HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 93-06; Green Valley; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (14)..
c r4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Govemw --
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
MN OIEGO. CA 92ioaim
SAN DIEGO AREA
31 11 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200
(619) 521-8036
FROM: CHUCK DAMM, SOUTH COAST DISTRICT DIRECTOR
DEBORAH LEE, ASSIST. DISTRICT DIRECTOR, SAN DIEGO AREA OFFICE
LEE MCEACHERN, COASTAL PROGRAM ANALYST, SAN DIEGO AREA OFFICE
SUBJECT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON MAJOR AMENDMENT 1-96F (Green Valley
Master Plan) TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM -- EAST
BATIQUITOS LAGOON/"T PROPERTIES SEGMENT (For public hearing and
possible final action at the meeting of May 7-10, 1996).
SYNOPSIS
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT REOUEST
The subject amendment request involves the certified East Batiquitos LagoodHunt
Properties segment of the City of Carlsbad's LCP. The request involves two components:
The first component is a text revision to the certified land use plan which requires the master
plan to be consistent with the General Plan adopted in September 1994, rather than the one
in existence in March of 1988. The second component of the amendment is to adopt the
Green Valley Master Plan as the implementing ordinance for the 282 acre Green Valley
portion of this LUP segment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed East Batiquitos LagoodHunt Properties
segment land use plan amendment as submitted. However, staff recommends rejection of
the Green Valley Master Plan (Implementation Plan amendment) as submitted, and then
approval, if modified.
The amroDriate resolutions and motions mav be found on Pages 5 - 6. The suggested
modifications begin on Page 7. Findings for amroval. as submitted, of the amendment to
the East Batiauitos LagoodHunt Properties Land Use Plan segment begins on Page 9.
Findings - for denial. as submitted, of the Green Vallev Master Plan Imdementation Plan
amendment begin in Pape 12. Findings for apmoval of the Green Vallev Master Plan, if
modified, begin on Pane 16.
.-
Ca. -bad LCPA 1-96F
Page 2
J
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 prtbn..t€xe LCP, the Mello I and 11 segments in 1980 and
1981, respectively. However, the City of Carlsbad found several provisions of the Mello I
and 11 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 II segments, which resolved
the major differences between the City and the Coastal Commission. The City then adopted
the Mello I and 11 segments and began working toward certification of all segments of its
local coastal program. Since the 1985 action, the Commission has approved many major
amendments to the City of Carlsbad LCP.
The Commission certified the land use plan portion of the Agua Hedionda segment in 1982.
In addition, two new segments were annexed to the City, the West Batiquitos
LagoodSammis Properties segment and the East Batiquitos LagoodHunt Properties
segment. The West Batiquitos LagoodSammis Properties LCP was certified in 1985. The
East Batiquitos LagoonMunt Properties LCP segment was certified in 1988. However, in
approval of the East Batiquitos LagoodHunt properties segment, the Commission, while
approving the LUP portion of the LCP, deferred certification of the 282 acre Green Valley
sub-area pending approval of a master plan that would comprise the implementing
ordinances for this area. The subject LCPA request involves approval of the Green Valley
Master Plan which will be the implementing ordinances for the Green Valley sub-area.
ADDlTIONAL INFORMATION
Further information on the City of Carlsbad LCP Amendment #1-96F may be obtained from
Lee McEachern, Coastal Planner, at (619) 521-8036.
PARTI. OVERVIEW
-
Cdsb..d LCPA 1-96F
Page 3
A. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM HISTORY
The City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP) consists of six geographic segments: the
Agua Hedionda Lagoon LCP segment comprised of approximately 1,100 acres; the Carlsbad
Mello I LCP segment with 2,000 acres; the Carlsbad Mello 11 LCP segment which includes
approximately 5,300 acres; the West Batiquitos LagoodSammis Properties LCP segment
with 200 acres; the East Batiquitos Lagooaunt Properties LCP segment with 1,OOO acres
and the Village Area Redevelopment segment with approximately 100 acres.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 30170(f) and 30171, the Coastal Commission
was required to prepare and approve an LCP for identified portions of the City. This
resulted in the two Carlsbad LCP segments commonly referred to as the Mello I and Mello 11
segments. The Mello I and Mello 11 LCP segments were approved by the Coastal
Commission in September 1980 and June 198 1, respectively. The Agua Hedionda segment
Land Use Plan was prepared by the City and approved by the Coastal Commission on July 1,
1982.
