Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-06-05; City Council; 3528-11; Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Programa' f, ** *q' jp q I13 4 CITY OF CARLSBAD Initial Cty. Atty cty. Mgr. AGENDA BILL NO: *I / Dept. Hd. lf,f DATE : DEPARTMENT: ,d June 5, 1979 Planning .. - SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO CITY COUNCIL POSI~ION' ON THE AGUA HEDIONDA LO( COASTAL PROGRAM BY COASTAL COMMISSION EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Statement of the Matter On February 27 and March 3 the City Council held special hearings 01: AHLCP as approved by the State Coastal Commission. At these hearinc the Council established specific positions on conditions of approval These positions and a proposal for establishment of a negotiation committee were forwarded to the Chairman of the Skate Commission on . 8, 1979. A response to the Council's position was seDt to Mayor Packard on M: .' 4, 1979. Staff has reviewed the response and submitted this review the City Manager, dated May 17, 1979. * EXHIBITS Letter to Chairman Wright, dated March 8, 1979 Memo from Planning Director to City Manager;dated May 17, 1979 RECOMMENDATION : Sfaff recommends that the Council postpone official response pending review of the Couricil's original submittal.by the State Commission. Acknowledgement of the expressed willingness to compromise by Mr. Fischer would be appropriate. Councii Action: Council selected two of its members, Mayor Packard and Councilwoman represent Council in meeting with Coastal Gommission representative, Wright to discuss differences concerning the Agua Hedionda Local Coa gram, and authorized the Mayor to respond to the letter of May 4, 19 . Mr. Elichael L. Fischer, Executiie' Director of 'the California Coastal - Letter .from Mr, Fischer, dated May 4, 1979 .. 6-5-79 Q .. 4 q, * MEMORANDUM DATE : May 17, 1979 TO: Paul Bussey, City Manager FROM: SUBJECT : RESPONSE TO CITY COUNCIL POSITION ON AHLCP BY James C. Hagaman, Planning Director ick MR. MICHAEL FISCHER The Planning Department has reviewed the letter of May 4, 19' from Mr. Fischer regarding the Mayor's letter to the Chairmai of the Coastal Commission. Staff is concerned that the respc received does not include a Commission response to the City Council's somewhat detailed proposal and position. Staff is additionally concerned that in PI. Fischer's letter he does I indicate an intention to present the Council's position (as I in the Mayor's March 8 letter) to his Commission. In Mr. Fi: letter he proposes a new approach to the plan certification 1 cedure with revised conditions of approval, and indicates thz he will submit his response to the City's suggestions to the mission. This is not what staff recalls as the wish of the ( Council. In the letter Mr. Fischer proposes segmenting what he calls I "north shore" of the Agua Hedionda Plan Area. This "north SI area would be the subject of further negotiations, and the remainder of the plan area left to consideration later. The north shore area he refers to consists of only those propert: west of Bristol Cove plus the Neblina Avenue - Panonnia propt (about 1/4 the plan area). Mr. Fischer indicates that he does not feel a negotiation COI will be able to resolve the conflicts in Council-Commission I for the area outside the defined "north shore". He goes on I say that fairness to north shore property owners calls for qi resolution of conflicts there, not to be bogged down on more troversal problems. Staff recognizes that from a pure planning standpoint that tl broadest most comprehensive approach would be best in consid< ing the community park, Cannon Road alignment, etc. However a procedural basis the commitment to pursue the Agua Hediond; plan area was made quite some time ago. A study area and pli ning area were researched and agreed to by both the City and Coastal Commission. Both the Regional and State Commissions - 4 0 0 Memorandum - Paul Bussey May 17, 1979 Page Two approved the area as a segmented Local Program. Hypotheticall the argument could be made that the coastal zone boundary itsc restricts the most comprehensive view and therefore