HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-01-20; City Council; 6484; CITY'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND BATIQUITOS LAGOONd
(
B 0
(
r.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
IN P 'F I AL
AGENDA BILL NO: ($qpq DEPT. HD. A4#
D?.TE : JANUARY 20, 1981 CTY. ATTY. _sc i r(l
DEPARTMENT : PLANNING CTY, MGR '6-
- SUBJECT :
THE CITY'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND BATIQUITOS LAGOON
STATE-WNT OF THE MATTER:
Carlsbad's Sphere of Influence relative to Batiquitos Lagoon will be reviewed
LAFCO when the agency decides the issue of San Dieguito's Sphere of Influence.
review will take place subsequent to the county's completion of the San Diegui
incorporation feasibility study scheduled for January 1981. The feasibility s
may require a 2! month review so that LAFCO may schedule consideration of the
Spheres for sometime in March 1981.
The County planning staff has indicated that they will not recommend San Diegu
Sphere boundaries in the feasibility study but will recommend that LAFCO
restudy the existing Spheres of Influence (especially Carlsbad's Sphere relati.
to Batiquitos Lagoon) when LAFCO decides the San Dieguito incorporation. It
should be noted that San Dieguito is recommending that their northern boundary
(and thus Carlsbad's southern boundary) be adjusted to the middle of Batiquito
Lagoon (see attached letter from the Leucadia Town Council),
The attached staff report analyzes the pros and cons of various alteration sce
to the existing Carlsbad sphere. The report was considered by Planning Commis
at their November 26, 1980 meeting. The Commission voted 6-0 to adopt the sta
recommendation (i.e, no adjustment of the Carlsbad Sphere).
Fiscal Impact
Staff has no anticipation of precise fiscal impacts at this time.
EXHIBITS
1. Staff Report dated November 26, 1980
2. October 15,. 1980 communication from Anne Olmstead, Leucadia Town Council
3.
RECOiYWENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached resolution calling for
no adjustment of Carlsbad's Sphere of Influence relative to Batiquitos Lagoon.
-9
Resolution No. 6 qo 9
Council Action:
1-20-81 Council adopted Resolution No. 6409, supporting the retention of the exi
Sphere o:E Influence boundaries in the Batiquitos Lagoon area.
e 0
%
STAFF REPORT (5
DATE : November 26, 1980
TO : Planning Commission
FROM : Planning Department
SUBJECT: THE CITY'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND BATTQUITOS L&G( -
I RACKGROUND
On June 5, 1978, the San Diego LAFCO adopted. a resoluton
establishing Carlsbad's sphere of influence which inciuc7,ed
the entire Batiqui-tos Lagoon and the unincorporated territoi
northsrly of the lagoon arid southerly of the current city
limits. The precise southerly boundaries were established
as follows: East of C1 Camino Real the sphere is cotermj-riot
with existing city boundaries; between El Camino Real- and
Interstate 5 (1-5) the sphere follows the southerly side of
La Costa Avenue; and westerly of Interstate 5 the sphere
follows the southerly shore of Batiquitos Lagoon.
On October i5, 1980, Anne Olnsted, President. of the Leucadi:
Town Council. requested a meeting with LAPCO to discuss theii
reeomiendation that the northern boundary of the prcpo' -d
incorporated city of San Eieguito be established at the
middle of Batiquitos Lagoon (see attachmen'r. 1) D Their
rationale was to provide San Disguito with strong input intc
future planning for the lagoon.
11. ANALYSIS
----
-
Planning Issues
LAFCO consider& the following critical issues in
establishing Carlsbad's sphere relative to Bntiyuitos
Lagoon :
1) The existing land use was devoted to agricultural
uses and open space. Two major subdivisions are located on the lagoon fringe within Carlsbad.
2) Carlsbad's General Plan designates the north shorc
of the lagoon for residential uses ranging in
densities from 10-20 units/acre west of 1-5 to
0-20 units/acre east of 7-5. The lagoon and its
shore line are designated for open space. The
General Plan also designates two commercial uses
adjacent to the lagoon. A small area (approximat1 9 acres) near the north shore is designated for
--- --
0 0
recreational comtercial and.. a G .5 acre plot at thc
extreme southeast section of the lagoon is designz
for travel services. The Gefleral Plan also place:
a "Special Treatment" overlay on the entire 1.agoor area. This designation indicates that further
study will be required before specific land uses
are established i.n the lagoon area. Furthermore,
the designation discourages uses inconsistent, wit1
the purpose and intent of the Open Space and Fark:
an.6 Recreation (currently in revision) Elements.
