Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-12-19; City Council; 5342-1; Alternatives for continued processing of LCP11— -til CITY OF CARLSBAD . -^> AGENDA BILL NO. ^~3 *-l£ - ^L^.pJL^^Jt **/ Initial DVDept. Hd. DATE: December, 19, 1978 .. . . C. Atty. C. Mgr. DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: Alternatives for continued processing of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Statement of the Matter The Planning Department has recently received approval by the State Coastal Commission for the Local Coastal Program, Work Program. Prior to the initiation of work on the various planning tasks, direction from Council is necessary. The attached memo outlines various alternatives for Council's consideration. Exhibits State Commission approved work program Regional Commission approved work program Memo -from Planning Director to City Manager Memo from Planning Department to City Manager Letter to State Assemblyman Calvo from Planning Director Recommendation Staff recommends pursuing the Work Program tasks as outlined in the approval by the State Commission, i.e. 10.5 month program consultant prepared. Council action: 12-19-78 Council directed that the City of Carlsbad request the State Commission to prepare the Local Coastal Program for the City of Carlsbad. MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Bussey, City Manager FROM: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director DATE: November 22, 1978 SUBJECT: ALTERNATIVE FOR CONTINUED PROCESSING OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM We have received notice that an LCP work program has been approved by the State Coastal Commission for Carlsbad. As you know, the original City submittal was substantially modified by the Regional Commission and staff. The State Commission made few additional changes to the Regional Commission. Now that we have identified tasks, including estimated labor months and labor month costs (for both in-house and consultant preparation), there are a number of ways to proceed. Refer to our memo (attached) dated September 20, 1978, concerning new developments in Coastal Legislation and Commission processing, for background in reviewing the following outline of alternatives. These alternatives cover a reasonable spectrum of choices in staff's opinion. All have positive and negative aspects. Staff considers the last alternative the most appropriate given the circumstances. The City submitted a work program to the Regional Commission staff in January of 1978. The regional staff informed the City that the program proposed was not acceptable (the City work program identified an approximate $124,000 to provide certain work tasks). Having expended the $4000 funding initially allocated to prepare the work program itself, City staff was concerned about expending additional City funds. The City Council, when presented with this situation, elected to request that the Regional Commission staff revise the work program to provide the identified inadequacies. The result was significant revision to the City's submittal. The most significant revision was a reduction in funding to $51,000. The $51,000 allocated by the Commission will probably not be adequate to truly accomplish the program. Given the kind of product the Coastal Commission has required in the past, staff questions the adequacy of $51,000 to provide the required tasks under any circumstance. However, the last alternative does offer a procedure in which a minimal amount of additional cost to the City is possible in conjunction with a finalized product. We have the go ahead, as of now, yet we feel a policy decision is necessary prior to committment. Memo - Paul Bussey November 22, 1978Page'two The following outlines the options and the possible results of each, based on our experience with the Coastal Commission and their staff up to this point. A. In-House 1. Do the plan as we think the Coastal Commission wants it in-house (19 month program not including implementation phase). a. All "agricultural land and potential agriculture land" maintained. b. Land reserved for "upland support facilities" adjacent to beach areas. c. Substantial land reserved in the downtown area for visitor serving facilities. d. No conversion of "marginal" housing downtown in order to maintain "low cost" housing. Positive Negative Processing will be easy through . Public reaction from the Coastal Commission property owners/developers will be generally negative. Permit authority will be returned to City after approval subject to: .If City approves the plan law suits may occur. a. appeals (to Commission) (the City must act b. amendments for any change in the prior to submittal to plan (to Commission) Coastal Commission c. subsequent 5 year reviews (by Commission) . $51,000 allocated will not be enough. City will have to assume some cost and/or apply for SP 90 funds (City staff estimated $124,000 for the work program) 2. Submit the adopted General Plan in the form of an LCP A minimum of City time and money . The Commission will not will be expended approve the plan No liability for imposing the Com- . The Commission will mission's desires will be incurred not approve allocation of funding City might get specific direction on LCP preparation relatively quickly in the . City will not get process permit authority Memo - Paul Bussey November 22, 1978 Page three NOTE: Which does the City wish to accomplish? 1. Statewide good: as interpreted by the Coastal Commission and their staff. 2. Local good: as determined by the City Council. 3. Attempt to satisfy both interests (this approach was pursued in the Agua Hedionda Plan). In comparing the adopted General Plan and what we know the Commission wants, there is an obvious conflict. The resolution of this conflict will undoubtedly result in substantial controversy and probably litigation. We assume that to be certified the plan will have to conform strictly to the Coastal Commission's interpretation of the Coastal Act. Any deviation from their certified plan, such as a requested zone change, would require an amendment to the LCP. This process is essentially a surrogate permit process. If the City elects to do everything necessary to get a certified LCP, it will be implementing the Coastal Commission's interpretation of the Coastal Act (Amendments and appeals would still go through the Commission). This implementation would be accomplished whether or not the City took over the process. Continued permit processing by the Commission is provided for by the Act if no LCP is certified by July 1, 1981. B. CONSULTANTS 1. Selected tasks done by consultant - some tasks done in-house Logical choices for the consultant would be; a. Tasks under Agriculture and Locating and Planning New Development b. Possibly tasks under Housing and Recreation and Visitor Serving Facilities. Positive Negative The controversial tasks . This arrangement would be would be done by an impartial source somewhat difficult to administer because the allocation of funding RFP's would have to be and time differs for consultant acceptable to OPR, Coastal and City preparation. The work Commission and the City programs are based on either prior to work. This would the City or Consultant preparation, set out the ground rules from the beginning. . When the number of active participants in staff level planning increases, there is more possibility of misunder- standing and decline of product quality. Memo - Paul Bussey November 22, 1978 Page four 2. Positive All work tasks done by consultant (10.5 month program not including implementation phase) The City seems to lack credibility with the Commission (primarily State), a consultant would provide an "impartial" product. Consultant costs and City expenditures would be easily separated and itemized for reimbursement (there would be no need to further modify the existing work programs format) The work program covers a shorter time period and thereby allows for more preparation time for implementing ordinances The RFP must be reviewed and approved by OPR, Coastal