HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-02-06; City Council; 5739; Coastal Zone Boundary AdjustmentCITY OF CARLSBAD
11
AGENDA BILL NO.
DATE:
^5-739
February 6, 1979
DEPARTMENT:Planning
Initial:,
Dept.Hd. /s/
C. Atty. /s/
C. Mgr. /s/
Subject:
COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT
Statement of the Matter
The Coastal Commission has initiated a reevaluation of the current coastal
zone boundary by State Legislative directive. Attached is a report
outlining five coastal zone alternatives. As stated in the report,
notice of the boundary reevaluation was not received by the City prior
to the Coastal Commission deadline (only about half of the San Diego
coastal jurisdictions received prior notice).
If the Council wishes to pursue a boundary adjustment, four of the five
alternatives provide the most logical possibilities. As a part of the
various alternatives, there are policy questions which must be addressed
prior to a decision on a particular alignment. The most important is the
question of preservation of agricultural land.
Given the current policies being followed by the commission and their staff,
City staff feels it is doubtful that Carlsbad would be a prime candidate
for any variance from the existing coastal zone boundary. -The key criteria
to be used by the commission in evaluating boundary adjustments (see page 1
of the staff report), is that of "coastal zone resources." If an' area is
determined to contain "coastal zone resources" by the commission, removing
it from the coastal zone would probably not be approved. Staff anticipates
that the area between Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoon will be considered
to contain many "coastal zone resources." As a result, staff feels that a
proposal to modify the coastal zone boundary the least, would have the best
chance of consideration. At this point, a question of benefit to the City
for.a minor boundary adjustment must be weighed.
Exhibit
Memorandum to City Manager from Planning dated. 1/26/79'with staff .report.
Recommendation
If Council wishes to pursue a boundary adjustment, it is recommended that
2 of the recommended alignments be chosen, based on the policy criteria
on page 2 of the staff report. These 2 should then be forwarded to the
commission for their further analysis in terms of the criteria on page 1
of the staff report.
Council Action:
2-6-79 Council directed staff to pursue a coastal zone boundary adjustment
in the northern section of the City by extending the line to the
railroad tracks, then northward; and in the southern section of
the City in accordance with Alternative E as proposed by staff.'
Memorandum
Date: January 26, 1979
To: Paul Bussey, City Manager
From: Planning Department
Subject: Coastal Zone Boundary Adjustment
The following is an analysis of potential Coastal Zone Boundary
Adjustment alternatives. Although this analysis has been kept
brief in the hopes of meeting the Coastal Commission's deadline
for late proposals, a more thorough report would eventually
be necessary. On February 8, 1979, the Regional Commission
will be holding a workshop on all Boundary Adjustment proposals.
It has been stated by the Regional Staff that this may be the
deadline for late proposals. Although there is no guarantee
that a proposal submitted by the 8th would be accepted. In
any event, the State Staff recommends that we pursue our
Boundary Adjustment proposal so that it can be included in
their files for future reference.
BM/ar
COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT
The California Legislature has initiated a procedure to re-
evaluate the existing Coastal Zone Boundary. Specifically,
local jurisdictions are encouraged to submit Coastal Zone
Boundary Adjustment proposals to the State Coastal Commission.
Then, through discussions with intested parties, a series of
informal workshops and public hearings, the Commission will
evaluate the Boundary proposals and submit a recommendation to
the State Legislature by March 31, 1979.
(It should be noted that the deadline for submittal of all
proposals was December 15, 1978. Notice from the Coastal
Commission of this procedure was never formally received by
Carlsbad or several other jurisdictions in the San Diego Region.
It was only by chance that the City received notice, after
the deadline. The State Commission Staff has indicated
that they may not accept a late Boundary Adjustment proposal
from the City).
The Coastal Commission has stated that "...The current
Coastal Zone, which was predicated on more than four years of
study in preparation of the Coastal Plan, is, for the most
part, rational and adequate to protect coastal resources.
