The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1984-06-05; City Council; 7780; Local Coastal Plan•8-H6 r <*U 00 11 ID 03 o oo CT (F CARLSBAD — AGENl P LL ARtt T7/TQ MTG. 6/5/84 DEPT CM TITLE: LOCAL COASTAL PLAN DEPT. HD. CITY ATTY \/P& CITY MGR^Ob— RECOMMENDED ACTION: That Council appoint two Council members to negotiate amendments to Local Coastal Plan. BACKGROUND: In December 1983, Council sponsored legislation to change the coastal zone boundary in Carlsbad. The boundary change was not approved by the legislature. During hearings on the bill it was suggested that City seek to work out its differences with the Coastal Commission. In April Council authorized staff to prepare an analysis of how the LCP differs from the City General Plan. That analysis was prepared by Tom Hageman and has been filed with Council for review. The analysis points out that the State LCP contains a great many detailed regulations which apply to developments within the coastal zone. Those regulations would have to be administered and enforced by the City if the City opts to take over. These regulations are contained in the 78 page report entitled, "Local Coastal Program." The most significant policy issue is on agriculture. The LCP seeks to preserve agriculture "permanently." The City General Plan regards agriculture as an interim land use. If Council wishes to pursue this matter it is suggested the following steps be taken. 1. Appoint a Council Committee to review the LCP staff report and come back to Council with specific recommendations on what changes should be considered. 2. Following Council approval, negotiate with Coastal Commission on the changes desired by City. 3. If agreement is reached City will have to process amendments to the LCP and conduct hearings. 4. If amendments are approved by Coastal Commission, City will have to adopt implementing ordinances in order to take over adminis- tration of LCP. If a committee is appointed we would attempt to report back to Council in 60 days and seek Coastal staff agreement by December 1984. FISCAL IMPACT A full time staff person will be assigned to this task. At a later date additional staff or consultants may be needed depending upon what develops. EXHIBIT Local Coastal Plan/Summary and Analysis COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY POSITION PAPER CITY OF CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA Prepared by Tom Hageman, Principal Planner City of Carlsbad, Research/Analysis Group 3/23/84 TABLE OF CONTENTS: PAGE PURPOSE 1 SUMMARY 1 "PIONEERING" THE LOCAL COASTAL PLAN 6 COASTAL COMMISSION REVIEW 9 CONTINUING PROCESS AND PROBLEMS 9 THE END OF A DEMORALIZING EXPERIENCE 11 PLANNING FOR THE REST OF THE CARLSBAD COASTAL ZONE 12 MONEY AND EQUITY 14 LEGISLATED OUT OF THE PROCESS 15 A QUESTION OF AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION 19 THE CITY HAS HAD A CONSISTENT POINT OF VIEW 24 WHERE ARE SENSITIVE COASTAL RESOURCES? 26 THE CITY WANTS A SOLUTION 26 , EXHIBITS: AREA MAP 4 CITY OF CARLSBAD MAP 5 AGUA HEDIONDA PLAN AREA MAP 7 AGUA HEDIONDA DETAIL MAP 8 1977 COASTAL ZONE MAP 13 AREA DELETED (MELLO 1980) MAP 16 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AREAS 17 AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDY AREA 20 COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARIES - EXISTING AND PROPOSED 28 PURPOSE: It is the intent of this paper to place the City-Coastal Commission relationship over the last ten years in perspective. The result of this perspective will, undoubtedly, show dedication in the City's attitude toward working within coastal legislation. Carlsbad wishes to convey its commitment to responsibly plan for the Coastal Zone and the City as a whole. In addition, Carlsbad hopes to show a pressing need to resolve the existing stalemate regarding coastal land use autho- rity. The most expeditious method of resolving the conflict in the City is modification of the Coastal Zone boundary. SUMMARY: During the final months of 1975 the City Council began dis- cussing a comprehensive planning effort for Agua Hedionda Lagoon. This developed into a working agreement between the Coastal Com- mission and the City for preparation of a "pilot project" for land use planning focusing on the lagoon. On February 3, 1976 the Council passed a resolution agreeing to work with the Coastal Com- mission on plan preparation. This was an agreement which recog- nized the planning to be a joint effort between Commission staff, City staff and property owners. A total of $16,000 was funded by the Coastal Commission. The pilot project was prepared under the authority of the old "Proposition 20 Coastal Commission." The legislature elected to enact the Coastal Act of 1976 (which actually went into effect on January 1, 1977) in 1976. Although the Agua Hedionda plan was complete before this, the Coastal Commission advised the City to delay official submittal of the plan until after January 1, 1977. This was to allow the plan to be processed as "the first" Local Coastal Program (LCP). Recognition was to be given "pilot pro- jects" in light of the "new" LCP process. The Agua Hedionda plan was finally submitted to the Coastal Commission on May 20, 1977. This began a period of problems and disagreements. Nineteen pub- lic hearings took place during City preparation. More than $60,000 was expended by the City up to this point. Nine Coastal Commission hearings took place during the Coastal Commission's "approval process." This was a confusing and frustrating time for City staff and officials. Issues were raised, discussed, then reintroduced and discussed again and again. Finally, the State Commission "approved" the Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Program - Land Use Plan with 31 