The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLCPA 93-06; Green Valley; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA)A 4 c3nOFCARLSBM) LAND USE REVtEW APPLICATION FOR PAGE 1 OF 2 2) LOCATION OF PROJECT: ON THE 1) APPLICATIONS APPLIED FOR (CHECK BOXES) (FOR DEPT USE ONLY) Masterplan SpeCificPlan 0 Precise Development Plan Tentative Tract Map ' Planned Development Permit Non-Residential Planned Development West SIDE OF El Camino Real 0 Condominium Permit Special Use Permit 0 Redevelopmept Permit 0 Tentative Parcel Map 0 Administrative Variance 0 General Plan Amendment Local Coastal Plan Amendment 0 Site Development Plan 0 Zonechange 0 Conditional Use Permit 0 Hillside Development Permit Environmental Impact Assessment 0 Variance 0 Planned Industrial Permit 0 Coastal Development Permit 0 Planning Commission Determination 0 List any other applications not specificed (FOR DEPT 4) ASSESSOR PARCEL NO(S). I 216-122-24,36,37 255-011-08,09,10,11,12 255-021-05,06 I 5) LOCAL FAClLmES MANAGEMENT ZONE 07 ,O 6) EMSIlNG GENERAL PIAN DESIGNAnON 8) EXISTING ZONING - I PC 1 9) PROPOSED ZONING 1281.2J 12) PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS 13) TYPE OF SUBDMSION (RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTFUN.) 1 I) PROPOSED NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS 14) NUMBER OF EXISnNG RESIDEN", UNITS 171 16) PROPOSED COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 15) PROPOSED lNDU!XRIAL OFFICVSQUARE FOOTAGE I - CITY OF CARLSBAD LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION FORM PACE 2 OF 2 21) BRIEF DESCRIPTlON OF PROJECE [A General plan Amendment to better reflect l and modify the land use mix - deleting office and adding open space. 7 17) PERCENTAGE OF PROPOSED PROJEa IN OPEN SPACE 1166.5cres 18) PROPOSED SEWER USAGE IN EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS u 19) PROPOSED INCREASE IN AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 20) PROJECT NAME: [ Green Valley 1 NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF. S, OR ClTy COUNCIL MEMBERS TO INSPECT AND TlON. WE CONSENT TO ENTRY FOR THIS INFORMATION TIHAT UL THE MayL INFORMATION IS TRUE AND TU THE IS TRUE AND MY KNOWLEDCL TO THE ELST OF SIGNATURE DATE FOR CIW USE ONLY FEE COMPUTATION: APPLlCATION'lYPB FEE REQUIRED 1 I 1 I I I I W RECEIVED NOV 2 4 1993 TOTAL FEE REQUIRED ' I I ,781.7g I -, DATE FEE PAlD \\- 2'4-43 RECEIPT NO. I I I CITY OF CARLSBAD APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AWDMENT MINOR MAJOR A proposed project requiring that multiple applications be filed must be submitted prior to 3:30 p.m. A proposed project requiring that only one application be filed must be submitted prior to 4:OO p.m. The following materials are required to be submitted with each application except as noted on #11 and #l2, under Property Owner's List and Addressed Labels: 1. Reproducible 1:500 scale map of subject property showing requested Coastal Plan Designation with the acreage involved and surrounding designations and land uses if a map change is proposed. See enclosed graphics. One (1) copy of 8 1/2" x 11" location map (suggested scale 200" -vicinity maps on the site plan are not acceptable). See enclosed graphics. If a text change is proposed indicate where the proposed new text fits into the certified text. If the text is proposed to be revised, clearly indicate modifications using strikeouts and/or underlines. Provide a discussion of the proposed amendments relationship to and effect on other sections of the previously certified LCP. See enclosed text List the zoning measures that will implement the LCPA. Same as city zone. Jm 2. a 3. Jm 4. (nal 5. 6. 7. m 8. Affect on public access (only for area between first public road and the coast). An analysis of potentially sigTllficant adverse cumulative impacts on coastal resources. See EIA previously submitted with project applications. Environmental Impact Assessment Form (Separate fee required). See EIA previously submitted with project applications. na 9. Public Facility Agreement: Two (2) copies: One (1) notarized original, and one (1) Original submitted with previous p reproduced copy. (Separate fee required). application. No development project requested. See enclosed PFF. (;,h,Ue ,/m 10. Disclosure Statement. Original submitted with previous FRM0014 10/92Page 1 of 3 c EQUALIZED ASSESSMENT ROLLS FROM THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE. THE PROJECT WILL NOT GO FORWARD UNTIL THIS INFORMATION IS RECEIVED. - A typewritten list of the names and addresses of all property owners within a 600 foot radius of subject property (including the applicant and/or owner). The list shall include the San Diego County Assessor's parcel number from the latest assessment rolls. - Two (2) separate sets of mailing labels of the property owners within a 600 foot radius of subject property. For any address other than single family residence, apartment or suite number must be included. DO NOT TYPE ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER ON LABELS. d 12. 