should be expanded. The question that arises is, should the plan be key intact or fragmented-portions to be considered at another timc Staff considers this question a policy matter. Mr. Fischer offers a total of $40,000 in additional funding tc aid in the accomplishment of his proposals. $20,000 would be allocated to the overall LCP work program, previously approvec for $51,000. City staff estimated approximately $120,000 to r the requirements of the Coastal Act. With the added tasks of east and south shore properties to the overall LCP, the City': estimate would have to be increased. An additional $20,000 is offered to augment the initial $16,0( allocated for the preparation of the Agua Hedionda Plan. Staj estimates approximately $50,000 expended on the Agua Hedionda segment thus far (1976 - $25,000; $10,000 - 1977; $12,000 - $3,000 - 1979). The proposed north shore revisions, in effect, reflect those concessions made by Mr. Fischer at the Council meetings of Fel ary 27, and March 3. Staff feels that the City Council propo! as submitted to the Commission should be responded to by the Commission prior to City staff analysis. At the public hearing on May 16, 1978, the action of the Coas' Commission to approve the Agua Hedionda LCP segment was made with recognition that staff negotiations had become unproduct. The Commission expressed a desire to "kick the negotiations u] to the decision making level". It was in this light that the Council responded to the Coastal Commission's action. It doer not appear that this level of discussion has been achieved. TCH: jd 5/21/79 a 0 0 -- 51 '> .~ ,.- 'Lr ,.. '.. 1230 ELM AVENUE TE CAHLSBAD; CALI FO~IA 92008 (71 aitp of ~~~~~~~~ March 8, 1979 Doralf B. Wright, Chairman California Coastal Comiissi,on 631 Hcward Street San Francisco, California 94105 Dear Chairman Wright:: The City Council, at two meetings on Febrzlary 27, and March 19'79, carefully considered your Comqissions transnittal on P Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Program. The participation of Z Gomission and State staff representatives was of significar he12 and is cormendable, Council evaluated the Comnission's action with conditions, the orighal city plan submittal-an< city staff ' s proposed rewording $0 your conditions o€ apfixc3.i Public testimony was also included in the hearing process at the February 27, 1979, hearing, As a result of these hearings, the Council has attempted to provide an indication of policy on the various areas of dis- crepancy between th2 plan and conditions of approval- Counc . agreed on general policy in regard to the plan and also estz a lished a specific position on various conditions- Your Executive Director indicated on February 27 and March : a willingness on his and the Commission's part to work toget with the City in resolving issues concerning the plan., Thi: position vas also expressed in the official Letker of transr to the City approving the plan with conditions- The transm letter indicated the Council should not consider the C0mnij.s: May 16, 1978 action the "final word", and indicated the conc "may be subject to further modification." The City Council recognizes and appreciates this expression cooperation, and in this regard susgests the formulation of negotiation committee - The committee make-up is recommendec as the following: Mr. Fischer, Mr- Crandall, 2 City Staff, 2 city Council members and 2 State Coastal Commissioner's. .. 0 0 .. -1 Lb \ * 3. '-3 Dora11 B- Wright, Chairman March 8, 1979 Page 2 It is the Cmzncil's intention to pursue this processl if yo1 Commission agrees, in the most expeditious manner, We stanc ready at any time to further discuss the details OE the pro( with you or your staff, Sincejcely, T,7 w L@& &&:&;;l[L;-yJ r Bonald C. Packard, Mayor CITY OF' CARLSBIW Attachments Summary of Mike Fischer's coments on February 27, 1979, Council Hearing- City Council Policy decisions regarding AHLCP - - "_ -- THrar .I .* 0 0 *.. I, . -\ 3. -x -1 CITY COUNCIL. -- POLICY DECISIONS REGARDING AHLCP ' - MARCH 3, 1979 GENERAL PO&,I,CY 1.. EXISTING REC~EATION/COMME~CXAt AREA5 ON THE NORTH SHORE 1 ADEQ'JATE.' (SNUG HARBOR TO HOOVER STREET EXTENSION AND "1 LANDING) COUNCIL FEELS THAT RESIDENTIAL USE IS MORE APPRI 3N THE AREA. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IS SUBJECT TO NEGOTlAT 2. THE CITY SZiOLfLfi NOT ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY OR EXPENSE FOR ADDiTIONAL TASKS OLITLINED BY CERTAiK C13?431 SS!ON CONDITIC FOR EXAMPLE, THE DEPAETMENT OF FISH AND GAME SHOULD RE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAPPING OF WETLANDS FOR ACQUISITION, AND MONITORING €EL GRASS. 3. PANNONIA, AND PAPAGAYO PARK SITES ARE NOT OF STATE-WIDE SIGNIFICANCE. DETAIL OF THIS TYPE SHOULD NOT 3E SUBJECT CONDITION BY THE CONMISSION. THE CITY SHOL'i5 NOT BE REQ TO PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL PARK AREA THAN WHAT THEY ARE A TO PROVIDE THROUGH SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS. THE SIZE, SHAPE AND ADEQUACY OF PARK SITES SHOULD BE UP TO THE LOC GOVERNMENT. 4, THE CITY COUNCIL SEES NO RELATIONSHIP BETNEEN AGRICULTWR CONVERSION bIITH7N THE AGUA HEDIONDA PLAN AND THE REST OF CITY. "STRINGS" SHOULD NOT BE ATTACHED TO THE PANN0gI.A DEVELOPMENT AND A CITY-WIDE AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION PROG SPECIFIC POSITION ON CONDITIONS (SEE ATTACHED SUMMARY OF MIKE FISCHER'S COMMENTS TO THE COUNCIL) 1. ECKE PARCEL, OUTER LAGOON: CITY PLAN REFLECTS CO'JNCIL'S POSITION- COUNCIL RECOGNIZES THAT AQUACULTURE COULD BE ACCEPTABLE, HOWEVER EXCLUSION OF OTHER USES IS NOT APPROPRIATE. RESIDENTIAL USE SHOULD BE PRIMARY <DENSITY FLEXIBLE). 2. CONTINUOUS ACCESS UNDER RAILROAD AND 1-5: THE ORIGINAL REFLECTS CITY POSITION. CITY NOT OPPOSED TO CONTINUOUS ACCESS IF FEASIBLE. . 3, k. PAPAGAYO PARK AND SNUG KARBOR-HOOVER STREET: <SEE CENEl COMMENTS 83 & 1). 5. HEDIONDA FXNT: SPECIFIC CRITERIA SHOULD BE PRESENTED t BOTH CITY AND CC!YMISSION TO SUP?URT 20% OR 252 MAXIMUM BUILDABLE SLOPE. CTTY WILL CONSIDER REGIONAL- 208 GRADIE 5TANDARDS. 6, . 7, 8, PANNONIA, FERRARO, LGR; SEE GENERAL C0MNltEI;TS. e 0 - a,-,- b t -- -> ,. . * L *. 3. KELLY DRIVE: COUNCIL SUPPORTS CITY STAFF’S PROPOSED RE’ SUBMITTED TO COMMISSION ON 5/16/78 <I.Ep INCLUSION OF: K1 ’ WITH SPEC1 FIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS). 10. NEBLINA AVENUE: COUNCIL SUPPORTS CITY STAFF’S PROPOSED REWORDlNG SUBMITTED TO COMMISSION ON 5/16/78. (I.E., I OF NEBLINA WITH SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS), II. CANNON ROAD: CITY PLAN REFLECTS COUNCIL’S POSITION, c STRUCTXON TIME-FRAME FLEX1 BLE. 42. COM’rlUNfTY (HUB) PARK: CITY PLAN CONCEPT REFLECTS COUNC POSITION, COUNCIL FZELS THAT “ACTF\/E” USES f*jUST BE PRC IN THIS AREA, AND VEHICLE ACCESS MUST BE PROVIDED. 13. SOUTH SHORE (INCLUDING SDGGE PsCOMM€RCIAL PROPERTY”): C PLAFL‘ REFtECTS C0UNCIL”S POSITION. e e .I. -- .. ‘\ 0 0, IL Y** . .< .- 1, c - .. sW$3.W4xy OF HIKE FISCHERS I @BN.PENTS OF3 2127J.79 COUNCIL HEARING 1- Ecke parcel outer lagoor?,: Com~issiun firm OA aquacultu- 2. Continuous access under railroad and 1-5: Cornmission S GoKmiSs. use * recognizes possibility of not securing access, staff has flexible position, 3& Papagayo additi~r?al. 2-4 acre. park dedication: CcmfsSi fim on additional 1-4 acres - staff €J-exible on locatj- 4. Snug Harbor - Hoover street extension: Commission sees visitar serving uses as logical. in this Location - resi use would be an in"Lrusion, Staff may be flexible on the 20% max5.m .5. Bedionda 2ointt buildable slope provision, - G, Pannonia: 5 acre-park requirement may not be necessary 4-5 acres important, but may not need to be- "active" ax possibly more passive in an overview capacity- 25% may 'be considered- 0. 7. Ferrem property westward: Not nuch difference between Certification fox these Commission position and City. could be worked out fairly easily..' .. .* . 8, XI ar,d R property east: Commission *firm on its positrlor C. . regarding these areas, There is a possibility of -tram deyelopment rights on L & R and Kelly properties. Cohssion firm on. its position to deletc Other access provisions could be made without extendin: 3-0, Neblitm Avenue: Commission staff is willing to discus: development criteria. 