Consequently, this evaluation of the Boundary is intended to
focus on those areas where significant questions have been
raised concerning the need to apply Coastal Act planning
requirements in order to protect coastal resources." The
proposals will be evaluated by State Staff based on the
following criteria:
1. The presence or absence of coastal zone resources,
generally defined as natural or manmade areas or
features which are on or near the coast or are
enhanced by a coastal location and which are of
value to human society for economic, environmental,
recreational, cultural, or aesthetic reasons;
2. Whether public access to or along the coast is
limited in the vicinity of the area bounded by
the segment under consideration; whether the
reasonably forseeable impact of development in the
area will be impairment of public access; and
3. Whether the planning program and policies established
by the California Coastal Act of 1976 should be
applied in order to assure the wise, long-range
management of coastal zone resources and to protect
public access thereto in a manner that balances
the need for the conservation of such resources
with the need for appropriate development.
January 26, 1979
Page 2
The area under study is the land generally south of the Agua
Hedionda Lagoon and west of 1-5. This area contains the
majority of the City's undeveloped land. In order to assist
Council in determining the appropriate course of action, the
following Boundary alternative analysis is provided. All of
the alternatives follow property lines, City/County juris-
dictional borders and right-of-ways in order to avoid
bisecting parcels and to facilitate the implementation and
administration of the Coastal Act.
The Boundary alternatives vary considerably in the amount of
acreage proposed for exclusion from the Coastal Zone. Alternative
A would maintain the existing coastal boundary, while alternatives
B through E would remove progressively greater amounts of land
from the Coastal Commission's purview.
In order to provide this analysis with a point of reference,
staff assumed that the existing General Plan reflects Council's
current attitude toward development. The General Plan (which
was prepared in 1972) emphasizes development of most of the
City's vacant and agricultural land. Given the Coastal
Commission's interpretation that the maximum amount of
agricultural land should be preserved versus the City's General
Plan, the exclusion of land which is suitable for agricultural
use from the Coastal Zone would be desirable.
As Council reviews each alternative, the Coastal Commission's
Boundary proposal criteria should be kept in mind. Other issues
which should be closely examined include:
The preservation and/or development of agricultural
land in light of Coastal Act policies which
address the protection and reservation of both
prime and non-prime agricultural land. (Section
30241 and 30242 of the Coastal Act).
The preservation and/or development of other
currently undeveloped land (Section 30250 of
the Coastal Act).
Concentration of development (Section 30250 of
the Coastal Act).
Maintenance of visual quality (Section 30251
of the Coastal Act).
Runoff and drainage impacts (Section 30253 of
the Coastal Act).
Impacts on wildlife habitats (Section 30240 of
the Coastal Act).
January 26, 1979
Page 3
Since agricultural land preservation appears to be the major
issue in the City's Coastal Zone it should be given special
attention. In Carlsbad's sphere of influence along, approx-
imately 8% of the national tomatoe crop is produced. The
County's floral crop, of which a large portion is produced
in Carlsbad, is also of national significance. According to
the final environmental impact report for the County's Growth
Management Plan, the County contains some of the most productive
growing areas. The County farm Advisor's Office states that
the primary natural advantage in County vegetable growing is
not the deep alluviar soil, but the climate. Thus while
tomatoes and certain greenhouse crops could possibly be grown
in other areas, the coastal climate expands the growing season
and, in the case of greenhouses, reduces energy consumption
and costs. The bottom-line question is: does the City want
to preserve agricultural land, and if so, should the Coastal
Act be used as the method to preserve it?
Finally, it should be understood that exclusion of an area
from the Coastal Zone may serve to facilitate development of
the area. While this may be logical in terms of the City's
General Plan, such development could have serious environmental
impacts on land remaining in the Coastal Zone, (i.e., runoff
and sedimentation into the lagoons, conflicts between urban-
ization, agricultural uses and wildlife habitats). In some
cases, however, development of certain areas may constitute
appropriate infilling of urban uses.