Commission and the City prior to work. The Commission has indicated they only expect products they pay for and no more. Under the consul- tant approach, all parameters are established up-front and should not be subject to question at a later date Any additional Commission requests outside the work program or RFP will be readily identifiable Limited City committment of resources/time; only administration of the planning and related tasks would be necessary. Negative The City will be relying primarily on an outside source to provide important studies and recommendations. Council and/or staff may be presented a document that is not totally in keeping with existing policy or direction MEMORANDUM DATE: September 20, 1978 TO: Paul Bussey, City Manager FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Meeting with State Coastal Commission Staff Regarding LCP Processing (9/14/78 at City of San Diego Planning Department) In an effort to create a better feeling of cooperation, the Coastal Commission Executive Director conducted a meeting to discuss the problems of LCP preparation. The meeting followed a similar meeting in San Francisco with northern California local governments. A number of important points of clarification and information items, were presented at the meeting, they are as outlined below: Format for future LCP approvals: Future recommendations will identify those areas of the submitted plan that will meet the .Coastal Act intent with no conditions, or other entanglements. Areas not deemed acceptable will not be recommended for approval and thereby will be returned to the local government for further work. The most likely direction from the Commission regarding areas not acceptable for certification., will be for local governments to return the revisions at tH'e time of implementation submittal. The Commission had problems with the Trinidad and Agua Hedionda LCPs in' visualizing how.the land use plan would be implemented. Cost overruns: The staff expects some cost overruns, however, only $200,000 is available for these contingencies statewide. (see Smith Bill - for note on SB 90 findings) Smith Bill (approved by Legislature awaiting Governor's signature) Instead of SB 90 requests going to the State Controller directly, they will go to the Coastal Commission first. The Commission will then indicate the priority of these requests to the Controller. (This could be used as a technique to insure compliance with "party line" concepts) CEQA Requirements. The responsibility of "lead agency" for any aspect of the LCP preparation has been delegated to the State Commission (including, for example, General Plan Amend- ments) . Therefore, they must make findings necessary to satisfy CEQA in addition to those of the Coastal Act. Staff indicates that they plan to use the "functional equivalent" provision under which an LCP document .itself would be considered to satisfy EIR requirements. (The Coastal Commission now has rcontrol ovei .&o very nebulous State /l^ CEQA in some ways is much more subject to interpretation than the Coastal Act. The responsibility for making findings for satisfaction of- the Coastal Act and CEQA offer a two edged sword to the Coir-miasion in accomplishing their goals. As a result, the Ccromission will truely have the final, say in approving or disapproving any LCP submittal). Revision of deadlines: The January 1, 1981 deadline for finalizing all LCP effort has been extended to July 1, 1981. The January 1, 1980 deadline for all LCPs to be submitted to the Coastal Commission: has been .-deleted. The Regional Commission lives have been extended to July 1, 1981. • • Top issue statewide (according to State staff) Those areas of undeveloped land in the Coastal Zone - subject to development pressures. (e.g. those open lands between Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoons). What they expect the Land Use Plan to be: The Executive Director indicated that they will expect the land use plan to include no more than what constitutes a good general plan. The logical question that follows is; what does good mean? No answer is offerred to this question. Law suits resulting from the LCP: . 3. The Commission's Chief Council indicated that meetings with City Attorneys and County Councils will be scheduled in the near future to discuss the matter. The Commission's legal staff has been working closely with the Attorney General's Office and indicates that a written opinion will be forthcoming^ The verbal opinion at this point/ is that the local government is considered "an agent of the State" in any matter relating to LCP preparation. Therefore, any legal aid necessary will be . provided by the Coastal Commission legal staff and by the Attorney General's Office. The Chief Council went on to'state that because the Coastal Act is primarily oriented to resource protection, it would be impossible for a court to award damages in the form of monetary reimbursement. He indicated that the Commission's ' - case law history has indicated that when a case is determined in favor of the land owner or developer that the court can only require a permit to be issued as reimbursement. As a result the local government would not be risking financial penalties in going to court over a particular decision. (Most of the local government representatives were somewhat skeptical of this point of the discussion) -2- What happens if the local government refuses to complete the LCP and requests the Commission to do so? A couple of local governments have clone this so far, the most notable is Mendicino County. Their work program was cut from ovar $200,000 to about $130,00.0 and they still faced a number of major problems with the regional and State staff. They saw no benefit to the County in purusing the LCP due to lack of adequate funding and the idea that the plan would have to reflect exactly what the Commission wanted no matter who did it. What happens now in Mendicino as an example? .. The Executive Director indicated that his staff will put the request on the back burner. This indicates that for those local governments that request state preparation of the plan, continued permit processing will be the direction the Commission will take. Another attitude on this subject was brought up. State Senator Nejedly (who with Senator Smith recently held hearings on the viability of the Coastal Legislation) has indicated a concern over the failure to meet deadlines outlined in the Act. He has said that if local government elects not to do the. LCP, that the State should do it. What the result of these two opinions will be remains to be seen. However, it is likely that the legislature will not be involved until the July 1, 1981 deadline, has passed and some LCPs are not approved. \,v" Beach Access and Visitor Serving Facilities. Concern was expressed by local government representatives that it was difficult to anticipate what the Commission and/or staff deems appropriate or adequate as far as access and visitor facilities are concerned. How much access is the optimum amount - there is a point of diminishing return. How many visitor serving facilities should < given area or community be held responsible for? The Executive Director indicated that staff would be willing to provide this information on a sub-regional basis. When this data will be available was not established. The concern from local government representatives was that the information would be made available too late to incorporate into the planning process. Public Improvements: The Commission requiring dedication and improvement of areas in the LCP, in addition to those already planned for by the local. - government has been a problem expressed for some time. Commission staff stated that the Commission could not impose public improve- ments unless, as a part of the LCP, additional development was provided for. Their contention, under the premise that most all LCPs will provide for additional development, is that the facilities will be needed anyway. The problem with this is that many facilities have already been committed and earmarked for develop- ment as part of the existing comnuinity plans. Any requirements in -3- addition to these nhcl, in effect, be extra xjL-iditures to local government. Future meetings: 'vie were told that meetings such as these will be regularly scheduled throughout the. planning process. In addition, if insurmountable problems are encountered, the Commission staff will be available to meet at the convenience of local government. 