Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-06-09; City Council; 6627; Carlsbad LCP Implementing ordinances11 AGENDA BILL INITIAL; TH:LS AGENDA BILL NO: (j (j 3 J DEPT. HD. DATE: JUNE 9, 1981 CTY. ATTY. DEPARTMENT: PLANNING DEPARTMENT CTY. SUBJECT: CARLSBAD (MELLO BILL II) LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP) IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES STATEMENT OF THE MATTER: On June 16, 17, or 18 the State Coastal Commission plans to take action on the subject implementing ordinances. Adoption will create a "certified" LCP. The action will take place under a similar process to the one taken in the Mello Bill I LCP in October 1980. The Carlsbad LCP implementing ordinances are designed to carry out the Land Use Plan portion of the LCP. The State Coastal Commission adopted a land use plan recommended by their staff over the objections of the city on June 3, 1981. Because planning staff is strongly opposed to the Land Use Plan adopted by the State Coastal Commission, we cannot support the accompanying implementing ordi- nances. We also concur with the City Attorney's opinion and recommendation re- garding the ordinances. The City Attorney, in correspondence to the Planning Director, states: "As you are well aware, the position of this office is that a number of the programs specified in the Local Coastal Plan are legally suspect. Likewise, the ordinances implementing those portions of the plan are suspect...We could not recommend to the City Council that they take any steps to imple- ment the ordinances as they are presently drafted...If the Coastal Commis- sion adopts its staff recommendation, the posture that we would recommend on the Mello Bill II properties would be the same that we have taken on the Mello Bill I properties. That is, the State has instituted state land use planning for the coastal zone in the City of Carlsbad and that because the program is contrary to the best interests of Carlsbad, this city will not go along with the program...Of course, this results in a two-step process for developers, but that process is unavoidable given the respective positions of the City Council and the State Coastal Commission." FISCAL IMPACT: None. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION Direct staff to prepare a letter for the Mayor's signature stating that the city disagrees with the recommended implementing ordinances and will not participate in carrying them out if adopted by the State Coastal Commission. This letter would be forwarded to the State Coastal Commission prior to the final vote hear- ing on June 16, 17 or 18. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Mayor Packard to State Coastal Commission, dated May 28, 1981. 2. Letter from Mayor Packard to State Coastal Commission regarding non-partici- pation in Mello Bill I implementation, dated September 24, 1980. 3. A copy of the implementing ordinances are available for review in the Plan- ning Department. APPROVED 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Office of the Mayor TELEPHONE: (714)729-1181 Citp of Cartetmfo May 28, 1981 California State Coastal Commission Lenard Grote, Chairman 631 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Dear Commissioner Grote, On May 26, 1981, the Carlsbad City Council reviewed the recommendations of the State Commission staff regarding the Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan, and considered the procedural aspects of the certification process. The City Council took action strongly reaffirming our position as presented to the San Diego Regional Commission, and to support the advisory findings of that body. I strongly urge you to consider the city's position as approved by the Regional Commission. We believe that this plan represents a viable program which meets the requirements of the Coastal Act, protects sensitive environmental and coastal resources, and balances the need to protect resources of statewide and local significance while recognizing the validity of local participation in the planning process. In regards ?to the State Commission staff recommendations, I must, strongly object to the programs proposed by your staff. The city has serious reservations regarding the feasibility of implement- ing your staff's proposals, particularly regarding agriculture and housing. We feel that, .the policy program proposed by state staff is confusing and unwieldy, and recognizes neither the city's existing general plan nor the program recommended by your own consultant PRC Toupsi In view of these reservations, it would be impossible for the city to participate in an LCP as drafted by the State Commission staff. • In summary, I again urge your support for the Toups plan as modified by the San Diego Regional Commission and hope that this will allow us to move forward in adopting and implementing a Local Coastal Program sensitive to the needs of both the city of Carlsbad and the state of California. Very truly yours, Mayor Ronald C. Packard RCP:PT:rh cc: Planning Director City Attorney ' "•*•••***•"' Ron Beckman City Council r 12GOGLM AVENUE II 2^r J' i TELEPHONE: CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92003 iWrW.W./J {714)3OC»Ua «Utf-_,5oJ Office of the Mayor » of Car&ftab September 24, 1980 Commissioners ' . CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 631 Hov/ard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Dear Commissioners: Because of the significant objections which the City continues to have regarding the Local Coastal Program for the "Mella Bill" properties, the