved or nodiflod as approved by the City.
146
>.is b3 13.2 acre plannins area includes oulzi-faaily rcsidantial ?mitt.
s:=e Is bounded by Poinsac:ia irne to :ha norcS. .A* Street :o :he c+n vast
and 4 Planning koa La to =he southaort. A
3 L3O 53ot ?uoLLc uciiiq easament is lOCaC8d - on a ?orclon af :ha
7Lanning area.
:.e
*:sE .G::CAT-=
i.. L20 muiti-family rcsidencial Vunizs are alloved by the Crovth Yana~cmcnt
eoncol ?oinc (w 9.1 )U/AC).
?=:*rate recreation r'acilicies are required in conjunceion .riA :he residencLaL
znics.
rJSES:
Yulci-family rasidoncirl housing.
3acrertional frci1i:ier.
4eirhc:
30 aaximurn height in this planning area is 35 feet. All hoightr shall Je dacermined per Soction 21.00.065 of &io Carlsbad YunicFpal Coda. At Least SOX
of the st:Nctures in this Planning Area shall bo no mota chrn rao stories in
height. ;here chreo scory st~c~ros are proporod. no more ~han on.-half of
:he scrxture shall be &reo stories fn hof&t.
Tho oinimum sotback from -*A* Straoc shall bo 20 feat for strucnrres and iJ
feat for opon parking.
right-of-way shall be 60 faot.
feat. Ftonc yard SatbACh from ochat straacs urd drfvar rbLL bo in
conforsrnco vi& Sactfon 21.&5.090(b) of tho Carlibad Xunfcfpal Coda. Zhe
sinimurn building soparation shall bo 20 faat.
Tho oinLnuP building setback from the ?ainsrcE:Fa Lana - Tho mfniaun setback from public utility aaroaonc shall bo 30
Parkin5 shall conform to cho standards of Chapcar 21.U of tho Carlsbrd
Yunicip.1 Cod..
147
. .
)&---
Design Criteria - P!annirlg Area 20 Exhibit V- 21
..
* jcr3n3 architec:xrai reiief features shall be incor?oracad into ail
ic:';c:zres .rrsijLs fr3m ?oinsac:La >ne and "A" Street. - -qc--. - - .r~amenc-
A najor $ne?: snall be l3ca:cd along =he southerly side of I3insct::a 'ana ac
zke Interseccron ~f "A" Sctcet. .- . .. I.
.An 3oen fance snail be Locacrd alclng :he -, southerly joundarr. 4
A solid vall
Qr! dS C ao e :
All coaununi:y-vide Landscape standards described in Soc::on A. Comnunie:?
Iesigr! Zlmencs or' Chapter iV snail be incor?oracrd into this planning area.
In acldlcion. :he following specrfic landscape concepts shril be included in
:he 5evelopmonc of this planning area:
Landscapo screening of scr=Ic==lras shall be incorporated to soften
tho.view of there ~truc:ures itom "A" Sereoc and ?oinsottLa 'kno.
* Common streatseapa areas shall conform co communicy requirements.
Street :reas. Landscapo planting intrnsicy tones, paving, entry
monuments, irrigation systems. valls, fencer. Lighting, ecc., have
keen ?re-dorenained co provida conristmcy in &sign and qtulicy.
* Lndscaping adjacent co the 3ublic utilicy corridors shall utilize
:roes. shrubs and volls to visually screen urility stmctutas and
provide security and privacy for eha homeowner.
* A fire suppression zona subject to tho approval of :Sa Planning
Director and Fire Xarsh.1 shall ba escabl~shed berdeen
naCiva/noturalfzad areas and sc?acrqxes.
should incoqoracr strJce*dral secbacies from narrve areas in
combination vich a 3rogrun of selective :hi.nning of native - *?agcCacion subject :o :Se approvai of :he ?huiiag Director.
fire suppress ion ;rian
z ;here ?arkin5 lots are grovided, a oinisurn 320 square fooc
lardscapcd island shaiL 5c ?rovided for every :en pricing spaces.
c ?.e zorrSeast corner of :ke ?laming Area ac :he Lnterscczlon o€
?crixec=ia 'Lane and *A* Streee shail be richly hndscaped. - S free: . t%es :
Scree: zree syrle shall be Lnforsai. 28 dominanc tree shall 3e Sourhen
Zagnoiia :-!avoiia 3randiElora). ne supporz :rea sry be Flame T:ee
\'3rachychizon acerffoila) or an al:ernati-Jc selecced by :he devclouer.