1200 ELM AVENUE • ^ST . • TELEPHONE- CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 MvW rfM (714)729-1181 Cttp of Carteirab October 24, 1978 Honorable Assemblyman Calvo Chairman, Assembly Resources Land Use and Energy Committee Suite 900 llth and L Street Sacramento, Ca. 95814 Honorable Assemblyman Calvo: There are a few points regarding the Coastal Act and its administration that should be voiced to your Committee. As we understand it, you are primarily concerned with the overall effectiveness of the Local Coastal Program formulation and the capacity for a smooth transition from State to local control. Our experience, up to this point, has been for the most part, a result of the processing of a pilot project (Agua Hedionda Specific Plan) which ultimately became a segment of the City's Local Coastal Program. The Agua Hedionda LCP segment has been approved, with conditions, by the State Commission. The City Council has not yet reviewed the State Commission's action. The Council must also approve the plan, as conditioned by the Commission, for the plan to be "certified" according to the Coastal Act. In addition to the Agua Hedionda processing, the City has also proceeded with the development of an Issue Identification and Work Program for LCP preparation in the remaining coastal zone area. These documents have been approved by the Commission and the City is in the beginning stages of plan preparation. The following summary covers major concerns as a result of our exposure to the Coastal Act and Commission: 1. Funding to perform tasks identified by the work program. The City estimated approximately $124,000 to accomplish identified work program tasks. It is questionable whether the $51,000 allocated by the State will be adequate to provide the level of performance expected by the Commission. Honorable Assemblyman Calvo October 24, 1978 Page Two (2) 2. Inequity in funding distribution. There seems to be some discrepancy in the labor month cost established for various jurisdictions' funding allocation. For example, the Regional Commission approved the work programs for both Carlsbad and the City of Imperial Beach on the same day. The labor month cost established for Carlsbad was $2500, based on in-house preparation. The labor, month cost established for Imperial Beach was $5000, based on consultant preparation* This difference in the basis for plan preparation, given similar tasks, appears somewhat inequitable. The Coastal Commission contends that the consultant can produce a given task in less time (evidently % the time) than the local government. The basis for this assumption is unknown. As far as the City was informed there was no establishment of a common cost denominator prior to statewide allocation of State and Federal monies. 3. Detail in the land use plan. The Commission actions up to this point have indicated a desire to necessitate a "tight" plan. This continued emphasis on detail indicates two things; one, that the Commission does not trust the local decision makers to make interpretations of a more generalized document. Two, that the "permit approach" which is employed by the Commission most frequently is spilling_ over into planning decisions. The result of a detailed land use plan will be a Local Coastal Program which is so specific that any deviation from it would require an amendment. The traditional discretionary permits which most local governments issue (zone changes, variances, etc.) would require additional approval of the Coastal Commission. This is essentially the same as a continued permit process. As the decision making capabilities are reduced at the local level, the incentive for local governments to prepare LCP's is substantially diluted. Many jurisdictions may reach what they feel is a point of diminishing return in their efforts to regain permit authority. This is especially true in light of Proposition 13 and the limited funds available from the Coastal Commission. 4. Apparent lack of motivation on the part of the Commission to complete the LCP process by 1981.The direction from the Commission staff so far has not been a highly motivated one. However, we can only speak from the Carlsbad experience. Possibly Carlsbad is not high on the priority list in the statewide context. For example, the work program drafted by the Regional staff and approved by the Regional Commission called for a 19 month program for the land use plan only. If the program began in October of 1978, the 19 month program would (assuming no processing hangups) extend through March "Honorable Asserru-^yman Calvo October 24, 1978 Page three (3) of 1980. This would allow only one remaining year for the City and the Coastal Commission to complete all processing of the implementation rezoning plan. Rezoning all property in the coastal zone will, no doubt, be one of the most con- troversial/time consuming endeavors in the planning process. The processing through the Coastal Commission staff may be fairly smooth, however, citizen debate at the local and state level could be heated. The basic problem with the Coastal Act in regard to deadlines for final plan approval is that the Coastal Commission has no established incentive for relinquishing power. If the Commission does not reach an agreement with local government (or, to put ia another way, if local government doesn't perform in a way acceptable to the Commission), the permit authority remains with the Commission. The Coastal Commission has been charged with administering the preparation of the LCP's and returning the decision-making authority to the locals, yet the consequence of them not approving plans is their retention of the maximum power. The result is that until they have received a plan exactly as they wish it to be, protecting all^ resources they feel important, they have no practical motivation to return authority. To make the LCP process work, some compromise is mandatory. One of the primary faults in the Coastal Act is the lack of incentive to necessitate a true planning process, of which, compromise is a vital component. As the situation is now, all issues identified by the Coastal Commission seem to be of primary and equal importance. Very few local governments will be able to accept all of the wishes of the Coastal Commission with no room for trade-off or compromise. If the Coastal Commission is able to require everything on its wish list and local government stands to gain little, there is a question of the practicality of local LCP presentation. As a matter of fact, some local governments have come to the con- clusion that it is not worth the time, effort and expenditure to prepare a plan that will not be acceptable to the Com- mission. These local governments have asked the Commission to prepare their plans, since to be approved, "their plan" and the "Commission plan" must be the same. It seems unlikely that the primary intent of the coastal legislation, that is, a Comprehensive Coastal Resource Management Plan, will be attained by 1981 given the current circumstances. The problems do not appear to be totally a result of the legislation, but the manner in which the law is being administered. Most local government officials would not disagree with the basic tenets of the Coastal Act, however, many do disagree with its implementation. Honorable Assemblyman Calvo October 24, 1978 Page four (4) Thank you for the opportunity to make these comments and observations. An increased dialogue between the legislative body and the local governments who are directly impacted by the Coastal Act should be promoted. Respectfully Submitted, ames C. PLANNING DIRE«DOR JCH:TCH:ms CITY