City Council has determined that it does not intend to participate in the implementation of the plan. In the City's opinion, the LCP does not meet the mandates of Section 30170(f) or the policies of the Coastal Act and does not reflect the needs of the City or its residents. Many of our expressed concerns have fallen on deaf ears. The Commis- sion's response, that we may seek change through the amend- ment process, is both inadequate and unrealistic. Because the adoption of this program will undoubtedly set a precedent for the Local Coastal Program for the remainder of the City of Carlsbad, I would again like to renew our concerns. First, the City Council believes that the provisions for mandatory inclusionary zoning for low and moderate income housing within the coastal zone, without regard to the provisions of the City's Housing Element, is contrary to the express language of Section 30213 of the Resources Code which states: "New housing in the coastal zone shall be developed in conformity with the standards, policies and goals of local housing elements adopted in accordance with requirements of Subdivision(c) of Section 65302 of the Government Code." The City Council of the City of Carlsbad has accepted the responsibility to provide housing opportunities within the entire City of Carlsbad for all economic sectors of the community. The Commission's mandate for inclusionary zoning within the coastal zone disrupts overall City policies and c Commissioners -2- September 24, 1980 ignores the demographic/ economic and social realities of the City of Carlsbad. Because the standards, goals, and policies .of local housing elements apply to the entire City, including the coastal zone, the Council believes it is,more appropriate to deal with the housing crisis on a city-wide basis. Because most of the residential areas of the City of Carlsbad are with- in five miles of the coast, and readily accessible through convenient public and private transportation, the Commission's mandatory inclusionary zoning for low and moderate income housing cannot be justified under the goal of obtaining access to Carlsbad's coastal resources. The second major area of concern to the City of Carlsbad is the permanent agricultural zoning which the Commission has imposed. The City believes that permanent agricultural restrictions for the properties involved are not supported by the economic data. The City Council recognizes agriculture as an important industry and resource in the City of Carlsbad and has begun to adopt pro- grams which will protect the economic feasibility of agriculture in the City for as long as possible. However, the City Council realistically recognizes that there comes a time when no economic return can be made through agriculture. Permanent agricultural protection prohibits the conversion of the land to a different ' • use. If government demands that the property be maintained in a' use which is not economically productive, inverse condemnation may result. The City of Carlsbad does not wish to be placed in that position at this time. The City recognizes that protection of coastal agricultural lands, particularly given the mandates of Sections 30241 and 30242, is-an important policy of the Coastal .Commission. However, the City believes that this protection can be better achieved through methods other than permanent agricultural use restrictions. The evidence presented at the Commission's own public hearing supports the City's proposition. Finally, the City has significant concerns over the grading restrictions imposed by the Local Coastal Program for the Mello Bill properties. The development restrictions based on slope, particularly those applied to the Rancho La Costa properties, clearly indicate that the Commission is not concerned with the protection of the environment but is rather imposing severe developmental restrictions based on an arbitrary standard. The City desires to protect its significant coastal resources', including the lagoons, but believes that goal can be accomplished through the use of strict grading standards, mitigation techniques and other requirements rather than simply resorting to a ban on development. c Commissioners - • -3- '• September 24, 1980 Many of the resources sought to be protected by the Coastal Act exist in the City of Carlsbad. These resources are among the assets which make Carlsbad unique among California coastal cities. The City Council desires to protect these resources according to the policies of the Coastal Act, but in many respects has been given a "Hobson's" choice in the LCP for the Mello Bill properties. To accept the plan and ordinances as adopted by the Commission would be to subject our City to liability, necessitate programs for which we lack legal authority and require that we. act contrary to what we believe is best for the City of Carlsbad. If we fail to adopt them, it appears the requirements will be imposed upon us by a continuation of the permit process. At this time we choose the latter course and advise the Commission that the City does not intend to implement the provisions of the Local "Coastal Program or the zoning ordinances as presently proposed for the Mello Bill properties. If the Commission persists in this exercise of State land'use control, you should do so with the knowledge that you will be responsible for the implementation and administration of the plan. . - . • ...... •/ . -...,. • ..• ... ... .... . -. .. - .. ... ,.,, .. ,-.-". ..... Very "truly yours. RONALD C. PACKARD Mayor .RCP/DSH/mla cc: Assemblyman Robert C. Frazee