600 Foot Radius MaD See enclosed graphic. A map to scale not less than 1" = 200' showing each lot within 600 feet of exterior boundaries of the subject property. Each of these lots shall be consecutively numbered and correspond with the property owner's list. The scale of the map may be reduced to a scale acceptable to the Planning Director if the required scale is impractical. d 11. proDertv 0 wner's List and Addressed Labels See enclosed list and labels. HEARD BY THE DECISION MAKING BODY. THE PROJECT PLANNER NOTE: WHEN THE APPLICATION IS TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED TO B CONTACT THE APPLICANT AND ADVISE HIM TO SUBMIT THE JXADIUS 3xcLfmL-Ty OWNERST AND LABEL APPLICANT SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SIGN A STATEMENT THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED REPRESENTS m13. For residential projects within Vista, Encinitas or San Dieguito School Districts, the applicant shall indicate whether he prefers to dedicate land for school facilities, to pay a fee in lieu thereof, or do a combination of these. If the applicant prefers to dedicate land, he shall suggest the specific land. See LFMP Zone 23 School Facilities Section. For residential projects within the Carlsbad Unified School District and the San Marcos Unified School District, the applicant shall submit written confirmation that school facilities will be available to serve the project at time of need. FRM0014 10/92Page 2 of 3 &4. Three (3) copies of the Preliminary Title Report (current within the last six (6) months). See enclosed items. . h15. Proof of availability: a. b. c. Sewer - if located in the Leucadia County Water District. Sewer - if located in the Vallecitos Water District. Water - if located in the Olivenhain Municipal Water District. m16. Colored Location Map and Local Coastal Plan Map (Showing Land Use Designations) (Not required with first submittal). It is the Applicant's responsibility to bring one (1) copy of a colored location map and one (1) copy of a colored Local Coastal Plan Map to the emnning - Comm wn Planning Department Bv Noon eu (8) days Drior to th .. -.Do not mount exhlblt s. ym17. Completed "Project DescriptiotdExplanation" sheet, See enclosed text. m18. Signed "Notice of Time Limits on Discretionary Applications". Original previously submitted with project applications. m19. Deposit for Publication of Notices - See Fee Schedule for amount. FRM0014 10/92Page 3 of 3 PLEASE NOTE: Time limits on the processing of discretionary projects established by state law do not start until a project application is deemed complete by the City. The City has 30 calendar days from the date of application submittal to determine whether an application is complete or incomplete. Within 30 days of submittal of this application you will receive a letter stating whether this application is complete or incomplete. If it is incomplete, the letter will state what is ',-When the application is complete, the compl et i on 1 et t er . Applicant Signatur . To be stapled with receipt to application Copy for file - CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 434-2867 ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT I I I I I I I I RECEIPT NO. 520 2 I I I I I ,- DISCLOSURE STATEMENT MOV 2 4 1933 The following information must be disclosed: 1. 