The Mello I, Mello 11 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 whch involve the greatest
number of coastal resource issues and have been the subject of the most controversy over the
past years. Among those issues involved in the review of the land use plans of these
segments were preservation of agricultural lands, protection of steep-sloping hillsides and
wetland habitats and the provision of adequate visitor-serving facilities. 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 11 segments
regarding preservation of agriculture and steep-sloping hillsides to be unacceptable. The
City therefore did not apply these provisions in the review of local projects.
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 11 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
11 segments of the LCP. After certification of these amendments, the City adopted the Mello
I and 11 LCP segments.
The West Batiquitos LagoodSammis Properties segment was certified in 1985.
Subsequently, in 1988, the sixth Carlsbad LCP segment, the East Batiquitos Lagooaunt
Properties segment, was certified by the Commission. Certification of these LCP segments
paved the way for two large projects comprising the majority of each segment: the
Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park-Sammis project within the West Batiquitos segment
Carisbad LCPA 1-96F
Page 4
and the Pacific Rim Master Plan (now known as the Aviara Master Plan) with in the East
B atiquitos Segment.
The plan area of the Village Area Redevelopment segment was formerly part of the Mello II
segment of the LCP. In August of 1984, the Commission approved the segmentation of this
100-acre area from the remainder of the Mello II 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 for the Village Area Redevelopment segment of the
LCP. A review of the post-certification maps occurred in December and the City assumed
permit authority for this LCP.segment on December 14, 1988.
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 existing inconsistencies between
the City's General Plan, Zoning Maps and the Local Coastal Program. After all such
inconsistencies are resolved, the City plans to submit, for the Commission's review, the
various ordinances and post-certification maps for implementation of the LCP. At that time,
or perhaps earlier, the City should also prepare and submit a single LCP document that
incorporates all of the LCP segments as certified by the Commission and any subsequent
LCP amendments. After review and approval of these documents by the Commission, the
City would gain "effective certification".
B. STANDARDOFREVIEW
The standard of review for land use plans, or their amendments, is found in Section 305 12 of
the Coastal Act. This section requires the Commission to certify an LUP or LUP
amendment if it finds that it meets the requirements of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
Specifically, it states:
Section 305 12
(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 305 13 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 cany out, the provisions of the certified land
use plan. The Commission shall take action by a majority vote of the Commissioners
present.
Ir
Carl :...,Ad LCPA 1-96F
Page 5
C. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City has held several Planning Commission and City Council meetings with regard to
the Green Valley Master Plan. All of these local hearings were duly noticed to the public.
Notice of the subject amendment has been distributed to all known interested parties.
PART II. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM SUBMITTAL - RESOLUTIONS
Following a public hearing, staff recommends the Commission adopt the following
resolutions and findings. The appropriate motion to introduce the resolution and a staff
recommendation are provided just prior to each resolution.
A. RESOLUTION I (Resolution to approve certification of the City of Carlsbad East
Batiquitos LagoodHunt Properties Segment Land Use Plan
Amendment #1-95F, as submitted)
MOTION I
I move that the Commission certify the City of Carlsbad East Batiquitos
Lagooaunt Properties Segment Land Use Plan amendment, as submitted.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends a yEs vote and adoption of the following resolution and findings.
An affirmative vote by a majority of the appointed Commissioners is needed to pass
the motion.
Resolution I
The Commission hereby certifies the amendment request to the City of Carlsbad East
Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties Segment and adouts the findings stated below on
the grounds that the amendment will meet the requirements of and conform with the
policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200) of the California Coastal
Act to the extent necessary to achieve the basic state goals specified in Section
30001.5 of the Coastal Act; the land use plan, as amended, will contain a specific
access component as required by Section 30500 of the Coastal Act; the land use plan,
as amended, will be consistent with applicable decisions of the Commission that
shall guide local government actions pursuant to Section 30625(c); and certification
of the land use plan amendment does meet the requirements of Section
2 1080S(d)(2)(i) of the California Environmental Quality Act, as there would be no
feasible measures or feasible alternatives which would substantially lessen
significant adverse impacts on the environment.
Causbad LCPA 1-96F
Page 6
B. RESOLUTION 11 (Resolution to reject the Green Valley Master Plan, as submitted)
MOTION I1
I move that the Commission reject the Green Valley Master Plan, as submitted.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends a YES vote and the adoption of the following resolution and
findings. An affirmative vote by the majority of the Commissioners present is
needed to pass the motion.