conditions, on May 15, 1978. This action was not well received by the City. After over two years, substantial investment of staff time and City funds, the City had a plan that it could not accept, and was unable to regain its land use authority. -1- In March of 1979, the City Council decided to participate in a negotiating committee, in an attempt to resolve the con- flicts between the Coastal Commission and the City. The commit- tee, which included City officials and Coastal Commissioners, met on numerous occasions during the next 1% years - during which there were six official meetings and numerous staff meetings. Agreement was reached in December of 1980. Final approval of the land use plan portion was adopted (certified) by the Commission in May 1982. There are very few differences between the City's 1974 General Plan, the 1976 Agua Hedionda Plan and the 1982 LCP agreed to by the Commission. The City began the City-wide LCP process in May 1977, with full intent to prepare and complete the document by the deadline. The process began with preparation of an Issue Identification and Work Program. Both of these tasks were completed in good time and submitted to the Coastal Commission for approval. Approximately $4,000 were expended. The Coastal Commission rejected the submit- tals as being inadequate. Problems arose regarding funding availa- bility and responsiveness of Coastal staff. The City became very frustrated in trying to meet deadlines set by the Coastal Act and attempting to resolve conflicts with Coastal staff. The City estimated $120,000 to prepare the LCP - the Commission allowed $51,000. This inequity resulted in a City request for the Coastal Commission to prepare the LCP. A consul- tant was hired by the Coastal Commission to prepare the plan. Continuing frustration resulted when the Coastal Commission agreed to pay the consultant almost the same amount ($120,000) that they had rejected from the City. In 1980 the City found itself legislated out of the LCP pro- cess. However, participation continued at every opportunity. During the finalization of the LCP the City maintained its active posture. Extensive negotiation began with the Regional Commission during the hearing process. The City and the Regional Commission ultimately agreed on an LCP. However, the State Com- mission rejected the findings of the Region and ultimately revised the entire consultant's plan. They certified "their LCP" on June 3, 1981. This, in effect, was the final evidence to the City that they had made the right decision in not expending City funds on plan preparation, and that the State Commission, at least, had no intention of giving the permit power back to the City. One of the major problem areas throughout the LCP process has been the agricultural issue. The City fundamentally disagrees with the Coastal staff, but not necessarily the Coastal Act in this regard. The Agricultural Subsidy Credits Program established through the LCP has been rejected by the City, farmers and property owners. -2- One of the first tasks mandated by the Coastal Act was for Coastal Commission identification of "sensitive coastal resources." This is logical, since it is difficult to plan for an area without an inventory of the priority constraints to the planning area. The Coastal Commission ignored this task and ultimately found a way around fulfilling the requirement. This was strong indication to the City that maybe the Coastal Commission did not wish to play by the rules. It is maintained that much of the property now in con- tention should not fall within the Coastal Zone. The City has taken an active and positive position on coastal planning since the beginning of the Statewide process. It is suppor- tive of the intent of the Coastal Act. The primary difficulty encoun- tered by the City in the process has been in the interpretation and administration of the Coastal Act by the Commission staff. The City agrees strongly with the basic tenet of the Act; that is, that the policies of the Act should be translated into a plan by the local governments. Statewide policies cannot be imposed identically in areas along a thousand-mile coast. The time and unreimbursed expenditure devoted to this nine-year effort has been an ongoing source of frustration to the City. Par- ticularly because the City has displayed the ability and desire to plan sensitively for the Coastal Zone and, for that matter, the entire city. The City suggests that there is substantial agreement in many areas of the LCP, but that complete resolution cannot be accomplished without a more accurate reflection of coastal resources. -3- AREA MAP r OCEAIMSIDE BUENA VISTA LAGOON;? AGUA HEOIONOA LAGOON PACIFIC OCEAN Po«nset CITY OF CARLSBAD -5- "PIONEERING" THE LOCAL COASTAL PLAN During 1975 the City of Carlsbad and the Coastal Commission developed a work program which was to result in a plan for Agua Hedionda Lagoon. This plan was to reflect the intent of the Proposition 20 Coastal Initiative. The Agua Hedionda "plan" was called a "pilot project" and was one of a total of 11 statewide. Carlsbad and Chula Vista were the only coastal cities in San Diego County that pursued pilot projects. Agua Hedionda became the only pilot project statewide which actually developed into a certified LCP. The City eagerly entered into the pilot project process because of its confidence in the existing city development policies and the good faith of the City Council to positively plan for the Coastal Zone. City offi- cials were fully aware of the intent of the Coastal Initiative and the developing Coastal Plan. They would not have volunteered to be a lea- der in the coastal planning process without confidence in their own planning process. The Agua Hedionda plan was to be a