HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-05-08; City Council; 5342-1; Work Program Local Coastal ProgramCITY OF CARLSBAD
Initial: ~'
M AGENDA BILL NO. al - ,y Dept. lid.
DATE: May 8, 1978 City Atty -�-
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING - City Mgr._,_
SUBJECT: -
Progress of City Issue Identification/{York Program for Local Coastal Program
STATEMENT OF THE MATTER
The Regional Coastal Commission staff has indicated that additional work•
is required on the City's Issue Identification and {Vork Program before
the documents can be sent to the Commission for action. They offer
three alternatives to the City to provide continued processing. (These
alternatives are outlined in the attachment, dated May 4 from the
Planning Director to the City ra.*iager.)
Substantially more time and money has been expended on the formulaticn
of the subject documents than was anticipated. In addition, it was
the intent of the Council to allow the Coastal Commission the responsi-
bility of establishing specific priorities and commensurate funding
within the framework of the City's goals.
REMMDATION
Staff recommends that no additional work be expended on the Issue
Identification and'iVork Program, and as a result, that alternative
three, as offered by the'Coastal Commission staff, be.pursued.
(Alternative three requires no additional City staffing.)
ATTACHMENTS.
b1emo to City Manager, dated btay 4, 1978
Council Action:
5-16-73 Council concurred with staff recommendation that no
additional work be expended on the Issue Identification
Work Program, and as i result, that alternative three,
as offered by the Coastal Commission staff, be pursued.
JCH:TCH:le
FORM PLANNING 73
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 4, 1978
TO: Paul Bussey, City Manager
FROM: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Meeting with Regional Coastal Commission staff on City
13sue Identification/Work Program for Local Coastal
Program (LCP)
As you know, based on our experience with the Agua Hedionda
Specific Plan (LCP) we have elected to pursue a "general approach" to
the Issue Identification/Work Program. Within the framework of the
City proposal the Coastal Commission can establish priorities and
commensurate funding for specific courses of action. The Planning
Commission and City Council have agreed with this approach and forwarded
the documents to the Regional Commission for Coastal Act required staff
report/recommendation and public hearing.
The Coastal Commission has responded, after some delay, by
indicating the need for additional information (see attachment from
Bruce Warren dated April 5, 1978). it is our position that the submittal
is more than adequate to meet the requirements of the Act and that
additional work should be up to them as a function of a staff report and
allocation of funding (see attachment from James Hagaman, dated April 17,
1978.
At the subject meeting the Regional Staff offered three alter-
native solutions, they are:
1. Request immediate processing of the Issue Identification/
Work Program as is. (The staff indicated they would recommend to the
Commission that they send the documents back to the City for additional
work, i.e., more specificity).
2. City staff to take the submitted documents back and provide
additional information. (City staff feels that any changes in the
documents should also be returned to the Planning Commission and City
Council for review prior to being resubmitted to the Regional Commission).
3. Coastal Commission staff will provide the work they request
and submit the package to the Regional Commission. (The Commission not
staff determines adequacy of the submittal. The Regional staff estimates
1 to 2 months to accomplish this alternative).
Although a certain amount of delay has arisen already, staff
feels that alternative 3 is in the best interest of the City. The Regional
staff points out 1 to 2 months of processing time for them to prepare
Memorandum/Paul Bussey
May 4, 1978
Page Two (2)
the report, however a similar time period would probably be necessary to
allow City staff to accomplish the extra work and send it through the
Planning Commission and City Council. Alternative 3 will fulfill the
intent of the City's submittal in that the Coastal Commission will be
in a position to establish specific priorities and allocate the necessary
funds. If specific tasks are required that cannot be funded, it will
place the Commission on record as mandating that work. This may aid
the City in requesting SB-90 funds for additional work.
The basic question to be answered is "what work is mandated by
the Coastal Act"? City staff feels that since the Coastal Commission is
charged with interpretation/enforcement of the Act and also allocation of
funding mandated by the act, they should establish priorities. A preliminary
estimate of the funding available for the City of Carlsbad's LCP preparation
by the State Commission has been set at about $45,000. This is about
1/3 of the City's proposed budget, as outlined in the Work Program. As a
result, there is an obvious need for certain tasks to be omitted. This
establishes the need to identify priorities. Because the Coastal Com-
mission will ultimately determine the consistency of the City's LCP with
the Coastal Act, it seems appropriate that the Commission identify the
specifics that are necessary and that they are willing to pay for.