..
--ails.
A 7ortson or' 5e mjor community crail Located along Poinsettia he is
Located vichin :his planning area. A second major comunicy trail
easterly rid. of mbroria Lna from Poinsettia Una to fts connaction with :he
SDGE easement trail fn cha southwest comer of tha pluming area. M
>- -
shall consfst of a naandaring sidav81k along chr
21. Tho oruico portion of thesa trails shall be
cons::rrrczrd as a condlcion of drvalopmanc for chis planning area.
re
.iny development viehfn thlr planning aroa shall comply vi& the City's
3illside C)aveLopmenc Regulations and tho slope and rosourco prosamation
golicies or' :he undarlyinq local coastal program and subsequant coastal
permit. Any application for devalopmenc vithin this planning arm& shall
Tentrtiva z1.p raviav.
require a slope a~lyrtr/bFolog~crl rasourca up during .-
3 c S c-3 T yr 72
211s &54 30.4 acre pLanning area ?rovides for
faally detached homes.
north and east.
J Fngla The mighborhood fronts on -“A“ Street EO :he .- *. .. -- -. and vcrlooks the loch and LSch holes of 30Lf tourse :a cm SOUC~.
2 FlrLz ST.&VD~ e * R-1-7500 hil ieveioomenc Ln Planning Area 2L shall conform to :he devclopmenc s=andat$s
af :he
21. LO. 010) .-mless ochervise noted in :his chapter.
8-1-7500 Zone (Carlsbod !lunicipaL Code, Chapter <:,-: - .^
Yanagcment control ?oinc (3+ 2.7 3U/AC).
r*SES.
ringla family residential housing. , . - ..
1.
>a autinum height is 30 faat seasurrd to the peak of tha highest roof ** #. ”
st=dctures in chis Planning Area shall ba no mora thur om seory
and rbll not rrcaad a hrfght of 22 trot eo ehr roof peak.
The oin- setback along --Aa Scraae shall ba 20 fret.
mini- satback froa tho golf course shall be 25 feat.
fhr
HA ..
Parkfnpr Patking shall conform to tha standards of Chaptrt 2l.U of cha Carlibad
Hunicipal Cod..
l51
L
.
Legend
Key Map r.-.
.e*
R
Design Criteria - Planning Area 21 Exhibit V- 22
.-
* Special at:eneLon shaLL be 3iven :3 :he incorporation of adjacent
gpen space areas as an amenir] zo =ke neiaborhood.
- -came i ?g:
.in 3pen fence shall be required aiong the -.
boundary vi:h ., :.Le 30I.f course.
.. 9 .-
ar.dscaDe : ..- A&- ;mmunit:r-vide Landscape sandardr descrlbad in Sec:fon A. Comuniyr
3esiG tlements of Chapter IV shall bo inco~oracrd into chis planning area
:r! addition. :Se following specific Landscap. concepts shall be included In
=;?e deveiopmrnc of :his planning area:
* Landscapo scrroning or' semctures shall bo incorporated to sofcrn
=ha viev of thoro structurrr from mAa Scrroc and :ho golf course.
* Vfevs to and from :ha 30lf course and Lagoon must bo preremed.
* Cotmon strootrcapo areas snall conform to communicy rrquirrmontr. Stroec eraas, Landscape planting intonsfcy fonos. paving, entry
monumantr, irrigation systems, vallr, fences, Lighting, rtc., have
been pre-doeorminod to provido consistency in derfgn and quality.
* Lizndscrpfng adfrconc eo :ha public utility corridors shall utilize
tzeer, shrubs and walls to visually scram urilicy structures.
* A fire suppression zone subjoct to tho approval of tho Planning
Director and FLro 3arsh.l shall bo rrcablishod boaman
nativr/nanrralirad arras and seructurrl secbrckr from native arms
in combination with a program of seloctivo thinning of native
vegecation subject eo tho approval of :ha Planning Ofroctor.