Resolution II
The Commission hereby reiects the Implementation Plan for the East Batiquitos
Lagoon/Hunt Properties segment of the Carlsbad LCP on the grounds that it does not
conform with, and is inadequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified land use
plan. There are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which would
substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts which the approval would have
on the environment.
C. RESOLUTION III (Resolution to approve certification of the Green Valley Master
Plan, if modified)
MOTION 111
I move the Commission approve the Green Valley Master Plan, if modified in
conformance with the suggestions set forth in this staff report.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends a yEs vote and the adoption of the following resolution and
findings. An affirmative vote by a majority of the Commissioners present is needed
to pass the motion.
Resolution III
The Commission hereby approves certification of the Implementation Plan for the
East Batiquitos Lagooaunt Properties segment of the Carlsbad LCP, based on the
modifications and findings set forth below, on the grounds that it conforms with, and
is adequate to cany out, the provisions of the certified land use plan. There are no
feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would
4
cNlS,.~d LCPA 1-96F
Page 7
substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which approval of the
Implementation Plan would have on the environment.
PART KII. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS
The following are the suggested modifications to the Green Valley Master Plan. Deletions
are -and new language to be added is underlined.
1. Section A(5), under General Communitv DeveloDment Guidelines, on Page IV-1 of the
Master Plan shall be revised as follows:
5. Temporary runoff control devices shall be installed immediately after grading
operations have started, but must be in place prior to the beginning of the rainy
season (October 45 m, monitored and maintained throughout the rainy season.
2. Section A(9), under General Communitv DeveloDment Guidelines, on Page IV-2 of the
Master Plan shall be revised as follows:
9. Required hydroseeding, landscaping, and irrigation shall be installed after April 1
be completed prior to October 44 & of any year. [...I and
3. The following shall be added as Section A(13), under General Communitv Develoument
Guidelines, on Page IV-2 of the Master Plan:
13. Conversion of all non-urime agricultural lands to urban uses shall reauire the
payment of an agricultural conversion mitigation fee uursuant to Section 30171.5 of
the Coastal Act.
4. Section D( l), under Ouen Space and Biological Habitat Enhancement Plan, on Page V-5
of the Master Plan shall be revised as follows:
The expansion of the riparian woodland includes-approximately 20 acres of new
native riparian woodland. Some of this acreage is mitigation for the disturbance of
pre-existing habitat that is caused by the two road crossings. Mitigation for riuarian
imuacts shall be at a 3: 1 ratio and mitigation for wetland impacts shall be at a 4: 1
ratio by the creation of new habitat from existing uuland area on-site. [...I
5. Under Section E, titled Biological Mitigation Program, the second paragraph on Page V-
8 of the Master Plan shall be revised as follows:
The primary goal of the mitigation program for the riparian woodland, wetlands and
upland habitats of Green Valley is to create new habitat areas to offset areas lost due
to construction of the proposed project so that a net loss &weage in both auantitv
Cambad LCPA 1-96F
Page 8
and quality of the various habitats does not occur. Additionally, it will protect the
pre-existing habitat areas from impacts associated with construction of the proposed
project. The iSleweg specific details of the mitigation and monitoring program if
.. . will be developed at the time of coastal
development permit review.
6. Section E, titled Biological Mitigation Promam, shall be deleted beginning with Goals of
the Mitigation Program on Page V-8 of the Master Plan to the end, on Page V-12.
7. Pertaining to Planning Area 1, Development Standards, under Section VI(B) on Page VI-
7 of the Master Plan shall be revised as follows:
Use Allocation
No urban development or construction of improvements, including grading, is
permitted in this planning area except as noted below.
Permitted Uses
Open space compatible urban support uses are permitted as follows:
- Q&&ee&Trailhead parking at grade
[...I
PedestriadBicycle Trail
A portion of the Citywide trail system shall be located along the riparian buffer
corridor, either adjacent to and partially within the street right-of-way of Street “A”,
or within the umer one-half of the buffer area adjacent to the riparian woodland.
[...] The portion of the Citywide trail system located in this planning area shall be
permanently reserved for use by the public through an offer to dedicate a trail
easement to the City of Carlsbad at the time of approval of subdivision of the site. In
addition. all pedestrian trail improvements shall be constructed concurrent with site
development and open and available for use by the public prior to occupancy of any
structures.
