Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 99-03; Buerger Subdivision; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (6)August 27,2001 Gary Wayne Assistant Planning Director City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008-7314 + ? I STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGENCY CALIFORNIA COASTAL COM M I SSl ON $AN DIEGO AREA 7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-4402 /-- --- (619) 767-2370 :. I .. .. .. . I - 6. . -. .._ .,. . .___-- RE: Proposed Rczones of Limited Control (L-C) Properties; Update to Certified Local Coastal Plan Dear Mr. Wayne: Our office has recently received several proposed amendments to the certified Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP) to rezone properties from Limited Control (L-C) to zones that would accommodate residential uses. These LCP amendments include Tabata, Thompsoflabata, and Buerger (currently under review), Roesch (1-2000D) and Manzanita (1-2000E). which have gone before the Commission. Manzanita was denied in part because the Commission felt it could not continue to approve submittals of these L-C rezones on a piecemeal basis without adequate information on the cumulative impacts of the rezones on coastal resources, as well as a corresponding LCP amendment to address the proposed changes. When the Carlsbad LCP (LUP and implementation plan) was certified in 1981, it was anticipated that the L-C zone designation would provide an interim zone for areas undergoing transition from agricultural to urban uses, where planning for future land uses had not been completed or plans for development had not been formalized. The LUP does not contain specific language addressing the L-C zoning designation; instead, the areas were given a low to medium density land use designation which anticipated that future planning would occur prior to development. At the time the LCP was certified, it was not known what the appropriate standards would be to apply to future build out of these properties. However, it was clear that due to their topography, environmental sensitivity and current agricultural use, a residential zone was not appropriate at that time. The certified LCP implementation plan specifies in Section 21.39.010 of the City’s zoning code that future land use planning for L-C areas should be done prior to rezoning for urban development. The City has indicated that this future land use planning is taking place during the City’s review of each individual rezone request. However, this approach does not consider the cumulative impacts of development in the L-C zone, which could affect other planning efforts such as the proposed Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and could potentially affect significant overall amounts of sensitive habitat. Our staff continues to believe that it is appropriate and necessary to undertake a comprehensive, coordinated analysis of appropriate land uses and development activities for all properties within the L-C zone prior to further rezoning and development approvals. Additionally, the Carlsbad LCP has not been updated to take into account events which have occurred since 198 1, such as the listing of California gnatcatcher as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act. The gnatcatcher, which resides in the coastal sage scrub (CSS) vegetation community, was listed as threatened by the USFWS in 1993, and several species within the southern maritime chaparral community were listed as threatened or endangered in P August 27,2001 - Page2of 4 1996. The LCP protects sensitive native vegetation on steep slopes (>25%), but does not protect native vegetation in non-steep areas which can provide nesting and foraging habitat for the gnatcatcher. The dual-criteria slope policy preserves natural landforms and prevents erosion, but does not address the need to preserve rare native plant communities, especially those which have been determined by federal or state listing to be threatened or endangered. The City’s recent LCP amendments for rezones of L-C properties are based on individual site plans, taken on a case-by-case basis. The City has not submitted an LCP amendment to revise and update the L-C zone designation and/or provide a comprehensive plan for the L-C zoned properties as a whole, taking into consideration both habitat conservation plan (HCP) and Coastal Act requirements. The LUP has not been updated as intended to take into account current environmental conditions, the cumulative impacts of build-out of these properties, or currently applicable laws, prior to allowing development of these properties. As evidenced in its recent denial of the proposed Manzanita rezone, the Commission is reluctant to approve additional LCP amendments which convert individual L-C zoned properties to urban land use, without an LCP amendment to update standards and provide comprehensive review for these properties. The areas subject to such an amendment are primarily within Zones 20 and 21, which have already been largely developed. The remaining L-C parcels therefore contain some of the last remaining contiguous areas of CSS and southern maritime chaparral (SMC) within Carlsbad’s coastal zone. It appears that this resource was acknowledged to some extent in the draft Carlsbad habitat management plan (HMP), which has incorporated many of the remaining L-C properties into the proposed hardline and standards areas that will create the habitat preserve comdor. Additionally, it seem that the City may be allowing some L-C property conversions to occur without consideration of the draft HMP and Coastal Act requirements. For example, the Tabata and Buerger properties currently the subject of LCP amendment #1-2001 B & C, are both within proposed Linkage Area F, which will connect Core Areas 4 and 6 as identified in the draft HMP. The draft HMP proposes no net loss of wetlands, SMC, CSS or maritime succulent scrub within Linkage F, and specifies that properties within Linkage F should also avoid removal of natural vegetation that is contiguous with open space on adjacent parcels. The goal for Linkage F is to establish a northwest-southeast wildlife movement comdor with a minimum width of 500 feet. It would seem to be appropriate for these HMP requirements to be addressed in any rezone and buildout development proposal for this area; however, these issues were not mentioned in the Mitigated Negative Determinations and staff reports that were received for these LCP amendments. This may be because these parcels have limited or no