Alternative A; Maintaining the existing Coastal Zone Boundary
along El Camino Real. (See Exhibit #1)
Discussion
Alternative A would maintain the existing Coastal Zone Boundary,
as developed under the Coastal Act of 1976. As a result, much
of the City's undeveloped land would remain under the purview
of the Coastal Commission. In terms of the City's General Plan,
development of this land may be considerably altered or
precluded altogether given the sections of the Coastal Act
which address agricultural land protection. While this would
be contrary to the City's General Plan, it would serve to
maintain much of the City's character and open space. At the
same time, preservation of existing and potential agricultural
lands would enhance atleast the short term productivity of
the tomatoe and floral industries, both of which are coastal
related.
January 26, 1979
Page 4
Also/ Alternative A would ensure that Coastal Act policies would
be uniformally applied to this undeveloped area, which may
serve to reduce land use conflicts. The major drainage courses
and significant land resources would likewise be subject to
Coastal Act policies which address resource protection.
By maintaining the existing Coastal Boundary, a delay in the
preparation of the Local Coastal Plan could delay development
in the Coastal Zone, including those areas which may ultimately
be allowed to develop through the completed Local Coastal Plan.
Also, specific areas which may not be coastal related (e.g.,
Palomar Airport and the Palomar Airport Business Park) remain
subject to Coastal Act policies. These policies are subject
to varying interpretations, which often makes the planning
process difficult and sometimes frustrating.
Alternative B; Boundary adjusted to generally exclude the
Japatul property, Palomar Airport, and the Palomar Airport
Business Park property. (See Exhibit #2)
Discussion
Since much of the Palomar Airport and adjacent Business Park
has been committed to development, exclusions of this area from
the Coastal Zone may be appropriate. The San Diego Regional
Commission's interpretive guidelines provide that "Development
between the two lagoons should generally be limited to infilling
in already developed hubs ... including ... Palomar Airport:
(The Palomar Airport Business Park ..." Thus, it appears that
this area has little relation to the coast and development
would have little impact on coastal resources.
This alternative would also exclude the undeveloped Japatul
property, which lies adjacent to the north of Palomar Airport.
Atleast a portion of this property has been in agricultural
production (primarily wheat and barley), although the San
Diego County Soil Survey indicates that much of the soild could
support tomatoe and flower production. In fact, much of this
soil is Class I and II (prime agricultural land) which the
Coastal Act specifies should be maintained in agricultural
production to the maximum extent possible.
Although the Palomar Airport Business Park is developed on
committed to development, exclusion of the Japatul property
from the Coastal Zone may facilitate implementing the
commercial/industrial plans for this site. This would be
possible if Coastal Act policies addressing the protection of
agricultural land preservation were no longer applicable. Also,
delay in the formulation of the Local Coastal Plan would no
longer affect this property.
January 26, 1979
Page 5
Exclusion of the area delineated in this alternative may also
serve to concentrate urbanization. Through such a concentration,
developmental pressures on more sensitive areas may be relieved.
However, since several major drainage courses traverse this area,
development could result in runoff and sedimentation impacts in
the Coastal Zone. Most importantly this could have an affect on
the Agua Hedionda Lagoon unless certain mitigating measures
were taken. For example, certain design and engineering studies
could be employed to minimize the potential impacts on this
lagoon.
Alternative C; Boundary adjusted to generally exclude the
County territory east of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, north of
Palomar Airport Road, including all of the area proposed in
Alternative B. (See Exhibit #3).
Discussion
Alternative C would exclude much more of undeveloped land east
of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, in the City's sphere of influence.
Since this Boundary Adjustment proposal includes all of the area
delineated in Alternative B, the concerns raised in the pre-
ceeding discussion are applicable. Exclusion of this area
would not only expediate the possibility of developing this
area, but it would return local planning control to the City.
Also, it could be argued that development of this land would
be a natural progression of growth, serving to like the
urbanized area to the north with the Palomar Airport Business
Park. It could be that such development would provide support
facilities for the airport.