3) Services are not provided in the lagoon area
because of agricuit.ura1 and open space uses and
the generzl lack of roads, However, the praxinit:
of "in-place" services provided by Carlsbad ard
the Carlsbad Municipal Water District make Czrlsb;
the logical jurisdiction to provide urban-level services as the lagoon area develops,
4) The lagoon area is within a singl.e zone that has a con~unity iden.tFty which is alj-gnel! with the cli
of Carlsbad (as identified by LAFCO) .)
In additj.on. to the above critical issues I LAFCO concluded
that relative to future park lands acquisition and wa.ter quality and wetlands (lagoor;) management, it wou.E:3 be desk;
rmnagemen-i; agency e
A?iotf.er issue "chat was not addressed by LAFCO, but that is
an importamt planning issue is Carlsbad' s sphere relative tc
La Costa Avenue. La Costa Avenue is designated a major
arterial i.n th.e city's Circulation Element. The road serve:
as the major access liizk between La Costa and 1-5, The
future development of La Costa will probably necessitate thc
upgrading and widening of La Costa Avenue e Future inprovemi of La Costa Avenue and their timing both to the city's
satisfaction may not be feasible if the road was out of
Carlsbad's sphere of influence.
I11 .' DISCUSSION
The city has several options available (outlined below)
relative to LAFCO'S forthcoming review of the city's sphere
and LAF'CO'S boundary decision for San Dieguito.
1) Th.e ci.ty could concur with San Dieguito's recommendatii
L L.o have the lagoon under a single land use jurisdicticn or
I
th,at the sphere boundary be adjusted to the middle of
the lagoon.
Effect: -- the future planning for the lagoon. At present,
responsibility for lagoon management has not been
established. In addition to Carlsbad (by vitue of the
current sphere) other agencies may have ownership and/
This option would create joint control over
e -2-
e 0
0
am3 jurisdiction over major portions of the lagoon and
adjacent wetl-ands .
-I Diisadvant.ages :
programs would! become difficult to implenent because of
the shared jurisdiction. Land acquisition by the Count
Department of Parks and Recreation for a future park ma:y be impeded if the area were under a multiple jurisc
Thle city would have no control over future improvement:
of La Costa Avenue. Currently La Costa Avenue is in
the county, but within the city's sphere, Until this
situation is modified either by armekation or an adjusl
of the sphere, improvement and maintenance of the road re:mains the responsibi1it.y of the county. If the road.
were in another jurisdiction (i.e., San Dieguito) tile
than-ce that Carlsbad could exert any influence relativc to future improvements would be greatly reduced.
Water qua I.ity and lagoon managenent
2) The sphere could be adjusted to follow the south shore
line of the lagoon between El Camino Real and the coa.64
Effect: --I- under a single jurisdiction (Carlsbad) * Responsibilit]
for maintenance and improvement of La Costa Avenue wou:
then rest with the newly incorporated city of San
DFeguito. There would be no change of t.he curent sph:
This option would probably leave the lagoon
Wesf. Of 1-5.
Benefits: Carlsbad would be relieved of the f ina:icial responsibility for the maintenance and improvernitnt of
La. Costa Avenue. (This would also.apply to the opticn
81, Financial responsibility would not become a real u~til Carlsbad annexed the land that contains the roac?
Di.Sadvantages: The city would not have control over t
improvement and maintenance of La Costa Avenue. ci.kjj would not have control over land use decisions
for several properties along the southerly shore of th
lagoon. Those properties include the former "park and
ri.de" lot east of 1-5 and the land at the northwest
intersection of La Costa Avenue and 51 Camino Real. T'
shoreline is designated for open space in the General
while the intersection is designated for travel servic
open space immediately adjacent to the lagoon.
Adjust the sphere to be coterminous with the current
city boundaries.
Effect: The city would lose approximately 800 acres
from its sphere. The ci ty would no longer be a
responsible agency for the management of the lagoon.