153
Suace :
?.e nanufact-Jred slope areas shalL be maincoined as open space. 3e wooded
area in =ha zorth _' of :ha planning area Snail je maincai?.ed
as natural space. -Locared in this area may be zhinned. .A
:rea ~3inning ?ian snail be submitzed to che Planning Diraccor for approval.
mA, :&& 3e above noced open space areas
snail. be maintained by the community open space maintenance district.
. .. .
G-
.Uy dovelopmont within this planning ama shall comply vith tho Cfty's
3ii;side 3evelopmont Xogulations and cho slop. and resourca preservation
?oiicies of she +urdarlylnq Local coascal program and subsequant coascal
?emit. Any application for dovolopmont vi:hin this planning area shall.
require a slop. anrlysis/bfological resource map during
?antrtlvo -p rrvlrv.
l54
, xqu= "StC,
sfngle famllj residential housing.
30 naximua height i:! :his planning area shall not exceed 30 frat
aaarurrd to tha peak of cha highart roof.
=ha strx==Ires in :his ?Laming rea shall, bo no mora chan
- *,
-1. e At Least 382 LSX or'
on. stow and sh.11 not excead a holght of 22 feat to cha roof peak.
3a ami- sacback along ,Yo Screoc shall bo 20 faac. Tho mfnirrrmr satback
from :ha cul-de-sac seraoe shall bo 20 faoc for strucctuas and opon parking
and 20 faee €or garagar having dlrrct strioc accrss. Zha minisun setback from
zha vortrrly planning aria boundary shall bo 50 frae. fia
minisum sotback from tho public utilfcy cotrldor shall bo 30 fame.
sacback 20 faoe from cha plmnin6 area boundary.
..
klL sczucwes shril 50 .. .. .
P8rking shall conform to cho se.nd.rb of Chaptor 21.U of d~o Carlrbad
?iunfCipAL Cod.. - All collmuricy-wid. elarfgn standards brcrlbod fn Soctiou A of Chaptor IV shalL
bo embodied fn tho arcbieacnua of chis planning rraa. Tho folloving spociffc
yidolinrr shall also bo tnc1ud.d for thfr plianing araa:
1S5
Legend
&----
Design Criteria - Planning Area 22 Exhibit V- 23
. .,
* As shovn on :he Special 2csLgn -,,=.aria exhibit f3r :kFs 9ianni-g area, the identifled sa:urai slopes and canyons shai? be 2rsscrted
and mintdined as open space.
* -Strong archi:ec:urai reiier' features shall be incor7oraced into ai:
s=:tlc=xres viriblo frm ?rsper=jr to :he easc and soucheart.
c 3uiLii:3s in =his -ei3hborhood shal: :elace st:ongiy :o zSe sioping
sL=a and shai: avoid large fLat ?ad areas by :he Lncor?ora:Lon or'
siopped 3uLLdlq 53oc?rFncs.
f '3u:door courtyards, ?acLos and ?Lazas shaLL Fnc Luded .
* 5oecLal atrencion shai: be 3L.ren to :he incot?oration or' adjacent
spen ssace areas dr.d :he. 30if :aurse as an arneni=y =a :.',e
nei3nborr1ood.
AlL communi:y-wide Landscape scandards described in Section A, Cormnuniyr
3esig ELernents or' Chapter 3 shall be Lncoqoraced inco this ?Lannin~ area. Tn addi:Lon. :he folloving specific Landscape concepts shall 5e inclxdad in
=he Savclopmenc of chis planning area:
f Landscape screening of struc:ures shall be incorporated eo sofzen
:he ;tiev of these st?xtures from adjacent propercios :o :he ear.
soucheast and :he soif Course.
* 'fiews to and from che 5oLf course and Lagoon should be prssemed.
* Common streetscrpe areas shall conform to commmicy requirements .
Screec creos, landscape planting intensity zones, paving, entry
monumrnts , irrigation systems, valls. fencos, ligheing, etc. , have
beon pie-dotorained :o provida consistency in dasign and qualicy.
* Landscaping adjacent :o :he public utility corrfdorr shall utillte croos, shntbr and vdls to visually rcreon utilfcy sfruccutas and
provide sacurity and privacy for tho homoowner.