11, CanAon Road: Cormission firm in existing position, C! staff concerned about intrusion into habitat area and ' up" ztgriculkuxal lands. There may be a possibility oE a "nirxow" access road to the "hub park", 3-2. Community (hub) Park: Commission is firm in its inten insure low intensity uses (passive reereation) * S0txt-h Shore lands (including ST)G&E a!co-&erciai propert: Commission is firm in its intent to protect agj-iculturt .Agricultural conversion will not be considered, . - 9. . Kelly Drive: 9 .. b 3-3- TH: jd . 3/2/79 . State of California, Edrnunerown Jr., Governor 0 California Coastal Commission 63 1 Howard Street, 4th floor San Francisco, California 94105 (41 5) 543-8555 May 4, 1979 The Honorable Ronald C. Packard, Mayor City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA. 92008 Dear Mayor Packard; On behalf of the Commission and Commission staff, I would like to express our appreciation to the City of Carlsbad for its careful consideration of the Camp action on the Agua Hedionda Specific Plan and for the courtesy extended to Cor representatives during your recent hearings on the matter. !de have always cor that the Commission action of May 16, 1978 was not the "final word" on the pl; but that it would be subject to modification depending upon your Council's re to the seriously held concerns of the Commission which were expressed in its of approval. We now welcome your Council's response to those concerns and wo very much like to work with the City further to resolve the remaining differe between us in those areas where mutual comprom-ise is feasible. In this regard, I would like to propose a two-part approach to the certificat the Agua Hedionda LCP. First, that we proceed quickly to certifying the land plan for the north shore of the lagoon; second, that we augment the work prog the City's overall LCP to cover the larger issues raisdd by proposals for the developed lands on the eastern and southern shores. I'm convinced that those would be much better addressed - by both of us - in that larger context. As I noted to you during your recent hearings, there is less room for compron this time in the Commission's position regarding the protection of the habita at the eastern end of the lagoon and the preservation of the agricultural la south of the lagoon than there is on its recommendations on the north shore. in fairness to the north shore property owners, it would seem desirable to wc an agreement on land use designations and densities for the north shore area, than to hold them up while the other more controversial issues of the easterr southern shores of the lagoon, which involve far fewer property owners, are c To facilitate mutual agreement on the issues which separate the City and Comr involving north shore properties, I am submitting the attached staff suggest' revisions to the Commission-adopted conditions for your consideration. Thest reflect my comments to you during your recent hearings, and respond to many I concerns raised by members of your Council during your deliberations. These revisions do not include a modification of the conditions specifically to development on the L & R property because any change should be tied to re of pending litigation between the affected property owners, the State Lands 1 and the Coastal Commission. Similarly, we suggest that changes in condition ing the Ferraro property be deferred until the State Lands Commission has res pub1 ic trust question with the affected property owners. [ Ke 0 e The Honorable Ronald C. Packard, Mayor May 4, 1979 Page 2 While I believe there is a basis for mutual compromise on the issues involvin the north shore of the lagoon, after participating in your recent hearings it my opinion that we will not be able to resolve the issues that have been rais along the eastern and southern shores of the lagoon in the framework of a neg committee. Some of these issues, such as the alignment of Cannon Road, the 1 of the Community Park, and the transfer of development rights from the Kelly j to adjacent lands outside the Specific Plan area are best resolvable in the ( of the local coastal program for the lands south of the lagoon where