OF CARLSBAD WORK PROGRAM Approved by the California Coastal Commission on 20 September 1978 1. LCP Administ.dticn and Budget Management Goal: Overall coordination of coastal planning effort, budget management, scheduling, compliance with legal requirements, and notification of public and other agencies. Work Tasks; • 1. Administration and coordination of LCP 2. Budget management - preparation of phase HI grant applications 3. Public notice as necessary 4» Attendance at Coastal Commission Hearings Estimated Cos ts; $2,500 * Additional Estimated Expenses; Printing,' postage, and necessary materials 3f500 Total $6,000 Product.!; 1, Phase III work program 2. Record o£ public notice .2. Agriculture Goal: To eserve agricultural lands ir jcordance with Coastal Act Policies, and to establish stable ocundaries separating urban and agricultural uses. Work Tasks: 1. Using existing sources, and in coordination with the U. S» Soil Conservation Service.and the San Diego County Agricultural Advisor do the following: -—Inventory and map lands which qualify for rating as Class I & II soils as defined in the Soil Conservation Service land use capability cla s sifi c at i on. —Inventory and map land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100 in the Storie Index Rating —Inventory and map land which has returned from the production of un- processed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre for three of the previous five years. —Inventory and map all other lands suitable for agricultural use (poten- tially prime lands) a. all lands which have previously been in agricultural use in the last twenty years b. all lands which by virture of soils, slopes, or micro climate could return an annual gross value of not less than two hundred dollars "^3200) per acre from the production of unprocessed agricul- tural plant products. (The methodology to accomplish this task should include an analysis of agricultural lands in the area which in the last 5 years havs paid an annual gross return of $200 per acre en the basis of soil types, slopes and exposures, and an identification of fallow lands of similar soil types, slopes and exposures which would be expected to be of similar productivity). 2. In cooperation with the State Commission Special Agricultural Study, identify and evaluate those factors which contribute to the conversion of prime agricultural lands and/or adversely impact continued agricultural production (e.g. urban conflicts? assessment practices of local governments and special districts, water availability and rates, land use and land division policies ) „ 3* Develop policies and land use designations to preserve prirr.e agricultural land through compliance with all of the following Coastal Act Policies and in cooperation with the State Commission Special Agricultural Study: a. By establishing stable boundaries separating urban and rural areas, including, where necessary, clearly defined buffer area:: to minimi-e conflicts between agricultural c-s.d urban land uses. b. By limiting conversions of agricultural lands around the periphery of urban areas to the lands where the viability of existing agricultural use is already severely limited by conflicts with urban uses and where the conversion of the lands would complete a logical and viable neighborhood and contribute to the establishment of a stable limit to urban development. c. By developing available lands net suited for agricultural prior to the conversation of agricultural lands. d. By assuring that public service and facility expansions and nonagricultural development do not impair agricultural viability, either through increased assessment costs or degraded air and water quality. The City's Williamson Act policies should be reviewed in this regard. e. By assuring that all divisions of prime agricultural lands except those conversions approved pursuant to (b), and all development adjacent to prime agricultrual lands shall not diminish the productivity of such prime agricultural lands. 4. Develop land use plan policies and designations to preserve potentially prime agricultural land according to the following Coastal Act policies and in cooperation, with the State Commission Special Agricultural Study. a. Any permitted conversion of agricultural land shall1 be compatible with continued agricultural use on surrounding lands. (No potentially prime land shall be considered for conversion- if such conversion would interfere with continued agricultural production on nearby land either by causing increases in property values, or through increases in urban/rural conflicts,) b. If a proposed conversion can be demonstrated to be compatible with continued agricultural production on nearby land, then;such conversion may occur if (1) continued or renewed agricultural use is not feasible*, or (2) such conversion would preserve prime agricultural land or concentrate development consistent with Section 30250. ^feasibility studies shall not assume inflated land costs based upon an expectation of non-agricultural uses. The feasibility studies shall include prodction costs based upon an expectation that a reasonable effort will be made to profitably farm the land utilizing reasonable production techniques and costs. Estimated Time and Costs; i.j labor months $6,250.00 Product: 1. Inventory and Map prime agricultural lands and other lands suitable for agricultural use (potentially pr$me lands). These maps should be accompanied by supporting and sufficient detail to indicate the basis upon which they were developed. 2. Background paper on factors which either contribute to conversion of agricultural lands, or adversely impact continued agricultural lands, 3. Working paper with draft recommendations for preserving prime and --potentially prime (all other lands suitable for agricultural use) agricultural lands in accordance with Coastal Act Policies, including detailed analyses.as to how any proposed conversions of prime or potentially prime land are consistent with the Coastal Act policies outlined above. 3. Housing; Goal: - To promote and maintain housing within the Coastal Zone that is affordable by all segments of the community in accordance with Section 30213 of the Coastal Act of 1976. Work Tasks; 1. Evaluate current housing policies in Housing Element and programs of Housing Authority for conforrnance with the Coastal Act. 2. Using existing Housing Element and Housing Authority statis- tical data,- project total housing needs. 3. Develop program to protect existing and encourage new housing for individuals of low-and moderate-income, specifically including policies for regulation of condominium conversions. Estimated Time and .5 Labor Month $2,500.00 Product; 1. Working paper evaluating housing policies, and housing needs and which proposes program for encouraging housing for low- and moderate-income individuals. 4. Recreation and Visitor Serving Facilities Goal: To provide and maintain recreational areas consistent with the Coastal Act and to provide appropriate visitor serving facilities to attract and accommodate tourists. Work Tasks: 1. Evaluate the adequacy of existing land use designations and development standards to ensure reservation of shorefront and upland areas for recreational use, and to provide recreational al opportunities for new development so Coastal facilities are not decreased. 2. Based upon projected increases in recreational demand, determine the need for additional visitor serving commercial facilites. 3. Designate specific areas for a visitor serving commercial recreation, and upland support facilities with recommendations for the type and intensity of use based on site suitability. 4.. In cooperation with San Diego County and the State Department of Fish and Game, determine compatible intensities, locations, and types of recreational use. along the north shore of Batiquitos Lagoon. 5. Coordinate with State Parks" and Recreation on proposed improve- ments and expansions and provision of new upland support facilities. 