* Zxiscing c'~8.1 Ldrntifiod durlng artrr
Tentrtlvo .!Up review shall be preserved.
* A fire supprassion zone subfecc to tho approval of tho Planning
Direccor and Ffrr .Ylrshal shall bo ortabLishad beweon nativo areas
and struecuras. The fire suppression plan should fncorporace
structural seebacks from nacive areas in combination vich a program
157
of salective chinning of native vegetation subject :O the approval
of che Planning Director.
rc
- Street . Tses:
3.e domrnanc screec Cree in -,his neighborhood shall ba :he London Plana =reg
'?Lancani*as acerifolia). Supporc :xes aay include Canarj island ?<ne (2f~us
canar~ensis) . "Lovering ??urn (Prmw carasifera) Or an al:emntlve selected
by :he developer. - ,De oace:
-e Banufacturcd slope'areas shall Se aaincained as open space. 3e Large
,Ladeveloped areas, especially :he slopes in the northwest and soucheasc
?ortFons or' :he planning area. shall be mineained as nacural space. The
above noted open space areas shall be mincained by the comrmLnity open space
aaincenance dis:rict.
any developmant vithin this planning area shall comply with tho Cfty's
3illside Developmant Regulations and the slope and resource presertacion
2oLicies of :Se undorlying local coastal program and subroquene coastal
?emit. '.Any applicaeion for development vfchin thfr planning area shall
:equira a slope anaLysis/blologicrl tesourco MP during
?i.iter TantacFve XA~ review.
, ", .
L
3is i3i-18.3 acre planning area fs Located near :he center of :he Yaster
??an on :Sa north side of A13a Road and provides neighborhood-comercia1
serrices zo zSe Yaster Plan and nearby areas. Uses at the center shall 50
direczad zovard the neighborhood-co~ercFal needs of :he residents and zesor:
guescs of =he Yascer Plan area.
3PEL3PYEYi STZLNDqBPI * c-L-q
All deveiopment in ?laming Area 23 shaL1 confona :o :ha deveiopment sranCa:&s
of :he C-i ~eighborhood-Co~ercFai Zone vith a Q Warlay (Carlsbad .Y.mici?ai
:ode. Chapter 21.25) unless ocherdise noted in this Chapter.
..
a
Yaximm of !20,000 square feee gross floor area of neighborhood-commercial
uses vhich cater directly co the consumer.
h 2 -acre counnuniy7 recreation vehicle storage facility.
mq r*SES. c Vsos may include, but are not Linitod to, convenience retail. grocer! stores,
bakeries, 5orSer and beaucy shops, book and stationary stores. dry cleaning,
florist shops, health clubs or spar, financial inscirutioru. jewelry stores,
small aedical offices, professional offices, pharmacies. realtors. sewice
stations and :ravel agencies, and a rocreation vehicle scorage facFLit.j vnich
selves the encire .%star Plan co-icy.
%
>e saximum height in this planning area fs 30 feet u btennined by Section
21.36.069 of the Carlsbad Yunicipal Coda.
in order to 3rovIde additional rrlfef while enhancing tho appearance of the
center.
Zha building hoiec shall be varied
ckr :
.Yini- setback along Alga Road for st~ctllles shall be SO feet.
setback for sc~ccuras and open parkini~ from edge of pad along the easterly
planning area boundary rhrll be 50 feet.
and open parking fxom odga of pad along tho northerly plannins area boundaries
shall be 50 feet. Tha oinimtn setback from the public utility easement shall
be 30 feet. A mininun building saparrcion of 20 faec shall be maintained.
All sotback arou shrll bo fully Landscaped with spoclmon times. In addition.
the periphery of this Plurnlng Area shall fnclud. dacorativo walls co buffer
chis US. from adjacent properrier.
The sinilnrrn
Tho ofnFrmn sacback for sc:NccAres
Legend
@ SunKPourr fl VLmOrwnuwcl
Natural Slopes (to be preserv
I f-
Key Map i-- .e- -
&-----
Design Criteria - Planning Area 23 Exhibit V- 24
- ?arkLng shall conform EO :.is o:andards of C5apcer Z?.iG or' :he Carlsbad %anicipaL Coda.
>r.dscaue in ?arkizn .\reas.