potentia' satisfactory to both the City and the Commission can be evaluated. I propose that the LCP work program for the balance of the Carlsbad area be expanded to include tasks to develop solutions to the east and south shore is! (This work program could be undertaken either by the City or by a consultant, discussed in our letter to Mr. Hagaman of April 5, 1979). In light of a recei reappraisal of our funding situation, approximately $20,000 is available to ai the work program for the balance of the Carlsbad area, including the lands sc of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. In addition, another $20,000 is available to fund ai to the Agua Hedionda Specific Plan that may be required after our present disc are concluded. As part of the land use plan for the lands south of the lagoor City or a consultant could study alternative alignments of Cannon Road which c assure protection to the lagoon while at the same time provide for regional tu portation needs. The study could also evaluate measures to assure that constr of the road would not impair agricultural viability of the adjacent lands eitk creating physical conflicts or by increasing development pressure. blitigatior to be reviewed could include acquisition of open space easements on adjacent ' or other provisions which would assure the permanent protection of the agricul lands adjacent to the roadway. We look forward to working with you to resolve the conflicts over appropriate use designations and densities of development along the north shore of the la! My staff will be in contact with City staff to determine a convenient time to convene a meeting to consider the attached revisions to the conditions of apor of the Agua Hedionda Plan. At the Commission's next meeting, I will seek dire from them on our response to your suggestion that ?,negotiating committee be convened. i I, Slincerely , I /- cc: State Commissioners San Diego Regional Commission a &IFIC PLAN 01 71 I J PRO D REVISIONS TO AGUA HEDIONDA' 4. precise delineation of wetland habitat areas and shall contain a mapping 0' degraded and former wetland areas that the Department of Fish and Game considers to be capable of restoration. available by the Department of Fish and Game, additional funding for the preparation of such an inventory will be made available to the City by the Commission when it considers a grant to the City for the implementation phase of its Local Coastal Program. The impfernentatSon phase of the LCP shall also contain specific provisions for assuring habitat protection, in( measures such as buffer areas, protective fencing, re-vegetation, fill removal, etc; - and shall provide for including wetland restoration requiremc feasible, as a condition for development approvals for properties containii ing habitat areas or former wetlands. 5. The plan shall include a program to monitor the eel grass beds within inner lagoon to ensure their protection. (Exhibit 3) Such monitoring cou be carried out by the Department of Fish and Game or by the City if fundin1 is made available for such a purpose. The Department of Fish and Game sha review the findings from this program and determine whether special protec measures need to be taken to protect the eel grass habitat area. Game in cooperation with the City and Coastal Commission determine that ce types of recreational use such as boating should be limited, the plan shou require implementation of corrective measures. 8:--Tke-~~egese~-e~~efs~e~-e~-~e~~~~a-Avef~e-~ewf-~e-~a~~-~~~~e-~b~~~-~e-d if-e~~e~-~e-gPe~e€~-~be-~~fe~-~~gee~-~~~-we:~~~~~-~~e~~-~~em-~e~~~~e~-~~~e~ ePes~e~r-a~~-se~~mef~a~~e~~ A footnote shall be attached to Exhibit C of the Specific Plan (Exhibit 14 which presents the proposed street network plan: The land use plan or implementation phase of the LCP shall include a If such an inventory is not made If Fish "The alignment of Neblina Avenue down to Park Drive is presented for illustrative purposes only. Additional environmental review will be necessary to determine the feasibility of extending Yeblina Avenue without causing adverse impacts upon the lagoon from erosion and sedimentation, polluted runoff, and the destruction of a natural drainage course. At the minimum, the following criteria shall be met in reviewing the feasibility of a Neblina Avenue extension: a. A comprehensive erosion control plan shall be developed to prevent all sedimentation into the lagoon which will result during construction of the road and after it is completed. b. Runoff into the lagoon shall not increase beyond natural rates in the existing swale. c. All urban pollutants in the runoff from Neblina Avenue shall be eliminated prior to the runoff discharging into the lagoon. 