6. Study the feasibility of placing a non-permanent, non-motorized, small craft launching pad adjacent to the ocean. Estimated Time and Costs; i.3 Labor Months $6,250.00 Product; 1. Background paper assessing future recreational demand and the adequacy of existing land use designations and development standards to meet that demand. 2. Preliminary recommendations specific as to type and intensity of use on areas that should be reserved for visitor serving commercial recreation with special focus on the north shore of Batiquitos Lagoon. 5. ' Shoreline Accass Goal: To provide and ensure maximum access consistent with public safety and the Coastal Act, and the need to protect public rights and environmentally sensitive areas. Work tasks: 1. Inventory and map all existing shoreline accessways, potential prescriptive rights and parking facilities. 2. Identify and locate factors which impact public access (e.g., safety concerns, fragile resources, problems such as parking ' and congestion, and other impediments). 3. I'- accoraaacc; vith t!;c .Attorney .?,;;. <j ra L' ,i *;a:.uai ot rrocuuuros ana -riteria LeLaCir.g to Ir.,piit:xi Ledica;.ioa a.iw «ruL>iic rrtscrlpcivt. ..-.^lus" , rc-.iow areas whure prescriptive ligi.ca i;;ay Lavt; L.e«ii uatab- iiohi-ij. '.."/.ere ii..pi.^u.fc;.tai.ioa oi t.:e pi'oceciurcs stt loruh in that ceporL to verily prescriptive rights iii noL feasible, develop dedi- or ti_i;t;i».iitt:ci uy dcveiOpa^c.'ii. *«» cicojrda..c<- wii.li che Coa;.ial .-VL.C policy to pfovido i7ia.;in;uM public accost. (Conaaissior. staff is preparing draxt of the community and region. .Said program should include requirements for access dedications from shorefront development, critieria to ensure appropriate levels of access to ar.d around sensitive habitats, coordination with State Parks and Recreation to.increase day-use access through overnight facilities, develop—' ment of bicycle trails and provision of secured storage facilities, and development of additional access points and necessary support facilities Estimated Time ar.d Costs: .6 Labor Month $3,750.00 Product: 1. Map existing beach and lagoon access points, parking availability, safety concerns, potential prescriptive rights and impediments. 6. ' Hazards /Dredging, Filling and Shoreline Structures Goal: To reflect in the LOP all relevant information in the Seismic Safety Element, to restrict development from hazardous areas and to eliminate adverse impacts on eroding areas. Work Tasks; 1. Incorporate all relevant findings and policies of the Seismic Safety Element of the General Plan into the LCP. 2. Confer with Scripps Institution of Oceanography and other appropriate agencies and institutions to determine .stability of coastal bluffs, and severity of sand loss. 3. I^tvcluu policies to iii.:cCL ciu; ioi bjLU.li. LOU jevt! iop;:iC:.ic, s.;oi.tiiae piroiticiivu :i.feaouifci>, and sand repj.e..i.is!.iucnc pro&ra.Tu> Lliat are cunbis'ccnt with the finoiags and Lxcoi.ii;^nda ti'-'f,;i coiii.ai.iicu ia i-^t- j^ace Coimiii.Siio.i P.epoi L ou'.icied i'i.a;»riiUji 101 a;i Jrodia^ S'aore Liiie arid GoasLal Act policy. ... . ___ _.. . .... Estimated Time and Costs: .3 Labor Month $2,500.00 Product; . — - - 1. Working paper on revisions and standards necessary for public safety in respect to bluff and beach erosion, and shoreline protective devices. 7. Visual Resources Goal: To protect the scenic and visual qualities of Carlsbad's beach and lagoon shoreline and to protect public vistas of the Coast. Work Tasks: 1. Identify and map scenic coastal areas (e.g., oceanfront, lagoon viewsheds, major access routes) and significant public vistas of the coast. 2. Prepare policies, development standards and review process to protect visual resource's. Estimated Time and Costs; ."j Labor Month $2,500.CO Product; 1. Inventory of visual resources. 2. Working paper on methods of protecting visual resources. .Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas Abater and Marine Resources Goal: To identify -sensitive natural habitats, to prevent their disruption and to determine what kinds of adjacent develop- ment would be compatible with.their long-term protection. Work Tasks; ' ' . 1. Utilizing existing information to the maximum extent, identify map environmentally sensitive habitat areas and evaluate their condition (pristine, degraded, etc.). 2. Evaluate adequacy of controls for development impacting wetland drainage basins, especially in regard to erosion and sedimentation " "resulting from grading. 3. In accordance with the State Department of Fish and Game and Coastal Act Policies, determine appropriate :'land uses and develop- ment standards for areas adjacent to wetlands and other sensitive habitats. Also, determine compatible levels of access and agricultural production. " " 4. Evaluate and recommend appropriate restoration programs for degraded habitat areas, Estimated Time and Costs; l.u Labor Month $5,000.00 Product; 1. Utilising existing information sources,'map sensitive habitat areas with evaluation of their present condition. 2. Study paper assessing adequacy of existing controls, and proposing land uses and development .standards, prepared in cooperation with State Dept. of Fish and Game. -9. Public W or kc Goal:, The prevision ar.d expansion of public facilities in conference with the policies cf the Coastal Act to protect Coastal resources. VJork Tru-ks: » * 1. Evaluate the irspact, both environmental and fiscal, of special districts and neighboring jurisdictions proposed public works - expansions en coastal resourcs-:-. Design 2. Depipri M'.?w>r expanded public facilities to a'.'cor.nicdate needs of deveicp-::i!.vit. ^hat is concist-jrit v/Lth the Coastal Act. Also, where capacities a :•••:• lirdted encure trsr-t allocations are first guarantee-' to priority u?rr. 3. Ensure t'^at. p.-oposed lcv?ic of I -.ll-Jout dc rut gonerste -raffia that will o/erl^ad street capacities, thereby impedir.;* public beach ci"oe3S. Establish poi.'oios to i.iini.aiic uner^y co.ioutnplioa .-.ad \\:l;icie miijj traveled a;.-i '_o be coujAstent v;ita air qujxiiy r-w'quiruu-.eacs in cooperation -. .e Lh-i California Air Resources .^ 4. Analyst.- :;ropoi"j,i uxp'iniicns of f-he circulation system with respect to Coast:.! Act policies, and develop appropriate recornr.er.daticn5. 5. Cooperate ir. efforts to ir.creasc ar.d L'nprove transit cer'/ice 'for beach access. Estimated Time ar.d Costr: I.- Labor Month $5,000.00 Prod; ict; 1. Worlcir.g par>er proposing revisions to public facilities capacities/ der.and projections and ansr.dir.'ints to Public Facilities Element of the Co tier a. I Plan. 10. Locating and Planning Ne_v/ Development - JPrt-y-aration of Land Use Plan/ SIR Rev: Goal: To provide policies and land use designations regarding the pattern, intensity and phasing of new development, the pro- tection of coastal resources,.and the provision of adequate services and facilities consistent with the Coastal Act. * Work Tasks: 1. In concert with the agriculture section, identify a stable boundary to urban development. 2. Develop land use designations (types, location and intensity) based upon the natural environmental constraints that protect sensitive habitats in accordance with the Coastal Act. 3. Cooperate with CPO Advisory Committee which will study, in part, archeological resources. Also, using existing information, "identify and map paleontological and archeological resources and set forth policies to protect them. * 4. Compile and integrate data from all other work tasks and prepare Draft Land- Use map and the text of Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan should incorporate background documentation, analysis of issue resolution, policy framework, and designation of potential acquisitions and conservancy projects. 