3. List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the applieation. - Owner List tho names and addrmses of all persbns having any Ownership interest in the property involved. Carlsbad Partness I ltn. Suite z364, 1601 Elm St. Dallas, Texas 75201 If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names rnc addresses of all individuals awning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation of owning any partnershy interest in the partnership. Nelso- r.5- ' Trust 8235Dousl.a~ Ave.. #130- llas, T. - - allas, Wi>liam Herb- .. Trust 8235 Douqlas Ave.. &1300. D T. J. Curnes 8235 Douglas kve., #1300,Dallas,T1 Pacwes, Ltd. 8235 Douglas Ave., #1300,Dallas, 7 ,Penyen Partners, Ltd. 6253 Douglas Avs.,#1300,Dallas,Tx. 75225 4. If any person identined pursuant to (1) er (2) above is a nan-profit organizssbn or e trust, list the names mc addresses of any person serving as officer or direetot of the non-prom organization or as trustee or beneficiaq of the trust. Discfasure Statement I Porion 10 dotinod u: 'Any individuml. firm. te~~~~r~hip, jcrnt ventlrfm. urocirtien. social slu8. frmrrfnal orqmaation. carparatton. *daw. vwt. r.coiv.r. ayndiestr, thim ana rny OWW counfy, ctty md county. cry rnuntctpalrty, oislnc1 or othor polntcal rubdwrron. of any 01n.r pup or :ambinailon acting aa una' (NOTE: Anach additional pages a% necessiiry.) - Print or type name of owner Signature of applicant/date Print or type name of applicant a I .. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/EXPUNATION PROJECT NAME: APPLICANT NAME: Please describe fully the proposed project. Include any details necessary to adequately explain the scope ardor operation of the proposed project. You may also include any background information and supporting statements regarding the reasons for, or appropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if necessary. Description/Explanation. 17. At the time of establishment of the East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties Local Coastal Program segment Batiquitos Lagoon, the north shore and the subject property were part of one ownership. The establishment of the LCP segment was due to annexation of the property from incorporated territory to the City of Carlsbad, and the processing of a Master Plan by the property owner. When the area was annexed, the city established a mix of General Plan land uses for the Green Valley site, which were, Commercial, Office and Residential. At the time, sufficient planning studies to specifically configure land uses were not available, and as a result, a "combination" designation was established by the city. A master plan was approved by the city for the area of the property north of Batiquitos Lagoon known as Pacific Rim. The plan did not include the Green Valley area. On certification of the LCP for the area, the Commission approved land use and implementation for the Pacific Rim area, and, in the absence of a master plan to serve as implementing ordinances, only land use for Green Valley. LCP land use for Green Valley was established by the exis ting General Plan, i.e., combined Commercial, Office, and Residential. ' The LCP amendment request is to modify the mix of land uses, deleting the Office designation and specifically locating Commercial, Residential and Open Space designations. A request for certification of implementing ordinances by establishment of a master plan (as required by the existing LCP policies) is also being requested as a separate request. NOW 2 4 1993 LCP Amendment (Minor) Green Valley, Zone 23 4. At the time of establishment of the East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties Local Coastal Program segment Batiquitos Lagoon, the north shore and the subject property were part of one ownership. The establishment of the LCP segment was due to annexation of the property from incorporated territory to the City of Carlsbad, and the processing of a Master Plan by the property owner. When the area was annexed, the city established a mix of General Plan land uses for the Green Valley site, which were, Commercial, Office and Residential. At the time, sufficient planning studies to specifically configure land uses were not available, and as a result, a "combination" designation was established by the city. A master plan was approved by the city for the area of the property north of Batiquitos Lagoon known as Pacific Rim. The plan did not include the Green Valley area. On certification of the LCP for the area, the Commission approved land use and implementation for the Pacific Rim area, and, in the absence of a master plan to serve as implementing ordinances, only land use for Green Valley. LCP land use for Green Valley was established by the existing General Plan, i.e., combined Commercial, Office, and Residential. The Green Valley property lies on the eastern edge of the coastal zone boundary (El Camino Real, on the eastern property line). 