11. The RM designation in the area between the western boundary of Hediond area to Whitey's Landing (as depicted in Figure V-7 in the EIR) shall be d and the area shall be designated for low intensity uses in order to minimi the necessity for alterations in landform which would substantially affect of the north shore from the Interstate freeway of this very prominent area €ornmerciat-~ee~ea~ie~-~~€~-as-a-~ma~~-Pe~~a~~a~~~-g~~~-~he~,-~~~~-~~~-~~~k -2- 0 0 5/4/79 skep-er-s~w~~ar-blse-~~-~~ear4y-t~e-~re~erred-~~e-~~-v~ew-ef-Se~t~e~s-~O224 a~$-~8222-ef-tke-Seas8a~-A€8~--#ewever~-be€~~se-~edie~$a-~ei~t-ba5-g~evieu~ beeR-sMb$ivi$e$-iRte-g-~et~~-tbe-g~a~-~~eu$~-ba~e-~eme-ffe~~bi$i~~-~e-a~~~~ eq~i8y-te-eask-ef-tke-fet-ew~ers~ Some of this area is of such severe slol that, in order to preserve natural landforms, protect the lagoon from eros’ and sedimentation, and minimize the need for driveways to Adams Avenue, del meRt-ef-eask-4et-is-Ret-Bess~b~e, development must be limited to very low Res~deRtia~-use-ef-a-ger8ieR-e~-tbe-s~te-~a~-~e-asseBta~~e-if-tbe-g~eBeFt~. a re- bl 17 ab4 e- t e- $eve4 ep- aR - ag ~eeme~ 8- fe P- t b e- 9 ei R t - $eve 4 e pRe R t - e f- a - Gemme FG i t fasi4ity,--S~-er~er-te-a~~~re-f4e~~~i4i8~-~e-t4e-~~8y-a~d-~a~dew~etr5~-~4e-~ resreatieRa~-$esigRa8~eR-~be~~$-~e-me~ified-~~-tbe-~e44ewiR~-g~evi~e~ “esl$e~tia$-use-ef-tke-~edie~da-~e~~t-ma~-~e-a€€eBta~4e-g~e~~$~~g tkat-tke-fQ~4QWiRg-fiRdi~gs-€a~-~e-ma$@~ a- -- -PreseRt-aRd-fereseeab$ e- futu re -4emaRd- felc-pubqi s-etr- semmersi a4 resreatie~a~-as~~vities-tbat-€eu$d-~e-~s€e~m~~~~e~-~~-~~e-~~e~e~ is-a~ready-ade~~a8e~y-g~ev~~ed-~e~-~~-~be-a~ea~ ~,---ResideRtiaf-~eve~egmeRt-e~-tbe-Peiftt-wi$~-~e-€~us~elced-eR-a~ea5 wbere-t4e-s4ege-lf-~e~5-~b~~-~Q%~-5ba~~-~e~-e~5~~u€~-~~ew5-~~em A$ams-Sareet,-aR$-wi~~-b~~e-eR~~-eRe-asse~~-frem-A$am~-~treet~~ ame~g-fe~-ew~elcs-e~-~be-~~~e€a~~e~-e~-~be-€e~$em~~~um-~~gb~~~ PePmaRe~t-egeRsgase-ea~eme~t~-~b~~~-~e-a-€eRd~~~e~-~PesedeRt-te a ~y -deve $9 gmeR t , axqiAied-with sl---Prier-te-aggrev~~-ef-aRy-~u~~~~~g-BePmi~~-a-~ega~-ag~eeme~8-e~i~ d,---rke-assess-prev~~~0~s-~~-tbe-Ag~a-~e~~e~~a-~~es~~~€-P~a~-b~~e-~e1 In order to assure that development of the site is compatible with its prominent location, the density of residential development within the Hedil Point area shall be limited to % dwelling units/acre. Where lots do not m this standard, 1 unit per lot will be permitted, provided that driveways on contiguous lots be combined to minimize grading and to limit the number of driveways onto Adams Drive. As an incentive for development to be sited on the portions of Hedionda Po where slope is less than 20% a density transfer system should be developed order to encourage clustering of the development to protect the visual res of the area and to protect the lagoon from erosion and sedimentation. A d of 2 units/acre will be permitted where density is transferred calculated the basis of the total area of parcels involved in the transfer. Permanen space easements shall be recorded precedent to any development. In order to minimize the alteration of the natural landform of Hedionda Po Cutting or filling to create building pads shall not be permitted. Low-intensity commercial-recreational uses of the Hedionda Point area with land use plan and zoning of the site. ; - 4 5/4/79 0 0 < 18. The portion of the Regional Commission's Condition No. 13 which propoi an increase in density on the southern portion of the Pannonia property sh, be deleted on the basis that such an increase in density if not required tc make the necessary findings of Section 