5. Prepare environmental review in accordance with OPR model for integrated Land Use Plan and EIR. Estimated Time and Costs: ;.3 Labor Months $6,250.00 Product; 1. Draft Land Use Plan and Map with integrated EIR, 11. Public Participation Goal: To encourage' and facilitate participation in the LC? planning process in Carlsbad by all interested citizens and groups, public agencies, adjacent jurisdictions, and Special Districts. Work Tasks: 1, Quarterly progress reports shall be presented to the City Council and shall be made available to the public at Planning Department and Coastal Commission offices. Said reports shall also serve as a newsletter and shall be released to interested groups and individuals (a mailing list of such groups and individuals should be prepared for notification of hearings, etc.). 2. All draft and final documents will be forwarded to local libraries, to State agencies and persons who have so requested, and will be mad; available to public at Planning Department and Coastal Commission offices. ,. 3. Public workshops or hearings shall be held as the more significant sections of the LCP are drafted. Such sections would include agriculture, access, recreation and. visitor serving facilities, environmentally sensitive habitats. 4. Issuance of periodic press releases _to the local media and proper notification of all public meetings. 5. Formation of Citizen's Advisory Board composed of City residents appointed by the Council. Technical review should be sought from experts as necessary. 6. Availability of City LCP's staff to make presentation at the request of local groups. 7. Presentations for public hearings on the proposed Land Use Plan before the Planning Commission and City Council. Estimated ...u $5,000.00 Product: 1. Quarterly Progress Reports 2. Public Hearings .on the Draft Land Use Plan and its more significant sections. Il.ir.uLcs or siii:nai:y of public cu;,,i,.tuL:> rr.au'.. cJuri.;^ jjuuilc v-orks !u!ai-inbci, aim public laettir.^s, ur.d dutis.^ :.-.« o l A n, L)s of uiiu Ci A«.l v i .s o r y rk) a r<i . CITY OF CAELSHAD WORK PP.CC-RAM SUt-3-lAP.Y Consuilta.it Time (Labor Months) 1.' 2." 3. . 4. .5. 6. 7., 8. 9. 10.' 11.'.' LC? Administration , Agriculture Housing Recreation and Visitor Serving Facilities Shoreline Access Hazards/Shoreline- Structures Visual Resource's Environmentally Sensitive Habitats/tfater and Marine Resources Public Works Locating and Planning Mew Development/Preparation of Land Use PLan and Snvircrmental Review Public Participation .. TOTAL: * 1.3 : .5 . 1.3 »c. "' .5' .5 1.0 1.0 1*3 *•*• - . _ Consultant3. 5 Labor TTcntns 50,000.00 . 6,250.00 2,500.00 6, 250. CO 3,750.00 2,.5CO.CO 2,5CO."CO 5, 000. CO 5,000.00 6,250.00 5,CCO.'CC S51,CCO.Ci 2.0 City . * Cr.e ci-,y staff lacor -cn^h 'should be allocated for city oversight -f c.T.sultan" -.vcrk, preparation of implementation work prr^rsir,, 2nd for city attendance at "Coastal Corjnission hearings on the land use plan. $3 , 500 ' should be'allocatac .Sw printing, postage, i—ffldL. necessary. .-nateriala for use by City Stair anc'-sy tne consultant. - _ ...... ** One City staff labor "month should "be 'allocated for completion of work tasks ^ •'• under" Public Participation category, in conjunction with .50 consultant staff monthes to be allocated to the consultant under the sarr.e category. , Lagoon Management F'^r.ds ;•• .^. '' '. ' . ' Allocated to the following tasks - $5,000.00 "~ 4. Recreation and' Visitor Serving Facilities Task No. 4 - Batiquitos Lagoon North Shore 8. Envirjncer.tally Sensitive Habitats TasJt No. 2 - i vuj.uu t, e Acequacy of Existing land use controls. Task No. 3 - Determine appropriate Land Uses. S06^ WORK PROGRAM _trrbr odu c t i on The primary purpose for revising Carlsbad's Work Program was to develop a clearer relationship between identified issues and planning tasks designed to respond to the issues. Staff has set forth the .minimum tasks required for each policy group and the expected products for each, . • » The dollar amounts projected in the Work Program have been rounded off, and do not exactly reflect the City of Carlsbad's estimates. To illustrate, one Carlsbad labor month is equivalent to $2,50?.04f this has been rounded to $2,500 for convenience in this revised Work Program, • • • The amounts recommended for finding are based on a staff cost (profess- ional, clerical and overhead) of $2,500 per montho The option remains for the City to perform the work in-house or contract for consulting services. If consultants are to be used, Commission staff and the Office of Planning and Research will need to participate in the preparation of the RFP. . .In response to the financial constraints imposed by the recent passage of Proposition 13, the City of Carlsbad is requesting that. interim funds be allocated so that they can initiate their Local Coastal-. Program immediately without using City funds. Staff recommends that the Recreation and Visitor Serving Facilities Work Category in the amount of $6,250 and $1,000 from the L'CP administration category, giving a total of $7,250 be allocated to the City 'as interim funding. • " " . . . "The total revised work program is recommended at $51,000. Of this total, $5,000 are to appropriate from the $40,000 to $50,000 in additional funds allocated to the San Diego Region for wetland management. This $5,000 will be used to cover specific wetland management related tasks under the categories of Recreation and Visitor Serving Facilities and Environ- mentally Sensitive Habitats. These tasks are specifically identified ^in the Budget Summary. • , • • 1. LCP Administration and Budget Management • Goal: . Overall coordination of coastal planning effort, budget management, scheduling, compliance vtith legal requirements, •and notification of public and other agencies. Work Tasks; ' ]"*....*!.. . 1, Administration and coordination of LCP 2. Budget management - preparation of phase III grant applications 3. Public notice as necessary 4* ' Attendance at Coastal Commission Hearings .Estimated Tims and Costs: 1.0 Labor Months ' $2,500 Additional Estimated Expenses: Printing, postage, and necessary materials . 3»5QQ _ •" . Total $6,000 Product:•HMM^HM^HI^Bi^Vrt ^ , • 1, -Schedule for completion of LCP - 9 ~ . '.. • 2, Agriculture ' * • .-•'.- Goal: To preserve agricultural lands in accordance with Coastal Act Policies, and to establish stable boundaries separating urban and agricultural uses. Work Tasks: 1. Using existing sources, and in coordination with the U. S. Soil Conservation Service and the San'Diego County Agricultural . Advisor do the following: —Inventory and map lands which qualify «for rating as Class" I & II soils as defined in the Soil Conservation Service land use capability classification. . —Inventory and map land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100 in the Storie Index Rating ' • •—Inventory and map'land which has returned from the production of'un- processed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not • less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre for three of the previous five years. ' ' '.!_'_." . \ . ' . . » • 't_ —-^Inventory and map all other lands suitable for agricultural use (poten- / tially prime lands) • •: a. all lands which have previously been in-agricultural use in the last twenty years . • . • • • ' b» all lands which by virture of soils, slopes, or micro climate could return an annual gross value of not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per • ' acre from the production of unprocessed agricul- tural plant products. (The methodology to accomplish this task should include an analysis of agricultural lands in the area which in the last 5 years have paid an ' • annual gross return of $200 per acre on the basis of soil types, slopes and exposures, and an . * . _ identification of fallow lands of similar soil . • types, slopes and exposures which would be • ' . expected to be of similar productivity). 2. In cooperation with the State Commission Special Agricultural Study, identify and evaluate those factors which contribute to the conversion of prime agricultural lands and/or adversely impact continued agricultural production (e.g. urban conflicts, assessment practices of local governments and special districts, water availability and rates, land use and land division policies),.