If alternate 3 is pursued the i to 2 month period can be utilized
by City staff to continue working on the Agua Hedionda Specific LCP segment,
depending on its status after the final vote hearing. A detailed analysis
of the final plan will be necessary to forward to the Council in any case.
If the plan is acceptable to the Council, staff will begin preparation of
the implemer,tation phase.
es C. Hagama
f ANN!Mq DIRE&OR
JCH:TH:ar
Attachment
Letter from Planning Director dated April 17, 1978
Letter from Bruce Warren dated April 5, 1978.
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008
^erg
C tp of Carielbab
April 17, 1978
Mr. Bruce Warren, Executive Director
San Diego Coast Regional Commission
6154 Mission Gorge Road, Suite 220
San Diego, California 92124
TELEPHONE:
(714) 724.1181
SUBJECT: April 5, 1978 letter. regarding Issue Identification
anc Work Program.
Dear Bruce:
Allow me to preface my main remarks by expressing a sincere
concern about the period of almost two months from the date
of Issue Identification/Work Program submittal to the date
we received a written response. The response contains essen-
tially three pages of comments directed at the Issue I.D./
Work Program text. It seems to me that the basic determination
of the adequacy of the submittal and the three pages of comments
could have been accomplished in substantially less time: In
light of the fact that you have determined the submittal can-
not be accepted, we have, in effect, lost almost two months of
plan preparation time which in my opinion was not necessary.
The obvious intent of the L.C.P. Manual is to insure processing
through the Regional and State Commissions within a 60-day
period. I do not see this intent reflected thus far.
In reference to your letter dated April 5 (`received April 13),
there is no evidence to support your contention that our Issue
I.D./Work Program is not complete. You mention that our docu-
ments would qualify for submittal with the addition of four
components further explained in the L.C.P. Manual. These four
components are: 1, a summary of key issues; 2, policy checklist;
3, time line; and 4, identification of milestone products. You
cite Section 00023 of the L.C.P. Regulations as the section
that determines the components of an acceptable submittal. Only
one of your four additional components is mentioned in Section
00023, that is a time line. The other components you *refer to
are not specified. The L.C.P. Manual mentions ,your components;
however, it qualifies these components as models "to assist
local government in preparing" the documents. It does not require
them as mandatory facets of submittal. We acknowledged the
necessity for the time line component as a result of the February
8 meeting referred to in your letter and forwarded a detailed time
line to you and O.P.R. on February 14.
April 17, 1978
Subject: April 5, 1978 letter regarding Issue Identification
and Work Program.
As a result, I am thoroughly convinced that our submittal is in
full compliance with all applicable requirements and respectfully
i request a public hearing as soon as possible. I also consider
the time frame for processing to have begun on February 27, 1978.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
/J�s C. Hagaman�
/ Planning Director
✓ TH:JCH:sb
cc: Michael Fischer
Thomas Dederer '
Alan Friedman
City Manager
City Attorney _ 1
i
f
s
F
State of California, Edmund G. .,wn Jr,, Governor
California Coastal Commission.
631 Howard Street, 4th floor
San Francisco, California 94105
)415)543-8555
April 5, 1978
Mr. James C. Hagaman
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Jim:
Iii L 'U � V
APR ¢fd' 1978
CITY, OF. CARLSBAD
Manning Department
We apologize for our tardiness in responding -to the issue identification
and work program submitted by the City of Carlsbad. We must inform you,
however that we cannot process the Cityts issue identification and work
program as they are presently submitted. The primary reason for this is
that bothiithe issue identification and work program do not contain all the
necessary components. Although the format of the issue identification id
somewhat discretionary, a summary of key issues is necessary to provide
the initial focus for a LOP. Likewise, the policy checklist is essential
to ensure that all Coastal Act policies have been adequately considered.