30241; and 30242. Weweve~~-as-~eq~i~e$-b~--&ke-~eg4e~a4-€emm4s~ie~~-a-~-a~~e-~a~~-~e$i~a~ie~- Peqtl4t.ed In order to achieve consistency with Section 30221 of the Coasta which calls for the preservation of suitable oceanfront property for recrel and 30256(6) which requires new residential development to be balanced wit1 recreation, 1 bluff face and include provision for a landscaped parkway around the periml of the property in addition to the proposed viewsite. viewsite shall be designed to facilitate public use of the mesa edge for bicycling, strolling, and other passive recreational uses. 23. Access along the north shore of the lagoon shall continuous. All accessways shall be connected and designed in a manner th allow for reasonable use by any member of the general public; however, acc the bridges for the railroad tracks and Interstate 5 may be designed for pedestrian use only. If the City of Carlsbad after reasonable effort is u to achieve continuous access under the two bridges, such access shall only required if assistance in accomplishing continuous access is available fro] Coastal Commission, Coastal Conservancy, or other public agency. The port the accessway east of Bristol Cove shall be subject to the review and apprl of the Department of Fish and Game to assure adequate protection of sensit ha b i tat a rea s . Aeees s - $9- eke - P a17 R e R 4 a -Y 4 ew - s i -&e - s ha 4 7 -be- p +=e vi ded - by- a - k 4 e~ai~-i~-e~~e~-~e-fa€i~~~a~e-tl~e-ef-ebe-pa~~-~5-~~-~~~a~~-~~~~e~-&-a~e~~ 24. The proposed %-acre overlook site on the Papagayo property shall be e to include an additional 1.4 acre area as-4R$i€a-&ed-ift-E~kibie-~ in order achieve consistency with Sections 30221 and 30252(6) of the Coastal Act. additional acreage shall be located on the bluff top contiguous to the exi- public easement and shall be designed to facilitate public use of the area overlook site. Improvements necessary to construct the view site shall be limited to the bluff top area in order to preserve the natural character o bluff face consistent with Section 30251 of the Coastal Act. Such a parkway and Continuous Access. -, e SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY P 0 BOX 1831 SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA 92112 (714) 232-4252 FILE NO ( March 15, 1979 Mr. Paul Bussey City Manager City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Paul: We wish to reaffirm our support of the action the City Council took on Saturday, March 3, 1979 regarding the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan as conditioned by the State Coasta Commission. It is clearly evident that the City of Carlsbad and this specific land use plan are being closely watched by most coastal jurisdictions and other interested parties who are presently or will soon be active in the Local Coastal Program (LCP) process. It further appears clear that the State Commis views the certification of this land use plan as precedent setting, thus causing them to be more restrictive than they may otherwise be. -7 The recommendation of your staff and the subsequent action of the council leads us to beltieve that you are fully aware of the not so envious position of being the first throug the LCP process. However, the Council's rejection of certain conditions placed on your land use plan by the Coastal Commiss illustrates that the City believes in their own sound land use planning and that any attempt by the commission to evade the mandate that "it is necessary to rely heavily on local governm and local land use planning procedures and enforcement'' (PRC 30004(a)), will not be tolerated by the City of Carlsbad. Council's rejection of conditions 13 and 14 coincide not only with previous commitments made by the City, but also with good comprehensive land use planning for the area. AN iNVESTOR OWNED CORPORATiON - 2- ()March 15, 1979 B Paul Bussey . We appreciate the opportunities we have had in workii with your staff on this matter and hope for continued communici throughout the remaining LCP process. SinBerely, 4 i’ 3,’ /’ : c;,,y, lib Lc,\[e/Tg4- F. M. Dudley Supervisor Land Planning/Managemt FMD : dr