Trailhead Parking
Cds, +i LCPA 1-96F
Page 9
The Citywide Trail System Plan shows a secondary staging area on the Green Valley
property. This staging area is proposed to be located near the intersection of Street
“A” and Calle Barcelona and will consist of a small parking area of six (6) spaces
and a connection to the pedestrianhicycle trail. [...I The trailhead parkinn shall be
constructed concurrent with site develoDment and open and available for use bv the
public prior to OCCUR~~CY of any structures.
8. Pertaining to Planning Area 2, Development Standards, under Section VI(C) on Page VI-
15 of the Master Plan shall be revised as follows:
Building Height
1. Buildings shall be limited to a maximum of 35 feet including any roof mounted
equipment and screening elements.
2. Non-habitable architectural design features may extend to a
45 feet, but mav not exceed three percent (3%) of the total roof area.
PART IV. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD EAST
BATIOUITOS LAGOON/HUNT PROPERTIES LAND USE PLAN
AMENDMENT #1-96F, AS SUBMITT’ED
A. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION
The proposed land use plan amendment involves a change to the text of the LUP which
revises a referenced version of the City’s General Plan. Specifically, Section 3b of the LUP
is proposed to be revised as follows:
Development of the entire 280 acres of Green Valley shall be pursuant to a Master
Plan which is consistent with the uses allowed by the Carlsbad General Plan adopted
as of AkFch I,!% September 1994.
B. CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 30001.5 OF THE COASTAL ACT
The Commission finds, pursuant to Section 305 12.2b of the Coastal Act, that the land use
plan amendment, as set forth in the resolution for certification as submitted, is 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:
Carlsbad LCPA 1-96F
Page 10
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 economic 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 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. CHAPTER 3 CONSISTENCY
1. IntensitV of UseResource Preservation.
Section 3023 1 of the Coastal Act states:
The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands,
estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms
and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible,
restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water
discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water
supplies and substantial interference with surface water flow, encouraging waste water
reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats,
and minimizing alteration of natural streams.
Section 30233 of the Act states, in part:
(a) The diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and
lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division,
where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and where
feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental
effects, and shall be limited to the following:
Carlwad LCPA 1 -96F
Page 11
(5) Incidental public service purposes, including but not limited to, burying cables and
pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines.
(7) Restoration purposes.
(8) Nature study, aquaculture, or other similar resource dependent activities.
Lastly, Section 30240 of the Coastal Act states:
(a) Environmentally 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 to prevent impacts which would
significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of
those habitat and recreation areas.
At the time of approval of the LUP, the Commission was concerned with the proposed
intensity of use of the Green Valley site (and the corresponding increase in human activities
associated with such intensity increases) because of potential impacts to the existing
substantial riparian corridor of Encinitas Creek and potential impacts to the natural upland
habitat covering the western hillsides of the valley. As such, suggested language
modifications were proposed (and recently accepted by the City) to address these concerns.
The revised LUP language required that the intensity of development for the Green Valley
site be consistent with currently planned roadway capacities (and standards) for La Costa
Avenue and El Camino Real as well as consistent with uses permitted in the General Plan as
of March 1988. In this way, the Commission could be assured that any future development
of the site pursuant to a master plan would involve an intensity of development that would
not adversely impact the existing environmentally sensitive habitat areas of the site.
Since that time, in September of 1994, the City completed an update of its General Plan. As
such, the City proposed a revision to the LUP to require the master plan for the Green Valley
to be consistent with the updated General Plan. Again, the concern lies in that if, based on
any increased intensity of development, both La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real would
need to be widened (beyond their currently planned capacities), there would be resulting
adverse impacts to the Encinitas Creek riparian corridor. However, based on Commission
review, it has been determined that neither the designation or development standards for
these roads has been changed in the General Plan update from what they were in 1988. In
addition, no additional uses or change in the potential development intensity for the site
Carlsbad LCPA 1-96F
Page 12
resulted from the 1994 update. As such, the Commission finds that the proposed LUP
amendment will not result in an increased density of development for the site that could
have adverse impacts on environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Therefore, the
Commission finds that the proposed amendment to the East Batiquitos LagoodHunt
Properties Land Use Plan segment is consistent with the resource protection policies of the
Coastal Act.