sensitive onsite resources. However, they may provide valuable area for establishment of the Linkage F wildlife corridor in the preferred location with optimum width. If the L-C properties in Linkage F (and other areas of the HMP) are being rezoned on a site-by-site basis with separate development proposals and without a coordinated planning effort or specific development standards, it is difficult to understand how the Linkage F wildlife movement comdor, which extends across a number of individual properties, can be effectively designed and implemented by the City. Hopefully, the City can acknowledge the need for an LCP update prior to Commission action on any additional LCP amendments that would convert L-C properties on an individual basis. When preparing an amendment, the City should take into account the following sections of the Coastal Act as summarized below: Environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas. (Section 30240) Conflicts shall be minimized between agricultural and urban land uses by establishing stable boundaries (including buffer areas) and limiting conversion to those areas where viable P August 27,2001 - Page3 of 4 neighborhoods can be completed and urban development can be stabilized, and by ensuring compatibility with continuing agricultural use on surrounding lands. (Sections 30250 and 30242) New residential, commercial or industrial development shall be located within, contiguous to, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accomodate the proposed development. Proposed areas should have adequate public services and should not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources. (Section 30250) Permitted development shal be sited and designed to protect viewsto and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, and to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas. (Section 30251) 0 0 The diking, filling or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries and lakes shall be permitted only when 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 specifically enumerated uses in the Coastal Act. (Section 30233) The LCP amendment should be developed based on the following information to be identified: Provide updated maps of existing ESHA on L-C zoned properties within the coastal zone. A vegetation map should show sensitive native vegetation, including CSS, SMC, southern willow scrub (SWS), vernal pools and wetlands, and areas disturbed by agriculture. A topography map should show areas of slopes greater than 25%. An overlay map and aerial photograph should indicate how the L-C zone properties correlate to the proposed HMP biological cordinkage areas, the proposed hardline and standards area, existing development and approved development, and existing designated open space or preserve areas within the coastal zone. Based upon the sensitive resources identified on the maps, identify areas suitable for development. Factors to be considered include existing disturbed lan4 adjacent developed areas; location, configuration and access points of the traffic circulation system; and LCP land use designations. Areas which are intended to be retained in agricultural use should be identified. Establish a biological preserve overlay that is consistent with the goals of the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) and the identified hardline/standards areas of the draft HMP, but which also addresses Coastal Act requirements to protect native vegetation, and to minimize the alteration of natural landforms to protect scenic values, water quality and downstream resources. The LCP amendment should contain policies designed to establish an open space preserve with stable boundaries and address fuel management requirements to provide adequate buffer areas between ESHA and urban development. Enhance the proposed HMP standards areas requirements by addressing specific L-C properties which are included, and identlfying the most appropriate places to locate development and preserve areas in order to meet HMP goals and protect coastal resources. Specific requirements for protecting the identified ESHA andor agricultural uses on these properties should be developed. Additional requirements should also be developed to address the development of properties within the standards area which have limited or no habitat, but which may be located within a preferred corridor location or will contribute to completion of a linkage. -. P August 27,2001 Page4of 4 Consider development of LUP policies which would allow transfer of development potential from highlyconstrained properties to more appropriate development sites, particularly when there is ownership of multiple properties by one owner and the designated land uses are compatible. Alternatively, consider rezoning such properties to low-density residential use with special restrictions. Address the issue of artificially-created wetlands which were not created for agricultural purposes. The Thompson/Tabada LCP amendment involves . 1 acre of willow riparian scrub associated with an artificallycreated retention basin which now functions as a riparian area. Commission staff have determined that the exemption provided in Section 13577(b)(2) for agricultural ponds and reservoirs does not apply to other types of artificially-created wetlands, and does not continue to apply once the agricultural ponds or reservoirs are no longer used for a bonafde and ongoing agricultural use. The existence of these wetlands, which provide habitat value but are supported by a water supply which may be removed, should be addressed in the LCP amendment. We hope that the above information will be helpful to you, and will assist in making the necessary changes to the LCP land use plan and implementation measures to ensure that conversion of L-C properties is consistent with habitat preservation goals, the Coastal Act and other applicable laws. It should also be noted that the presence of wetlands or vernal pools on any L-C property would result in the project site being within an appealable area. Therefore, the City’s action on a permit application for development of the site would be appealable to the Commission, and should be represented as such in public notices. If you have any questions regarding these matters, or need further information, please call Keri Akers or me in the San Diego office at (619) 767-2370. Sincerely, d Sherilyn Sarb / Sherilyn Sarb District Manager Cc: Michael Holzmiller Ray Patchett Don Rideout Keri Akers Chuck Damm Deborah Lee Bill Ponder John Dixon