However, the lagoon would remain under a single juris-
diction (San Gieguito) for planning purposes. The cit
could lose meaningful input into the future planning a
development of La Costa Avenue.
---.-
7 The
3)
---r
-3-
0 .. Benefits:
burden of providing services to the lagoon area,
Disadvantages -- : All of the disadvantages outlined above
would also apply to this option. Furthemore, the city
would lose potential revenue generators relative to the
development of thc county laid.; north of the lagoon. In addition, the boundary created by this option would not be a physical limit. Ph;isical boundaries (e.g.,
streets, rj dges I waterways, etc e ) make the development of incompatible land uses on each side of t5e boundary
nore difficult =
No adjustment of the present sphere.
Effect: _--" The lagoon and the properties south of the city iircits as well as La Costa Avenae would remain
within the county's jurisdiction until annexed by Carlsbad,
-__I_ Renef its: The city when it annexed the unincorporated
portion of the sphere would have direct coiitrol over
the future :,E La CQsta Avenue east of 1-5. The lagoon
would remain under a sinqle jurisdiction.
could realize revenues followj.ng that annexation of thc
lands south or' the existing city limit.
Disadvan'caqes: The diszdvantages of this option arc
tied to annexation of the unincorporated land within
the sphere.
land it might not be ab12 to generate enough revenue tc sen7e the area. This is primarily because of both the
current tax split situation with the county and the
policy of the Coastal Commission rqarding the develop
of agricultural lands.
favorable tax split and if the Coastaf- Commission wcul: allow development of the unincorporated area generally
consistent with the city's General Plan, the city may be able to generate enough reveaue to make the provisi of services in the area cGst effective. The actual
cost of provding services in the area has not been
determined. However, several very rough estimates hav
been made relative to La Costa Avenue. For example,
the cost of improving the road to provide four travel
lanes could range between $830,000 to $1.25 million
(1-980 dollars) depending upon the amount of grading an
upgrading to bring the roa-d to city standards. In addition, it could cost the city approximately $35,000 per year (1980 dollars) to maintain the road (this
f:igure does not include patching and other repairs),
The cost of cther city services have not been estimate
If the city postponed annexation hut retained its
existing sphere at least until the current tax split
and Coastal Commission problems were resolved, the cit could better stuciy the economic feashility of said
annexa tion.
The city would be relieved of the financial ----
4)
?-'he city
--I--_I -
If the city annexed the unincorporated
If the city could negotiate a
* -4-
0 e
IV . ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The current Carlsbad sphere of influence underwent full environmental review which was certified by LAFCO (Lead Ager prior to their determinztion of the sphere.
determined that the existing Carlsbad sphere should remain
unaltered, then the initial EIR would apply and no new
environmental review would be necessary or required.
LAFCO were to alter the existiny Cdrlsbad sphere new enviror rev5-ew would probably be required. review would be t1.e resyonsibility of LAF'CO as the Lead
Agency e
V . CL RElCONPENDATI ON
It is recommended t5at the Planning Commission ADOPT _II Option
No. 4 above, xhich would leave Carlsbad' s sphere re]-ative tc the Eatiquitos Lagoon area unaltered. It is further recorrinc
that Carlshad postpone annexation of the unincoi-poratpd are;
south of the city Limits in ?lie lagoon area until the Eeasj.1 of said annexation could be completely studied,
-_- ---
If LAFCO
If
That environrnsntal
ATTACAMENTS
Letter from Anne Cmsted, dated Oct, 15, 1980 (Attachment Si1
_1----
GFi : ar
11/19/80
-5-
\
-; -e:',."**H h , " . e-' , '7- y
~a [f a .-, ,
e-. ;.; /I/ '-7.3-
_. , -' .e.,: .. .,- ,.
f-? -v c : OC~OIXZ 15, 19uc
; . f.-'rZ-.>! i ;
7 y*; p(+-0 *.-a%, I. \,);, 1 p4 v7 **r"* .'(. ''C* \;,..:\T:.tj>,, r.