PART V. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD EAST
B ATIOUITOS LAGOON/"T PROPERTIES IMPLEMENTATION
SUBMITTED
PLAN AMENDMENT 1 -96F (GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN). AS
A. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION
This amendment involves the adoption of the Green Valley Master Plan as the
Implementation Plan for the East Batiquitos Lagooflunt Properties Land Use Plan
segment. The Green Valley Master Plan will serve as the zoning for the approximately
28 1.2 acre Green Valley. It establishes land uses, delineates approximate acreages for
development, considers differing land use interrelationships, delineates specific design
criteria, outlines phasing, and provides implementation methodology. It will serve as the
basis for future, more detailed, project reviews such as individual tentative maps and more
precise development plans and does not, by itself, grant development rights for the property.
B. MASTER PLAN AREA DESCRIPTION
The Green Valley Master Plan covers an area of approximately 28 1.2 acres and is located in
the southwestern portion of the City of Carlsbad (see attached Exhibit a). The plan area is
bordered by the City of Encinitas to the south and west and by two circulation element
roads, La Costa Avenue to the north and El Camino Real on the east. The site is
characterized by three distinct physical areas: (1) a substantial riparian corridor
approximately 400 ft. wide is located in the easternmost portion of the plan area running in a
nortldsouth direction parallel to El Camino Real; (2) a relatively flat area of previously
cultivated agricultural fields is located adjacent to and west of the riparian corridor; and (3)
naturally vegetated steep slopes make up the westernmost portion of the plan area.
The Master Plan divides the Green Valley Plan Area into five different planning areas:
Planning Area 1 - Encinitas Creek Conservation and Buffer Corridor. This plan area is
located along El Camino Real in the easternmost portion of the plan area. It is comprised
mostly with a substantial riparian woodland corridor. This plan area contains approximately
79 acres and is proposed for conservation with the exception of two proposed roadway
crossings for site access and the development of a public trail.
-.
Carlsuad LCPA 1-96F
Page 13
Planning Area 2 - Retail Center. This plan area is approximately 18 acres and is located in
the southern portion of the Green Valley just west of Planning Area 1. This plan area will
allow up to 300,000 square feet of commercial development.
Planning Area 3 - Single-Family Residential. This plan area, which is approximately 55.8
acres, is located in the central-northem portion of the Green Valley, north of Planning Area
2 and west of Planning Area 1. A total of up to 400 single-family dwelling units may be
approved in this area.
Planning Area 4 - UDland Bluff Area. This approximately 124 acre plan area includes the
hillside area that makes up the western portion of the property. The majority of the plan area
is comprised of steep, natural slopes vegetated for the most part with Southern maritime
chaparral. This entire plan area is proposed for conservation.
PlanninP Area 5 - ODen SDace. This approximately 1.7 acre plan area is located at the
comer of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue. This area is proposed for open space, with
the exception of an existing commercial building and parking area (commonly referred to as
the “Red Barn”) which will remain as a legal non-conforming use.
C. SUMMARY FINDINGS FOR REJECTION
Some portions of the Green Valley Master Plan are acceptable as submitted. However,
because the majority of the Implementation Plan submittal does not conform with and is not
adequate to carry of the goals and policies of the certified East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt
Properties segment Land Use Plan, the entire submittal is recommended for rejection.
D. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR REJECTION OF THE GREEN VALLEY MASTER
PLAN
a) Pumose and Intent of the Ordinance. The intent of the Green Valley Master Plan
is to be the zoning (implementation regulations) for the Green Valley property and will serve
as the basis for more detailed project reviews in the future. The purpose of the Master Plan
is to assure development occurs in an orderly and positive manner without creating
significant impacts to existing resources and infrastructure.
b) Maior Provisions of the Ordinance. The Green Valley Master Plan has a number
of major provisions that include the following:
0 Establishes land uses;
0
0 Delineates specific design criteria;
0 Outlines phasing;
Delineates approximate acreages for development areas;
Carlsbad LCPA 1 -96F
Page 14
Establishes general development guidelines pertaining to trails, grading, signage and
lighting;
0 Details landscape requirements;
Establishes development standards for each of the planning areas; and
Includes detailed mitigation and monitoring requirements for impacts to sensitive
habitat areas.
c) Adeauacv of the Ordinance to Implement the Certified LUP. The Green Valley
Master Plan is organized into seven sections. For ease of review, the findings for denial of
the Master Plan as submitted, will be specified for each separate section. Because Section I - Introduction, Section 11- General Plan and Land Use Provisions, Section III - Master Plan
Amendment, and Section VII - Public Facilities and Services, are acceptable as submitted,
they are not be discussed below.