.A ainr.'~um af lj Jercenc of :.'e ?arking area shall be landscaped subject io :he
apptovai sc' xe ??arming 3ireczor. A oininun 320 sqwrr r'ooc Landscaped
island snail je ?rovided for every :en ?arKrng spaces.
Silr,ana.
5ignige for 3Ls 7Lanniag area shall Sa regulated as descri5ed in Ckapcer
-11::.
Yo si=e dtvtLopmenc ?Lan shall be processed for :his planniag area crneii
iuiLding ?erzics for 1300 duelLing units wi:hia the tiascar Plan area have been
Issued.
>esGa
Ail cornmuni=y-vida desip standards drscribrd t:! Section A of Chapter IV shall
be embodied in Eke atcairecture of :his planning area. The following specific
gJideiFner shall also br LacLuded for chis planning arra:
* >e archi=rczure of alL 5uildings in :his planning area shall be
cornparibla ui:h =hac of :hr hocel.
* 9utJoor courTjards, ?atios and plazas shall be included.
* .A :hrough public street shall bo providad from Alga Road through ?A
23, :o :ha area norch of PA 23.
* >e sit4 layout for chis Planning Area shall bo coordinated :o
ansure comprtibilfcy wlth adj acrnc planning areas.
%v r-eatTan .
Special cntry ~rea~~~ont .shall bo included at the encranco to cho neighborhood.
commercial cancer. Car. shall be caken co ensuro chat cho comnercFa1 encry
xeament fs a harmonious reinforcrmont of the rosort rncry rertemonc Locatod
on zho oppostta si& of ~lga Road.
Fencinp/tinhtfnl: An open fenca shall bo fncludod ac the rntranco to che neighborhood comerclal
center. Car. shall ba crkon to emuro chat the comorcial entry treaanont is
a hamonious reinforcoment of cho resort entry staeemonc Locatod on tho
opposiEo sido of Alga Road.
LuasaRl: All community-wide Landscape standards doscribod in Soctton A. CammfCy
Design ETomoncs of Chapter IV shall ba incorporacod into chis planning ana.
In addition, cho folloving sprcific Landscape concoptr shall bo includod in
cha dev8Lopmonc of chis planning arm:
16 1
* Coamon stroeescape areas ski: eonform CO communi:./ requizcmenes. Scrret :reed, Landscape ?lrncL~5 Fncrnsi:y Zones, ?aving, encq
rnonmenes, irrigation syscams. walls. fences. Lighting, ecc.. have
been Pre-decermined :o provide consiseency in desF3n and quality.
* 3ich Sandscapins shall be incor7oraced vi:hin and surrounding :he
,en:ec zo screen scz*Ac:ures and 3rovide a ?ark-iFke environaene.
* ?arkiz3 areas shal: 5e sofcened cStough :Sa use or' berms. vaLLs
ana/or ?Lanc.sacarzal.
Landscaped :o *tisuaLL;! screen Loading docks, serrice bays, ecc.
30 :ear side of :Se center snail be '?.eaviL:r
f 20 rccreacion *rehic!e s:orage facilicj shall be screened 5y a
eombinaclon or' Zrnccs and landscapi?g on all sides of the r'acfli:;r.
* A fire suppression zone subjecs :o :he approval of :be Planning
3izec:or and Fire 5arshal shail be establFshad hc-dean nacive areas
and strJctures. The fire suppression plan should inconorate
struc==lral srcbacks from naeive areas in coabinacion vi:h a program
~f seiective :binning of native vesecation subject :o :he approval
:he ?lanning 3irec:or.
* All secbacks shalL be heavily landscaped.
3-m nanufac=ured slaps of :Sis planning area shall bo maintained as ouen
space by :he community open space saintanance district.
m: Any devalopamt vithfn thfs planning ana shall coaply ufch chm Cfcy's
Hfllsida Developmont Regulations and :ha slope and resource ~r~sa~acion
policies of tho undmrlyins Local coastal program and subsequent coastal
permit. Any application for devalopmenc within chis planning area shall require a slope anrlysis/biological resource map during Sfte Development Plan
r cviav .
.16 2
Legcr
Design Criteria - Plannina Area 32 Exhibit V- 33