~~~ * * •• 3« Develop policies and land use designations to preserve prime agricultural land through compliance with all of the following Coastal Act Policies and in cpopcration with the State Commission Special Agricultural Study: . f ' a. By establishing stable boundaries separating urban and rural areas', including, where necessary, clearly defined buffer areas ~ 10 - b. By limiting conversions of agricultural lands around the periphery of urban areas to the lands where the viability of existing agricultural use is already severely limited .by conflicts with urban uses and where the conversion of • the lands would complete a logical and viable neighborhood and contribute to the establishment of a stable limit to urban development. • . . c'. By developing available lands not suited for agricultural " ' prior to the conversation of agricultural lands* * d. By assuring that public service and facility expansions and nonagricultural development do not impair agricultural viability, either through increased assessment costs or degraded air and water quality. The City's'Williamson Act ' policies should be reviewed in this regard. e. By assuring that all divisions of prime agricultural lands except those conversions approved pursuant to (b)T and all development adjacent to prime agricultrual lands shall not diminish the productivity of such prime agricultural lands. . Develop land use plan policies and designations to preserve potentially prime agricultural land according to the following Coastal Act policies .and in cooperation with the State Commission Special Agricultural Study. ' ' '"" . a» Any permitted conversion of agricultural land shall be compatible with continued agricultural use on surrounding lands. . . (No potentially prime land shall be considered for conversion ' if such conversion would interfere.with continued agricultural production on nearby land either by causing increases in property values', or through increases in urban/rural conflicts) b. If a proposed conversion can be demonstrated to be compatible with continued agricultural production.on nearby land, then;such conversion may occur if (1) continued or renewed agricultural use is not feasible*, or (2) such conversion would preserve prime agricultural land or concentrate development consistent with Section 30250. • *feasibility studies shall not assume inflated land costs based upon an expectation of non-agricultural uses. The feasibility studies shall include prodction costs based upon an expectation that a reasonable effort will be made to profitably farm the land utilizing reasonable production techniques and costs. - Kstjmated Time and Costs; 2.5 labor months • $6,250.00 ~ 11 ~. Product; 1. 2. Housing; Goal: Inventory and Map prime agricultural lands and other lands suitable for agricultural use (potentially pr^me lands). These maps should be accompanied by supporting and sufficient detail to indicate the basis upon which they were developed. Background paper on factors which either contribute to conversion of agricultural lands, or adversely impact continued agricultural lands, # Working paper with draft recommendations' for preserving prime and --potentially prime (all other lands suitable for agricultural use) agricultural lands in accordance with Coastal Act Policies, including detailed analyses as to how any proposed-conversions of prime or potentially prime land are consistent with the Coastal Act policies outlined above. . To promote and maintain housing within the Coastal Zone that is affordable by all segments of the community in accordance with Section 30213 of the Coastal Act of 1976. Work Tasks: 1» Evaluate current housing policies in Housing Element and programs of Housing Authority for conformance with the Coastal Act. . • - . 2. Using existing Housing Element and Housing Authority statis- tical data, project total housing needs. 3. Develop program to protect existing and encourage new housing for individuals of low—and moderate—income. Estimated Time and Costa: 1.0 Labor Months $2,500.00 Product: 1. Working paper evaluating housing policies, and housing needs • and which proposes program for encouraging housing for low— and moderate-income individuals.\ ~- 12 -' 4. Recreation and Visitor Serving Facilities 'Goal: To provide and maintain recreational areas consistent with the Coastal Act and to provide appropriate visitor serving facilities '-to attract and accommodate tourists. Work Tasks: 1. Evaluate the adequacy of existing land use designations and development standards to ensure reservation of shorefront and upland areas for recreational use, and to provide recreational al opportunities for new .development so Coastal facilities are not decreased. • 2. Based upon projected increases in recreational demand, determine the need for additional visitor serving commercial facilites. 3. Designate specific areas for a visitor serving commercial recreation, and upland support facilities with recommendations for the type and-intensity of use based on site suitability. • • . ' * ' 4» In cooperation with San Diego County and the State Department of • - Fish and Game, determine compatible intensities, locations, and types of recreational .use. along the north shore of Bati.quitos Lagoon. , • • 5« Coordinate with State Parks and Recreation on proposed improve- : * ments and expansions and provision .of new upland support facilities 6, Study the feasibility of placing a non-permanent, non-motorized, small craft launching pad adjacent to the ocean. Estimated Time and Costs: . • ' • • 2.5 Labor Months $6,250.00 i Product: • • • • . ' \ • • • 1. Background paper assessing future recreational demand and the 'adequacy of existing land use designations and development • standards to meet that demand. 2. Preliminary recommendations specific as to type and intensity '•• • of use on areas that should be reserved for visitor serving commercial recreation with special focus on the north shore of Batiquitos Lagoon. Shoreline Access . . • Goal: To provide and ensure maximum access consistent with public safety and the Coastal Act, and the need to protect public • rights and environmentally sensitive areas» Work tasks; ' ' • 1. Inventory and map all existing shoreline accessways, potential •;"_•' prescriptive rights and parking facilities. * .2. Identify and locate factors which impact public access (e.g., safety concerns, fragile resources, problems such as parking and congestion, and other impediments). 3, In accordance with the Attorney General's "Manual of Procedures and Criteria Relating to Implied Dedication and Public Prescrip- tive Rights," establish dedication policies to ensure that public access rights are not degraded or eliminated by development, 4. Utilizing projections for population growth and recreational ; demand, determind future public beach access, needs. 5« Develop a beach access program to respond to the future needs of the community and region. Said program should include requirements for access dedications from shorefront development, •' critieria to ensure appropriate levels of access to and around sensitive habitats, coordination with State Parks and Recreation " to increase day-use access through overnight facilities', develop- •-• tnent of bicycle trails and provision of secured storage facilities, and development of .additional access points and necessary support facilities• Estimated Time and Costs: ' . 1.5 Labor Months $3,750.00 Product; 1* Map existing beach and lagoon access points, parking availability, safety concerns, potential 'prescriptive rights and impediments. 2» Working paper assessing future needs and proposing program to . ''"' • respond to futurp public access demands. - 14 - .6, Hazards/Dredging, Filling and Shoreline Structures Goal: To reflect in the LCP all relevant information in the Seismic Safety-Element, to restrict development from hazardous areas and to eliminate adverse' impacts on eroding areas. Work Tasks: " • 1. Incorporate all relevant findings and policies of the Seismic Safety Element of the General Plan into the LCP. . .2. Confer v/ith Scripps Institution of Oceanography and other appropriate agencies and institutions to determine stability of coastal bluffs, and severity of sand loss. 3. Develop guidelines and review processes for bluff top develop- ment, shoreline protective measures, and sand replenishment programs that are consistent with the findings and recommendation contained in the State'Commission Report entitled "Planning for an Eroding Shoreline". • •Estimated Time and Costs: 1.0 Labor Months $2,500.00 ..Product: _ 1. Working paper on"revisions and standards necessary for public safety in respect to bluff and beach erosion, and shoreline .protective devices. * - -15- . 