1. Section IV - General Community Development Guidelines
This section of the master plan lays out the general development guidelines for the Green
Valley site. This section contains general guidelines pertaining to grading, trails,
landscaping, signage and lighting. It is intended that all development in Green Valley be
consistent with these general guidelines.
For the most part, this section of the master plan is acceptable. However, relative to two
areas, this section of the master plan is not adequate to carry out the certified LUP. Because
drainage from the Green Valley site ends up in Encinitas Creek and ultimately Batiquitos
Lagoon, both identified environmentally sensitive habitat areas, Policy D(3)(g)(5) of the
certified LUP requires that all site grading cease, and all temporary erosion control devices
and plantings be installed prior to the onset of the winter rainy season (October 1st of any
year). In this way, sedimentation impacts to the lagoon and creek can be minimized.
However, the master plan permits grading until October 15th of any year. As such, the
master plan language is not consistent with the policy language of the certified LUP.
The second area that makes this section of the master plan unacceptable relates to
conversion of agricultural uses to urban development. Policy B of the certified LUP requires
that conversion of all non-prime agricultural lands to urban development can only be
accomplished with payment of a mitigation fee consistent with the requirements of Section
30171.5 of the Coastal Act. At the time, it was determined that the Green Valley site did not
contain any prime lands and as such, could be converted, subject to payment of the
mitigation fee. However, the master plan does not contain any requirements relative to
payment of an agricultural mitigation fee, and as such, is inconsistent with and not adequate
to carry out the certified LUP.
2. Section V - Ouen Suace and Habitat Protection and Enhancement Plan
Carlsbad LCPA 1 -96F
Page 15
The master plan proposes open space for a large percentage of the site. These open space
areas are essentially contained in two large areas; the riparian woodland corridor along
Encinitas Creek and the natural hillside that makes up the western portion of the site. This
section of the Master Plan pertains to the protection of the site’s existing (and proposed)
sensitive resources. In addition, because road improvements to provide access to the site
require impacts to sensitive habitat areas, this section also addresses mitigation for those
impacts. In all, after completion of required mitigation, approximately 194 acres of the
281.2 acre site is proposed to be preserved in open space.
With a couple of exceptions, this section of the Master Plan is adequate to implement the
certified LUP in that no disturbance of the steep natural hillside is proposed, access to the
site from El Camino Real has been limited to no more than two crossings over Encinitas
Creek and proposed desiltatiodpollution basins will not impact sensitive resources. In
addition, although the Master Plan indicates that El Camino Real will be widened, which
will have some impacts on sensitive habitat, its width and that of La Costa Avenue is not
proposed to accommodate an intensity of development beyond what the LUP cited for these
roads.
The areas that make this section of the Master Plan unacceptable pertain to the proposed
biological enhancement plan for impacts to sensitive resources.. While the Master Plan does
discuss mitigation requirements (ratios) for unavoidable impacts to riparian areas, it doesmt *
include ___ -__-------- similar detail for-unavoidable impacts t~- gat marsh habitat. In addition, fhe
proposed enhancement plm does mt make it clegr- that_@ikatjon -- ..l~__l for impacts _-_ to - riEariq and .
salt marsh habitat must be accomplished by creating new in-kind habitat on the site, such
that there is not net loss in either acreage-or quality of the various habitats impacteh;-as
required-by - the .- certified I _.__. * LUP.
Lastly, this section of the Master Plan contains very detailed mitigation guidelines. While
on the surface, this sounds acceptable, because the Matser Plan is a planning document from
which future development must be in compliance with, the specificity provided in the
Master Plan relative to mitigatiodmonitoring requirements is problematic. In review of the
proposed guidelines by the Commission’s staff biologist, it was determined that numerous
revisions would be necessary to this section to address Commission concerns. In addition,
because the development contemplated by the Master Plan will need to be reviewed and
permitted by various resource agencies (i.e., Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife, etc.) any of
which may call for revisions to the proposed standards, it does not make sense to provide
such detail in this document. That type of detail is typically developed at the time of permit
review for a specific development. In other words, if the proposed language is made part of
the Master Plan now, then each time a change is required by any one of the resource
agencies, then, because this document would be the standard of review for any permit, an
LCP Amendment would need to be processed. Therefore, based on the above discussion,
the Commission finds this section of the Master Plan is not adequate to implement the
certified LUP.