'There is no urban land use planned for the area to the north of the Green Valley site, other than La Costa Avenue. The area north of La Costa Ave. is Batiquitos Lagoon (O.S.). The western property boundary falls within steeply sloping, eastern facing bluffs. This property boundary is also a jurisdictional boundary between the City of Encinitas and Carlsbad. Because of environmental features this western boundary area is designated open space. The southern boundary of the property also abuts another jurisdiction, the County of San Diego. This area is part of the Ecke Ranch, and is within the City of Encinitas sphere of influence. The City of Encinitas is currently considering annexation, and the property owners are preparing a mixed use master plan for the area. Because the LCP amendment request is merely refining previously established land use categories initially set by the certified LCP, there will be no substantive effect on Carlsbad LCP provisions, or those of surrounding jurisdictions. :- i 0' IO.' GREEN VALLEY Surrounding Ownership - 600'Radius . LEGEND - \ \ \ \ - of Carlsbad Hunt Properties/Eastern Batiquitos Lagoon LCP Segment Green Valley Project Ai locations are approximate. 2 4 1993 Exhibit Hunt Properties/East Batiquitos Lagoon LCP Segment Loacal Coastal Program Map -1 LCP-A Item #2 Exhibit LCP - A LEGEND All locations are approximate. City Of Carlsbad .__--- .__--- Barcelona Exhibit Existing and Proposed Zoning Local Coastal Program ~ LCP - A Itm #I 4 GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN I LCPA 93-06 I October 1995 5 L Initiative OK Under Coastal Act San Mateo Measure Upheld By Appellate Court In an important follow-up to the CalIfor- nia Supreme Court’s DeVito ruling, the First eight-year-old legal challenge to Measure A in San Mateo County, a coastal protection initiative that passed in November of 1986. The plaintiffs in the case. led by the San Mateo County Coastal Landowners’ Associ- ation. made a wide range of arguments but focused mostly on the notion that the Coastal Act restricts local voters‘ ability to amend their coastal plans by initiative. Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Presiding Justice J. Anthony Kline concluded that the DeViro case and its prede- cessor. Yusr v. Thomas, clearly permit LCP amendment by initiative and, furthermore, that the specific provisions of Measure A do not conflict with the Coastal Act. Quoting Yosr. 36 Cal.3d 561 (1984). a landmark Coastal Act case, Kline said that the Coastal Act “leaves wide discretion to a local gov- ernment. not only to determine the contents of its land use plans, but to choose how to implement these plans.” The Coastal Act places land-use planning in California’s coastal zone under the control of the Coastal Commission, which must approve the Local Coastal Plans drawn up by cities and counties. In the Yosr case, which came from Santa Barbara. the Califor- nia Supreme Court ruled that a local land- use measure is subject to local referendum even when the measure affects land in the coastal zone. However, Yosr left open the question of whether a general plan can be amended by initiative, whether in the coastal zone or not. In DeViro v. County of Nopa, 9 Cal.4th 763 (1995). the state Supreme Court ruled - in a case from outside the coastal zone - that general plans could, in fact, be amended by initiative. That left the question of whether a general plan inside the coastal zone could be amended by initiative - a significant question considering the fact that most land-use questions in the coastal zone are appealable to the state Coastal Commis- sion. “The land use portion of a county‘s local coastal program is part of its general plan.” Kline wrote. “By definition, the local coastal program amendments at issue here fall squarely within the holding of DeViro.