7. Visual Resources . . . . Goal:' To protect the scenic and visual qualities of'Ca-rlsbad's beach'and lagoon shoreline and to protect public vistas of the Coast. ' Work Tasks; • 1. Identify and map scenic coastal areas (e.g., oceanfront, lagoon viewsheds, major access routes) an,d significant public vistas of the coast. 2. Prepare policies, development standards and review process to protect visual resource's. Estimated Time and Costs: ' 1.0 Labor Month $2,500.00 Product; . * " " * 1, Inventory of visual resources. 2. Working paper on methods of protecting visual resources. •-16.- 8, jhrvlronmontally Sensitive Habitat Areas/Water and Marine Resources Goal: To identify sensitive natural habitatst to prevent their disruption and to determine what kinds of adjacent develop- ment would be compatible with their long-term protection* Work Tasks; ' . . 1. Utilizing existing information to the maximum extent, identify map environmentally sensitive habitat areas and evaluate their condition (pristine, degraded, etc.). _ 2, Evaluate adequacy of controls for development impacting wetland ;__ " drainage basins, especially in regard to erosion and sadimentation resulting from grading. 3. In accordance with the State Department of Fish and Game and Coastal Act Policies, determine appropriate :-land uses and develop- ment standards for areas adjacent to wetlands and other sensitive habitats. Also, determine compatible levels of access and agricultural production. '""'_" ' . _ '_.._• 4» Evaluate and recommend appropriate restoration programs for degraded habitat areas. , . ~. 'Estimated Time and; Costst 2.0 Labor Months .... . • $5,000.00 Product; 1* Utilizing existing information sources,'map sensitive habitat . - areas with evaluation of their present condition. 2. Study paper assessing adequacy of existing controls, and proposing land uses and development -.standards,, prepared in cooperation with State Dept. of Fish and Game. - 1? - 9» Public Works. • • • . • • Goal: 'The provision and expansion of public facilities in conformance with the policies of the Coastal Act .to" protect Coastal resources. • * Work Tasks: • . .... 1. Evaluate the impact, both environmental and fiscal, of special districts and neighboring jurisdictions proposed public works expansions on coastal resources. 'Design 2. Design newer expanded public facilities to .accommodate needs of .development that is consistent with the Coastal Act. Also, where capacities are limited encure that allocations are first guaranteed to priority uses. ' 3» Ensure that proposed levels of buildout do not generate traffic that will overload street capacities, thereby impeding public beach access. . fr. Analyze proposed expansions of the circulation system with respect to Coastal Act policies, and develop appropriate recommendations. 5. Cooperate in efforts to increase and improve transit service Tor beach access. • Estimated Time and Costs: 2.0 Labor Months .$5,000.00 'Product: • 1. Working paper proposing revisions to public facilities capacities/ demand projections and amendments to Public Facilities Element of the General Plan. . ~ 18 - Locating and Planning Novf DeveJ.opmcnt -- Preparation of Land Use Plan/ EIR Review Goal: . To provide policies and land use designations regarding the pattern, intensity and phasing of nev; development, the pro- tection .of .coastal resources, and the provision of adequate cervices and facilities consistent with the Coastal Act. Work Tasks: * • 1» In concert with the agrieultxire section, identify a stable boundary to urban development. * 2, Develop land use designations (types, location and intensity) based upon the natural environmental constraints that protect sensitive habitats in accordance with the Coastal Act. 3». Cooperate with CPO Advisory Committee which will study, in part, archeological resources. Also, using existing information, "•identify and map paleontological and archeological resources and "set forth policies to protect them. 4. Compile and integrate data from all other work tasks and prepare Draft Land Use map and the text of Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan should incorporate background documentation, -analysis of" issue resolution, policy framework, and designation of potential acquisitions and conservancy projects. 5» ' -Prepare environmental review in accordance with OPR model for ' integrated Land Use Plan and EIR. Estimated Time and Costs: • . . _. 2.5 Labor Months $6,250.00 Product: - • ' . * 1, Draft Land Use Plan and Map with integrated EIR, - 19 - 11 • Public Participation • Goal:. To encourage and facilitate participation in the LCP planning process in Carlsbad by all interested citizens and groups, public agencies, adjacent jurisdictions, and Special Districts. Work Tasks; : • • 1. Quarterly progress reports shall be presented to the City Council ••""• and shall be made available to the, public at Planning Department and Co'astal Commission offices. Said reports shall also serve as ; a newsletter and shall be released to interested groups and individuals (a mailing list of such groups and individuals should be prepared for notification of hearings, etc.). 2. All draft and final documents will be forwarded to local libraries, • to State agencies and persons who have so requested, and will be made available to public at Planning Department and Coastal Commission offices. • 3« Public workshops or hearings shall be held as the more significant sections of the LCP are drafted. Such sections would include agriculture, access, recreation and visitor serving facilities, environmentally sensitive habitats, 4» . Issuance of periodic press releases to the local media and proper ' notification of all public meetings. _ 5». Formation of Citizen's Advisory Board composed of City residents appointed by the Council. Technical re vie w should be sought from experts as necessary. 6. Availability of City LCP's staff to make presentation at the request of local groups. . ' • ?• Presentations for public hearings on the proposed Land Use Plan before 'the Planning Commission and City Council. Estimated Time and Costs: .2.0 Labor Months ' $5,000.00 Product; .... 1. Quarterly Progress Reports » 2, Public Hearings .on the Draft Land Use Plan and its inore significant sections. • CITY OF CARLSBAD ' • ' • *• «• •'.'"• ' WORK PROGRAM SUMMARY - "•' • • •' Time (Labor Months) Cost 1. LCP Administration • t . l-.O + expenses $6,000.00 •2." Agriculture '' .. " " 2.5 . . • • 6,250.00 3.. Housing ... ' 1.0 . 2,500.00 4. Recreation and Visitor Serving Facilities ' 2.5 6,250.00 .5i Shoreline Access . -• ' 1.5 • . 3,750.00 6. Hazards/Shoreline Structures . 1.0 " 2,.500.00 7. Visual Resource's . 1.0 2,500,00 8. Environmentally Sensitive Habitats/Water and Marine Resources , ' " 2.0 5»000.00 9. Public Works ••-•'' 2.0 /' 5,000.00 10. Locating and Planning New Development/Preparation of Land Use PLan and Environmental Review 2.5 6,250.00 li;Y Public Participation " / ..2.0 ' 5,000.00 TOTAL: .;'" ' ' / • ••- .- • • •••'.. -. - 19.00 Labor Months $51,000.00 Jjiterim Funding: . " •=- LCP Administration ._ '"•-.. $1,000.00 . —.Recreation and Visitor Serving Facilities 6,250.00 -.''•'''- _ TOTAL • $7,250.00 Lagoon Management Funds; • . . ' *•••-. Allocal.cd to the following tasks - $5,000.00 4» Recrention and Visitor Serving Facilities Task No» 4 - Batiquitos Lagoon North Shore 8. Environmentally Senr.ltive Habitats • Task No.. 2 - Evaluate Adequacy of Exj.sting land use controls. ' . Task No. 3 ~ Determine appropriate Land Uses,