Carlsbad LCPA 1-96F
Page 16
3. Section VI - Planning Area Development Standards and Guidelines
This section of the Master Plan contains design and development standards specific to each
of the proposed five planning areas. The intent is that the standards provided in this section,
along with the general community development standards, would comprise the total
development standards for the site. This section looks at each of the planning areas and
includes a general description of the plan area, specific development standards for each plan
area that include permitted uses, building heights, setbacks and parking, and special design
criteria requirements. Again, for the most part, this section of the Master Plan is consistent
with and adequate to carry out the certified LUP. However, two areas make it unacceptable.
The first pertains to trail requirements. While the certified LUP only generally addresses
trails within the plan area, it does discuss on-site trails as being permitted within the upper
one-half of the required habitat buffer. In addition, the LUP does indicate that the trails shall
be public trails. While the Master Plan does discuss the provision of a pedestrian access
trail system on the site, it does not include specific language as to how the trails are to
preserved for public use or when they are to be constructed and open and available to the
public.
The other area of this section of the Master Plan that renders it unacceptable pertains to
preservation of visual resources by limiting building heights. The Master Plan does limit
buildings within the proposed commercial retail area to a maximum of 35 feet, consistent
with Policy A(3) of the certified LUP. However, the Master Plan also allows non-habitable
architectural design features to extend up to a maximum of 45 feet. While, this does not
necessarily pose a problem, absent more specific provisions, there are instances where such
design features could occupy the entire top portion of a building. In such an instance,
visually, the building would be 45 ft. high and effectively be inconsistent with the height
standard. As such, this provision of the Master Plan is not consistent with the certified LUP.
While the Green Valley Master Plan is for the most part acceptable, based on the above
discussion, there are several portions which render it as unacceptable. Thus, the
Commission finds that the Green Valley Master Plan is not consistent with or adequate to
carry out the certified East Batiquitos Lagooflunt Properties LUP segment and must
therefore be rejected.
PART VI. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE GREEN VALLEY MASTER
PLAN, IF MODIFIED
A. SUMMARY FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
The Commission finds that, if the above stated suggested modifications are incorporated
into the Green Valley Master Plan, the plan would then be certifiable. It should be noted
that the suggested modifications are intended to provide guidance to the City in resubmitting
Carls bad LCPA 1 -96F
Page 17
the Implementation Plan to the Coastal Commission and that they are not binding upon the
City. The basis for this overall finding is that the suggested modifications would result in
the Implementation Plan being in conformance with, and adequate to carry out, the land use
plan as certified by the Commission, consistent with the requirements of Section 305 13 of
the Coastal Act. Any specific ordinances that have not been discussed or modified are
deemed acceptable as submitted.
B. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL. IF MODIFIED
1. Section IV - General Communitv DeveloDment Guidelines
As noted in the findings for denial of this section of the master plan, for the most part, this
master plan section is acceptable. However, pertaining to restrictions on grading during the
rainy season, it is not consistent with the certified LUP. However, if modified consistent
with Suggested Modification Nos. 1 and 2, it could be found acceptable. These suggested
modifications require that all grading cease prior to October 1st of any year and that
installation of erosion control measures and landscaping be installed prior to this time and
maintained and monitored throughout the rainy season. With these suggested modifications,
downstream sensitive resources would be afforded adequate safeguards from sedimentation
impacts, consistent with the certified LUP.
Relative to conversion of agricultural lands, the findings for denial of this section also found
the master plan to be inconsistent with the certified LUP in that the Master Plan does not
contain provisions for payment of an agricultural mitigation fee. However, if modified
consistent with Suggested Modification #3, the section can be found acceptable.
Specifically, this suggested modification requires that all lands converted from agricultural
use to urban uses, be required to pay a mitigation fee (pursuant to Section 30171.5 of the
Coastal Act). If modified as suggested, the Master Plan could be found consistent with
Policy B of the certified LUP pertaining to agricultural conversion.
2. Section V - ODen Space and Habitat Protection and Enhancement Plan
As noted in the findings for denial of this section of the master plan, for the most part this
section can be found consistent with the certified LUP. However, pertaining to specific
mitigation requirementdstandards, it has been found unacceptable. If the Master Plan is
modified as proposed in Suggested Modification Nos. 4,5, and'6, it would be acceptable.
Suggested Modification #4 calls out the specific mitigation requirements for any
unavoidable impacts to Southern coastal salt marsh that result from development of the site.