Elements that need to be added to the work program include a time line and
an identification of milestone products as explained in the LOP manual. Al—
though the completion of the above mentioned components will qualify the is-
sue identification work progam package for submittal according to Section
00023 of the LCP regulations, we strongly urge that the document be revised
in response to the following comments from Regional/State Staff and OPR to
more clearly define issues and related .tasks. OPR informed us that this
revision procedure should not interfere with your Phase lufunding. Additional
followdp with OPR is advisable to ensure that funding procedures are complied
with.
Before proceeding with specific comments, it would be appropriate to discuss
a jurisdictional issue. The City of Carlsbad and the County of San Diego
should coordinate in the preparation of their respective LCPts. We are aware
of the recent coordination agreements that have been made relative to the
County islands within Carlsbad's sphere of influence; however, our position
is that a coordinated approach must also be followed for Batiquitos Lagoon
and its north shore. To bisect this sensitive resource area pblitically is
not environmentally sound. The preliminary recommendation 6f the Commission
staff is that the Carlsbad LCP be submitted concurrently with the County LCP
for those lands extending south to La .Costa Avenue. We will assist in this
cooperative planning effort. This recommendation is consistent with the LAFCO
staff position relative to Carlsbadts sphere of influence.
To: James C. Hagaman, From: Bruce H. Ww!ren, 4-5-78 Page 2
ISSUE IDENTIFICATION
The summary of key issues is needed to focus on the most important coastal
problems and policy interpretations that the 1CP must resolve. Essentially,
the summary of key issues should be a distillation of %he work you have
already accomplished in your policy group evaluation. In preparing the
slznary of key issues, it will be useful to point out the interrelationships
among the issues. For example, the issue of locating and planning new
development cannot be addressed until the issues of agriculture, environ-
mentally sensitive habitat areas, erosion and sedimentation,and water and
marine resources have been examined. After the basic resource capacities
have been established and developable areas have been identified, then de-
cisions on the appropriate kind and intensity of land uses can be made.
WORK PROGRP24
As discussed at the meeting of February 8 at which the City, Regional and
State Staff, and CPR were all represented, the work program doe3 not clearly
tie the work tasks to the issues they are designed to address or to the pro-
ducts they are intended to develop. It is expected that the summary of key
issues will, aid in any redrafting of the work program in that the proposed
work tasks should relate directly to the treatment or resolution of the key
issues. In your submittal, the key issues should be reflected in your work
task goal statements.
Several general comments on the work program are: (1) The City of Carlsbad
should arrive at a decision as to which budget alternative is desirable rather
than submitting both to the Commission; (2) With the limited amount of fund-
ing available to the Commission for ICP's, work programs should focus only
on essential products, utilize existing data, avoid duplication, and not
request funding for tasks required through general planning law; (3) The
item of administrative overhead should be more specifically developed so it
can be determined what is involved. One method of achieving this would be
to identify it as a separate funding category with sufficient descriptive
details; (4) There is no tniformity in handling revisions•and,changes to
to.the%general plan, and zoning- ordinance:. It id ,again.'suggdsted. that a
separate�iVnding•category be developed for this -task;. -(5) The -
formal work program submittal to the Commission should include work load
projections reflected in terms of person weeks or months.
The following specific comments are directed at alternative B:
Recreation and Visitor Serving Facilities - No product is identified
under this task. it is assumed that the products would include an
Inventory of existing recreational facilities, a projection of future
demands, and conclusions on where additional facilities, if any, will
be needed. Additional products should also include an identification
of shorefront or near -shorefront land that is suitable for recreational
use or support facilities for recreational use. Since the State Depart-
ment of Parks and Recreation is proposing a youth hostel near South
Carlsbad State Beach, coordination with that agency will be essential
to the development of this policy group.
To; James C. Hagaman, From: Bruce H. Warren, 4 -5-.78 Page 3
Public Works - An objective for this work task is needed. The applica-
i y o Tie task to the LCP should also be more clearly shown.