,..-,;,.;, I '.. ?- .>, '4, . (I , t , ,\ ' 2 1: =" --.. & y+&J v~ f \ ?&.J.JLJdG~ is; \',\ \ Aw.- * ;'it 'I
Post l"l.i. 1 I<.A, J3ox d.1 Jt5
5 ,+yy:~ !\!~TJ 4- ' &..?.* . =A .., rL, I:-.* k:A: 'hdk \i. Y.,, .\. - .-:a
A pv ,. . --&' C'. rvspfi Lib. E.;,- ..:;,I ;.-- 12;. Lcncadia, Caiihmia 9 2O?{i ATTACHF
I cc- , Xr+ Bi.11 L)a.vvjes, Execu-tivc Off.icer " L.,Z k: : -' / T&2i"-j
&--ALL--.---,- b
I 2.600 Pacific fIightjvLy
* Sa11 Diego, Cta 921oi
Dear !?re Uavizs;
At -this time all of' B~.-:S..qu.!-tos La,fi;;'30n no-: pub:icijr o~,c~ed
~~cI-u.C?~? i.n i:h? spl-,ere of i.nfliiE.ylze of -bjjc? cii;br of ~~~-~~~~Q( This s-pere is d:~e to bt revi ::v~ed sl!or';j..y. ' -7 inc 12corioratic Cor!irnj.-'ctee for Sa44Jiegui-tc: i;rou.?-~i j-i:.:e i;o i,?ype t:-,z-+; -the vor3;!
bou.ndar,y. .. :.a:? San 3: +Legrito be 82;jil.s~;ed to the nj..c!dl.e 02 %ti
'r J.G..,oo~ " CY in crdei- to gj.ve Sari !~1eg3,:?.rj-.to .. son!p s-!;rons i~-q?~'; I.ztc
or docu:;ne12!;s f all dated ZKQ~ their sburccl iden';ified ~ x!~?ich 1
c:~cariy deIineri-t-es tlie iri+;ei\.si> intercs.t; ~c?uca<iz ~1z.s ha2 ir plannirlg .Toor Hatiquitos Lagoon +&CSE y~:si; years o
3' The f~l-l-ov~i~g fzct:; are presented- :o suppr-t our requ~
1 a The City of !l..i--lsbad, zccordipg to L,.!?r"CO's reTQrt c
- 2-17-78 enti-tlcci ?inal SScc.3 ended S9heres of Igf"3-\
i:it c-de C
' drax -thcir' 'la c . ~1.1tS.xa.i;e city boiilz&;.y from east i;c across tke cen-;;er uf. the ~.E~GOR~ '' (9. 39) This wa: anended to irc:l.u.de all of the Lagoo;: withifi their 5
2, .A13 the Local Coastal Pf.ari for this area was done 1 the Co~.~?tyi . ..
3. CarI-sba6. Sewer District h3.s a major. t-rirzk line rum
.. along the nor-i;her!i shore of Ih-tiqiii-tos Lagoor,. Lei; Cou.n-!;y Water JX.s'i.rict; has a. major +xu!& line on the side of the lago.;,n.
14, Both Sail Diego !!ocn?;y 2n.d. Yhe 6i-I;y oI" CarlsbzC sho~
.. ' Costa A-venue 011 'their circula-tion elekent ifia?s* La . Costa Averme will physically Se a part a? San !lie@:
so All school, tm-te~~ and. fire services provided on tk f;ou-l;fi shc2re of Batiqu5.tos La&con we provided by di agencies than serve the Ylorthcrn shore.
Recawe of a13. thc-re facts, $40 sre requesting a meetir,g wi-i
yourse3.J.' and rncrr,bcrs of your s-kaff to 2i:.;c~z::; this bouridnry mattei?. "lease c:ontact me t3 seL up 2. d?.,-t;e and time +,hat; M
?-
2.
3
f\;t~.~?z :r;l?~-i~~ing, for th.2 Lagoon-. A+:+arliec! YOU. y~lll fj-~$ COT
.
.._I-._- --~ _I-c ~ --_. -I_ .___l__--..-_l_l_._-_. - ---.I g-cemm-j-e e , 75. >;-!;sJ-. z;-,? .i.. L.& q.1 -7 ~ - c.L.->? .> dcG - , !? ri g!. nzliy -. - ---_
'
..
bc CO1)VCMi ent f02' y.3u 0
. TTI J..hzlnk yoa v?!..y Inucf!.