In addition, this suggested modification makes it clear that all mitigation for impacts must be
accomplished through the creation of new habitat from upland areas on site.
Suggested Modifications 5 and 6 again address mitigation requirements for habitat impacts.
Modification #5 clarifies the intent of the mitigation is to assure that no net loss of habitat in
both quantity and quality occurs. In addition, this modification deletes reference to a
Carlsbad LCPA 1-96F
Page 18
monitoring program contained within the Master Plan and states that such a program will be
developed at the time of coastal permit review. In addition, Modification #6 deletes the
section on biological monitoring guidelines. As proposed, the section on monitoring is too
specific for a planning level document, which would likely lead to numerous amendment
requests to include requirements of resource agencies at the perrnit review level. The
specifics of a mitigation monitoring program can be developed at the time development is
proposed for the project, incorporating the comments and requirements of the various
resource agencies. Given the proposed modifications, the Commission finds this section of
the Master Plan to be acceptable.
3. Section VI - Planning. Area DeveloDment Standards and Guidelines
This section of the Master Plan for the most part is adequate to cany out the certified LUP.
However, as discussed in the findings for denial, relative to public trails and heights of
proposed structures, it has been found unacceptable. If the Master Plan is modified pursuant
to proposed Suggested Modifications 7 and 8, it would be acceptable. Modification #7 adds
language which requires the proposed public trails to be permanently reserved for public use
through dedication of a trail easement to the City. In addition, this modification also
requires the trails, trailhead parking, and signage to be constructed and open to the public
prior to occupancy of any structures. In this way, the public is assured use of the trails at the
time of site development and that the trails will be maintained in perpetuity for public use.
Suggested Modification #8 pertains to protection of visual resources. As cited in the
findings for denial of this section, the LUP only permits structures to a maximum height of
35 feet to limit visual impacts. As proposed, architectural elements of buildings would be
permitted to a maximum of 45 feet. If not limited, this could essentially permit 45 foot high
structures. As such, Suggested Modification #8 clarifies that such architectural elements can
extend to 45 feet, but that they are limited to no more than three percent (3%) of the total
roof area. In this way, the scenic visual resources of the area will not be overpowered by tall
buildings. Given the above discussion, with the proposed modification, the Green Valley
Master Plan can be found consistent with and adequate to carry out the certified East
Batiquitos LagoodHunt Properties Land Use Plan Segment.
PART VII. CONSISTENCY WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY
ACT (CEOA)
Section 21080.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exempts local
government from the requirement of preparing an environmental impact report (EIR) in
connection with its local coastal program. Instead, the CEQA responsibilities are assigned
to the Coastal Commission and the Commission's LCP review and approval program has
been found by the Resources Agency to be functionally equivalent to the EIR process. Thus,
under CEQA Section 21080.5, the Commission is relieved of the responsibility to prepare an
EIR for each LCP.
Carlsbad LCPA 1 -96F
Page 19
Nevertheless, the Commission is required in an LCP submittal or, as in this case, an LCP
amendment submittal, to find that the LCP, or LCP, as amended, does conform with CEQA
provisions. The plan, as proposed, serves to preserve on-site the vast majority of the natural
resource areas. The sensitive slopes along the western section will be entirely preserved
without encroachment and permanently protected as open space. The riparian and wetland
corridor associated with Encinitas Creek will also largely be preserved intact. However,
there will be impacts precipitated by two road crossings to access the property, as well as
limited improvements to El Camino Real to its presently approved standards. Those impacts
have been minimized to the fullest extent possible. All impacts are being fully mitigated on-
site with new creation of like habitat; as such, there should be no net loss in either quality or
quantity of wetlands. The mitigation area directly abuts the creek corridor and the expanded
open space will be permanently preserved. Other development controls, including, but not
limited to, rainy season grading restrictions and erosion controls, have been established to
mitigate the potential for non-point source pollution and downstream sedimentation. As
such, the Commission finds that impacts have been appropriately mitigated and reduced to a
level of insignificance. No unmitigated impacts will occur and no significant adverse
impacts to the environment should result from the plan’s implementation.
Finally, the individual project to which the new LCP policies would apply will require a
coastal development permit. The specific impacts associated with that project would be
assessed through the environmental review process; and, its compliance with CEQA would
be assured. Therefore, the Commission finds that no significant, unmitigable environmental
impacts under the meaning of CEQA will result from the approval of the proposed
amendment and that the proposed changes can be made.
(DELTA\CAR 196F.DOC)