Location and Plannin New Development - The objective of the task is
Identified- oweverI s re a lone p to the land use plan revision
needs clarification. The funding requested for the Public Facilities
Management Program appears dubious since this has already been feuded
by CPR. Many of the tasks (1-4) would probably be more appropriately
arrayed under Public Works. The CPO advisory committee study would
appear to have limited applicability to the LCP
The general intent of this task group should be to ensure that the
kinds, location and intensity of development are consistent with
Coastal Act policies. Tabkss should be designed so that new development
will be located in acceptable areas and.wrill be of an intensity com-
patible with resource capacities. Also, the land uses selected should
be shown to be consistent with use priorities established in the Act.
The tasks under this heading will really build upon the products of
the tasks shown for the issues of agriculture, and envi:�cnmentally
sensitive habitats, etc.
Visual Resources and Special Communities - Before an inventory of view
oc ages s commenced, the app ca i y of the CPO coastal access
study should be examined. Also, the Commission will not be able to
fund a study for all view blockages, only regional significant view
blockages would be of concern. As a way of reworking this task cate-
gory, it is suggested that the primary thrust should be toward identify-
ing and protecting critical scenic areas, (e.g., shore flont, access
arterials, etc.). A_potential objective for this issue area would be
the evolution of a design review process for critical scenic areas.
Hazards - How much of this information has already been included, or
siou cue included, in the seismic safety element? The focus of the
tasks should be deteim7ning the nature of problems uniquz to the coastal
area and necessary measures to deal with them.
Hou�sinMuch of the work Proposed should already be available through
the City►s Housing Authority and Housing Element, and CPO; The primary
issue really Pertains to low -and -moderate -cost housing, preserving that
which exists and providing new. Compliance with the new HCD requirements
for hrnising elements may provide much of this data. Again, a clearer
statement is needed to identify the product of this task category.
Water and Marine Resources - The product for this category and its
re a ions p to the LCP are not identified. Task No. 1 would seem
to contribute little to the preparation of the LCP. Similarly, it is
not clear that tasks Number 2 and 3 are directly pertinent to the
City's ICP; these tasks should be described in more detail to show
how they will, contribute to LCp preparation.
To: James C. Hagaman, From: Bruce H. Warren, 4-5-78 Page 4
Shoreline Access — A more positive implementation statembnt is needed.
Rather than flof r suggestionsli, we would prefer wording propose action
program'►. An additional point which may be pursued is the provision of
increased day —use access at South Carlsbad State Beach through the de—
velopment of access points and support facilities (e.g., parking).
riculture — A general commentois that the work should more closely
olow the tests for agricultural preservation and conversion that are
found in the Coastal Act. Item #4 would contribute little to the prepar-
ation of an LCP. •A more productive contractual relationship would be to
focus on developing a land use program that prevents urban conflicts and
provides for preservation of agriculture pursuant to Section 30= and
30242 of the Coastal Act. Items #2 and #3 are questioned in that it is
not clear how they would be used to formulate axe =.Based on government
code definition, the basis for determination of prime and non —prime is
already known. The factors that impact yield would seem to have little
utility unless it focused on urban conflicts as presented in sections
30241 and 30242 of the Coastal Act. An additional implementation task
which is suggested is an investigation of strategies to altbr taxing
pbli.cies which lead to the conversion of agricultural lands.
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas — 0n items #29r3.;1, 4 additional
e ins ion would e helpful as to e intent of the tasks. Also, Item
#4.appears to be somwhat duplicative of marine and water resources, un—
less it focused on steep slope areas and the potential for"erosion and
sedimentation. The ultimate product of this policy group is anticipated
to be the identification of preservation areas, and areask based upon
their resource value or proximity to sensitive resources, suitable for
low intensity.develdpment:rr-
Citizen _Participation — It is suggested that the citizen participation
program be supplemented with mechanisms to involve the average citizen.
Such mechanisms would include workshops and meetings on drafts or work—
ing papers.
Should you have questions regarding our com ts, lee q�ntalt Mike Kennedy
of the Regional Staff, or Alan Friedman of t to f III
Sincerely,
U vv✓ V u u
Bruce H. Warren Michael L. Fischer
Executive Director California Coastal
San Diego Coast Regional Commission
BHWiMZ:bb
cc: -Thom •Dedger — OPR.
f