However, since this alternative would exclude additional prime
agricultural land which has recently been in production
(specifically portions of the Kelly property and some land
north of Palomar Airport). Exclusion of this area from the
Coastal Zone may be difficult given Coastal Act policies which
address agricultural preservation and concentration of
development. However, the possible development of agricultural
lands in this area may have a tendency to relieve pressure to
develop agricultural lands in other areas designated for dev-
elopment by the General Plan.
An additional issue which should be discussed is the impact of
exclusion and subsequent development of area C on the natural
drainage pattern. Specifically, much of the drainage for this
area feeds into the Agua Hedionda drainage basin, and improper
development could result in severe impacts to the lagoon.
January 26, 1979
Page 6
Also, portions of this area are visible from the lagoon, as
a result intensive development could have an important impact
on the visual quality of the area.
Alternative D: Boundary adjusted to generally exclude all of
the area proposed in Alternative C, the County islands adjacent
to the west of El Camino Real and south of Palomar Airport Road,
and the Seaport subdivision. (See Exhibit #4).
Discussion
Alternative D would exclude additional land (both developed and
undeveloped) south of the area defined in Alternative C.
Therefore the issues of agricultural land conversion, runoff
and sedimentation, visual quality, and impacts on wildlife
remain applicable. As with previous alternatives, exclusion
of this area would return the planning functions soley to the
affected local jurisdiction. Also, if the area was excluded
possible development processing would not be delayed by Local
Coastal Plan preparation.
Because the area devoted to the Seaport subdivision has been
obviously committed to development, exclusion under this
alternative would seem appropriate. Although the areas within
Alternative D which are undeveloped do not qualify as prime
agricultural land, the County Soil Survey indicates that
portions could support tomatoe and flower production. It may
therefore be an argument of the Coastal Commission that Coastal
Act policies should continue to be applied to this area.
Finally, several major drainage courses traverse the southern
area delineated by this alternative. These tributaries empty
into the Batiquitos Lagoon's drainage basin. An analysis of
the potential adverse impacts which could result from develop-
ment of this land should be included in a further review of
this Boundary alternative.
Alternative E; Boundary adjusted to generally exclude all of
the areas proposed in boundaries B-D, the Spinnaker Hill
subdivision, and the major portion of the City/County territory
between El Camino Real and Interstate 5, north of the Batiquitos
Lagoon. (See Exhibit #5).
Discussion
Alternative E is the most exclusive alternative and would remove
the greatest amount of undeveloped land from the Coastal Zone.
All of the issues in the preceeding issues would be applicable
in this case.
January 26, 1979
Page 7
Because the Spinnaker Hill subdivision is totally developed,
its exclusion from the Coastal Zone appears appropriate.
However, exclusion of the large amount of vacant land proposed
in this alternative should be subject to close examination
given its relationship to other coastal areas.
Specifically, conflicts between development and agricultural
land preservation in alternative D would be an even greater
concern given the additional prime agricultural land which
would be excluded. Also, additional drainage courses which
flow into the Batiquitos Lagoon would reduce the probability
of separating this area from coastal related lands. More
than any other area, development of the land closest to the
Batiquitos Lagoon does have both a visual impact and an impact
on the wildwife habitats in and around the lagoon. A portion
of this area is proposed by the State Department of Fish and
Game as a "Resource Protection Zone" in order to guide Local
Coastal Plan preparation and resource protection.
For these reasons, alternative E appears to be the least likely
of the Boundary Adjustment Alternatives which would be accepted
by the Coastal Commission and California Legislature.
BM/ar
1/26/79
EXHIBIT^]
CARLSBAD UNIFIED
CARLSBAD UNIFIED
ALTERNATIVE B
CARLSBAD UNIFIED
WE D r
i ~"' '• 1! -' •" ':ii.-^-*<i--*<r^~r;?'-'^r'-26 •'••-';-
ALTERNATIVE
CARLSBAD UNIFIED
H~"E D l\O\N D
ALTERNATIVE D
1A' , n
OlRtSBAO
. ' ^ ^. * \ i
HE D
t- ' \
: RAJIO'I" .:S L A? r( N
ALTERNATIVE E