Si r, 2 e 1.e 1. y , -hw, (9 fyqxa b.4 .. d- 9. ccz Co. Plnrini AYIIIC Oi!lvtt!:l, Pp;.!-:i dp?)-+
.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
3.5
16
17
18
19
20
21
z2
23
24
25
26
27
e 0
6409 RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY CO'JNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING
THE RETENTION OF THE EXISTING SPHERE OF
INFLUENCE BOUNDARIES IN THE BATIQUITOS
LAGOON AREA.
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California,
hereby resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, on June 5, 1978, the San Diego LAFCO adopted
resolution establishing Carlsbad's Sphere of Influence whic
included the entire Batiquitos Lagoon; and
WHEREAS, LAFCO established the Sphere based upon crit:
plannj-ng issues such as: existing land use, General Plan dc
land use, proximity of "in-place" services; community iden-
facilitation of lagoon management; and
WHEREAS, the proposed incorporation' of San Dieguito w(
modify any of the critical planning issues considered by LI
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of t
of Carlsbad, California, that the Council supports the rett
the existing Sphere of Influence boundaries in the Batiquil
Lagoon area.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting oJ
City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on 1
day of January, 1981 by the following vote, to wit:
..
" AbYES: Council Members Packard, Casler, Anear, Lewis and Kulchj
. NOES: None
ABSENT : None
ABSTAIN : JGz&??F&&/
RONALD C. PACKARD, Mayoi
A9e~ Dec. 9, 19 9 0 m
THE GREATER SAN DIEGUITO TOWN COUNCIL
The Greater San Dieguito Town Council suggests that the
Bat&kquitos Lagoon not be dQided under the control of two
separate jurisdictions. Such a division between the City of
Carlsbad and the proposed new city of San Dieguito could
lead to numerous conflicts and a resultant poor planning for
this crucial area.
in such a concept can be demonstrated by the Lake Tahoe area
which has been the source of conflict and litigation be-
tween the two jurisdictions since its inception.
An example of the problems inherent
The 'Town Council has no preference at this time as to
which of the entities should have control; we merely re-
peat our suggestion that it be kept under one jurisdiction
and not divided. It appears to us, though, to be premature
to discuss this concept until such time as the election
has been successful which would even allow the possibility
of the new city being in existence.
voted into being and has had an opportunity to assess its
potential, then discussions as to jurisdiction of the la-
goon would appear more appropriate.
After it has been
Unti.1 such time as this can occur, we suggest that no
attempt to divide this area be considered by the City of
Carlsbad.
We hope these comments can be useful in your delib-
eration of this matter.
Sincerely, YL9-21 &-J-mA-
Fred Schreiber,
President,
GSDTC
"P
P.O. BOX 853 a ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024
a a L
A11*n o* Kelly
4675 El Camino Real Sept. 14, 1979.
Car I sbad, Ca I iforn ia 92008
Phone: 729-3895
Mr. Ron Packard, Mayor CITY OF CARLSBAD
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Re: The 40 acre overlay zone.
Dear Ron:
I attended the Board of Supervisors hearing on the 4(
holding zone of Sept. 4, 1979 that your staff or some members
Council are proposing. I met Mr Hageman there before the mee
and tried to learn why this new zone was needed but his answe
rather vague, but I did tell him that I was ready and willing
I would like to know why this hearing was held so quickly a
I was not notified. I wouldn't have known of the meeting exc
that Mr. Guy Moore called me on the telephone. I learned lat
there was a legal notice in the Journal in the form of a smal
but I see no reason why the few property owners in the County
the "hole in the doughnut",could not have been formally notif
In talking with some of the other land owners at the heari learned that some thought it an effort by the City to force t owners to annex to the City and from others, that it was an e
to keep them in the County because LAFCO would not allow them
annex because they were in agriculture.
When the hearing finally got under way, I made my pitch to
my 425 acres to the City but as you know, the hearing was adj
to the 19th. At anyrate, I want to make it clear and before of September, that I wish to annex to the City. I have been
ing to do this since Prop. 13 made the taxes the same whether
out of the City. I had stayed out before because I did not w pay taxes for services like fire and police that the City COLI
adequately provide.
Now I would like the City to annex my property and retain
present zoning which was established several years ago as lan
under the Cities "sphere of influence."