& ther. DeViru’s extensive reliance upon Yosr. without limiting language. demonstrates that - - -1 LCP amendments are analogous to general, olan amendments as local legislative acts - subject to initiative and that local govern- ments have broad discretion to determine the content of their land use plans.,.. -ncconcluded. “ Yosr and DeVira leave no doubt that amendments to the LCP, such as Measure A, may be adopted by initiative and are not preempted by the Coastal Act.” The landowners also argued that Measure A conflicted with the Coastal Act because it could only be amended, in most instances. with further voter approval. By contrast, the Coastal Act requires that LCPs be amended with “full consultation of the commission and with full public participation,” and charges localities and the commission with providing the public with “maximum oppor- tunities to participate.” In particular. the landowners argued that Measure A choked off the normal consultation between a local agency and the Coastal Commission staff regarding amendments. “A It ho ug h info rm a 1 cons u 1 tat i on s between the local agency’s planning staff and the Commission are encouraged.” Kline wrote, “it is the local entity that iS charged with preparation of an LCP amendment ....[ T]he commission’s role in reviewing a local government’s LCP 1s ’ quasi-judicial - it determines whether the LCP meets the minimum standards of the - act.” Kline concluded that the preparation of Measure A involved much of the same “nor- mal” public participation and consultation as any other LCP amendment, including public hearings and citizen meetings. The landowners also made several other arguments, all of which were rejected by the court. The landowners argued, for example, that Measure A conflicted with state housing law because the voter amendment require- ment prevents updating of the county’s hous- ing element as required by state law. “Mea- sure A did not amend any provision of County‘s housing element,” Kline wrote. “It simply referred to a single existing housing policy of the existing LCP.” Indeed. Kline added, “on its face that policy promotes affordable housing by granting a density bonus for such units in rural areas of the coastal zone.” The court also rejected the landowners’ claim that Measure A’s mitigation policies regarding open space and agricultural land are unconstitutional conditions under Doion 19. Ciry of Tigord. I14 S.Ct. 2309 (1994). Noting that these policies “are part of a leg- islatively adopted zoning scheme.“ Kline wrote: “Doion makes it clear that it does not reach the type of legislative determination classifying entire areas of a county. such as we are here concerned with.“ Kline also rejected several other argu- ments, including: The claim that the agricultural and open space exactions are conservation easements as contemplated under state law and there- fore may not be used as a condition of grant- ing subdivision approval under Civil Code §815.3(b). Kline found that the county had authority under other areas of law. The claim that the trial court erred in granting of summary judgment for the coun- ty on charges that the Coastal Commission failed to comply with the California Envi- ronmental Quality Act in certifying Measure A. The Resources Agency has ruled that commission review of LCPs is the functional equivalent of CEQA review. The landown- ers’ argument dealt with a technical issue of judicial notice. which Kline rejected. 0 The claim that Measure A violated the single-subject rule for initiatives because some provisions dealt with offshore drilling and onshore refineries. “The policies addressing regulation of off-shore drilling and on-shore oil facilities address land use no less than any of the other policies of Measure A,” Kline wrote. The claim that Measure A’s adoption of a pre-existing density credits mechanism. based on water consumption patterns. was arbitrary. The appellate court said the claim was a back-door challenge to the Coastal Commission’s certification of Measure A. seeking to review certification through a tra- ditional mandamus proceeding rather than an administrative mandamus proceeding. 0 San Mat- County Coastal Landowners Association v. County of San Mateo, NO. A059553.95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12558 (September 20, 1995). W The Case: a No Scale L EXHIBIT NO. I % APPLICATION N 6 - YL -/ L/rC;n,riv I mp v California Coastal Commission .. ,_ I EXHIBIT NO. a I @ California coastal Commission 'W'I'W AmVA N33tlE Y + I '51 EXHIBIT NO. 3 ria I L ph4 .t/ tic California Coastal Commission 6 ! ., .. . . *'., ..: .. . .. . . , . ._ ... .. C ;ry vr I 4P ... ~ ~~ - EXHIBIT NO. APPLICATION N . 6 -4.6 -18 5;- ,24 m California Coastal Commtssion I I - - - PUNNINb LAND USE AREA DESCFUPTlON open- @ Community Commercral Single Family Residenlial -space 'Red Barn' L EXHIBIT NO.2 ?&w& Ma5 APPLICATION NO. Ld#l-% F Re California coastal Commission