The present zoning on the high, view property around my ha
zero to 1.5 units per acre and the lands further down the slo
0 to 4 units per acre. The 185 acres that the State Fish 6 C
are now considering was of higher density, I believe 1 to 10
10 to 20 units per acre but this zoning would be wiped out if ,- -
- 'e 0
-2-
Fish G Game take the land. In the event that the State does
the property, my family and I wish to keep the 240 acres of h
land in agriculture and open space as it is today and would h
put the land in an agricultural preserve to reduce the taxes.
At the present time the taxes are several thousand dollars
than the rental income from the tomato grower which is very u considering that only about 80 acres of this land is tillable
rest being too steep and rough or swamp lands. The taxes on a
should be based on an equalization with farm lands in Imperia
or the San Joaquin Valley where there is no pressure from hig
values for home construction. Taxes on such farm lands range
$40 to $50 per acre and where all of the land is tillable. I
San Diego County, where less than half of the land is tillabl why should the land owner pay any taxes on the open space(vie
for the benefit of the public.-
The Coastal Commission and local government are apparently ing only to theose who are demanding that all unimproved land
kept in open space and agriculture but they make no demands o
government of California or $he County or Cities, to reduce t If the open space, wet lands and other lands in private hands
be kept that way.. . .then the taxee should be reduced to zero
leGy imposed on all tax payers who desire these benefits.
Finally, I see no logical reason for the 40 acre overlay -
Sincerely,
I @& -
? 0 a i
MEMORANDUM -
DATE : September 5, 1979
TO : Paul Bussey, City Manager
FROM :
SUBJECT: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEARING OF AUGUST 29, 1979
James C. Hagaman, Planning DirectorJC #
CARLSBAD SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
The Board of Supervisors made a motion to place Carlsbad Spherl
of Influence lands into a development moratorium until such
time as the Local Coastal Plan is adopted.
County staff had recommended that the area within the City's
sphere of influence be placed in a 40 acre holding zone.
After the motion the Board opened the public hearing at which
time I had the opportunity to speak. I indicated the Mayor's
regrets in not attending, due to conflicting business schedule:
and noted that the City would support either the 40 acre holdir
zone, or -the moratorium on development, since our goal was to
stop further development of county areas until the City had
control over where and how development would occur.
In addition, I voiced concern with the number of signs being
constructed on county sphere of influence land, and our desire to have that acreage south of Palomar Airport Road delet
from the !;an Dieguito Plan.
Supervisor Moore questioned me on several aspects of the eventu
annexation of the sphere areas to the City. Her first questior
revolved around whether or not the City of Carlsbad understood
that just because an area is in the sphere of influence it does
not necessarily guarantee annexation. I indicated the City
understood the principle of a sphere of influence, however,
there are certain islands surrounded by the City which will
ultimately be annexed to the City.
Supervisor Moore also asked what specific efforts have been
taken by the City Council to pursue annexation of county island
I indicated that the City has no current policy to actively
annex lands other than generally encouraging annexation as
does the current county policy. I also indicated that the effec
and nature of Proposition 13 had almost precluded any active annexation policy at this time as has our current sewer availab.
problem.
Additional testimony was taken from residents south of Palomar
Airport Road, who indicated concern that various government
agencies had jurisdiction over the use of their property. They
m 4
COUNTY OF SAN IDIEGO
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 (71 4) 236-2249
TOM HAMlLTON
SUPERVISOR
FIRST DISTRICT
July 27, 1979
Honorable Ronald C. Packard
Mayor, City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mayor Packard:
Please accept this apology on behalf of the Board of Super
visors and County staff for the unfortunate oversight whic
delayed docketing the planning and related land use concer
expressed in your letter of March 2, 1979 regarding Carlsb sphere of influence. On Monday, July 30, 1979 the Departm
of Planning and Land Use will docket with the Board a comp
schedule of planning actions to be taken to resolve each o our mutual concerns.
I would like to assure you that County planning staff and
Board of Supervisors will continue to work with the City o
Carlsbad for a prompt resolution of all matters you have b
to our attention. If you have any questions, please feel
to contact me or Bud Gray of County staff at 236-2110.
Sincerely,
9; om Hami H- ton, Chairman
Board of Supervisors
TH:hr
cc: Board Members
Bud Gray
Dona Trumble