joint effort between the City, property owners and Commission staff. In fact, the Coastal staff actually prepared part of the plan. The City was confident that a joint effort would promote a smooth process which would continue into the future City/ Coastal Commission relationship. The fact that Carlsbad was asked to participate in the pilot project program indicated to the City that the Coastal Commission had confidence in planning with the City. It was assumed that the Commission was pursuing a "win-win" situation. In other words, both the City and the Coastal Commission could show the other coastal cities that a state/local planning process could work positively for both participants. The planning process began with an analysis and comparison of the existing city regulations and the requirements of the Coastal Commission. It was determined that there were very few conflicts between the existing General Plan and Coastal Plan policies. The two major areas of concern were agri- culture and wetland identification and protection. The City decided that an environmental impact report covering the plan area should be prepared to aid in plan preparation. The Commission staff agreed and work began on this task immediately. The Coastal Commission made Federal funds available, to offset City expen- ses in plan preparation. A total of $16,000 was allocated to the City. The period for which this funding was to be expended began 1/1/76 and was to end on 9/30/76. -6- OCEAIMSIDE BUENA VISTA \ LAS HWY 78 \ HEOIONOA PACIFIC OCEAN MRPORV 6000' SCALE SQUIRES 0AM «-——| I «- -nI I U T^P V "™GO™NS \ " "STA^E \ I ^ ^.. r II .—J CITY OF CARLSBAD iiiiiiiiiiiiini AGUA HEDIONDA PLAN AREA -7- •MB STUDY MEA U1W—PLANNING AIKA AGUA HEDIONDA COASTAL COMMISSION REVIEW The Agua Hedionda Environmental Impact Report and staff work on the Agua Hedionda Plan were completed in August of 1976. This began the formal hearing process for the documents. Substantial communication between the City and Coastal staffs took place during the initial plan preparation. As the staff work began resulting in products, more spe- cific questions were directed to the Commission staff regarding areas of policy. At this point, Coastal staff input began wavering. It appeared that either the answers were being withheld, or no one actually knew. The City fully expected to officially submit the completed plan to the Commission prior to the end of 1976. As the City was working to this end, the finalization of the Coastal Act of 1976 was taking place. The participation of the Coastal staff tapered off as the Agua Hedionda Plan was nearing staff completion. In August of 1976, City staff sub- mitted the plan to the Planning Commission to begin the City public hearing process. As the Plan was progressing through hearings, the Commission requested that it be submitted after the end of 1976 so that it would be processed as the first official Local Coastal Pro- gram (the 1976 Act became effective 1/1/77 and created the LCP process) The City was assured, in October of 1976 by the Commission, that pilot project "certification would not be withheld for the reasons of the form in which the program had been presented, or for other similar non-- substantial deviations " The Chief Planner stated at the time: "Thank you for your continued participation in pilot programs, a very important and difficult 'pioneer' role...." The City continued to work on the Agua Hedionda Plan, which ultimately totaled 19 public hearings and over 2800 hours (about $60,000) of City staff time prior to its submi-ttal to the Commission. At the time of completion at the City level, all major participants in the planning effort, including property owners and citizens, were satisfied with the effort. The Commission staff was non-committal. Although the Plan was technically ready to proceed to the Commission level on 1/1/77, the City was again requested to defer processing because of a "change in regional staff." The plan was finally submit- ted on 5/20/77; however, the plan was not officially accepted by the Commission for five subsequent months. City officials were convinced, at this point, that they were being "stonewalled" for some unknown reason. CONTINUING PROCESS AND PROBLEMS The period between October 1977 and May 1978 included 9 public hearings at the Coastal Commission and continuing frustration for the City. Many new and detailed concerns were introduced by the Commission staff. — Q -> The term "specificity" was beginning to be used by local govern- ment staffs up and down the coast. The level of detail at which the Coastal staff was reviewing land use plans was definitely not what city staffs expected. For example, Coastal staff was deba- ting the width of an access walkway in the Agua Hedionda Plan as a serious issue. The City Plan showed, in schematic form, a ten- foot accessway and the Coastal staff considered it necessary to dictate at least fifteen feet. In the City's opinion, this type of negotiation was unnecessary and uncalled for. On April 5, 1978 the League of California Cities communicated its position to the State Coastal Commission regarding Agua Hedionda as "the first local coastal program." Two of its points were: - Different geographical areas will have different kinds of land use plans. - The specificity needed in the land use plan should be obtained through the inclusion of policies rather than site specific plans or designs. The League was also concerned that the Commission was setting up the Agua Hedionda Plan as the "precedent" for all future LCPs. The time and money expended by the City on Agua Hedionda was known by other coastal cities. The League pointed out, "The Agua Hedionda Plan was a pilot project with resources which may not be available to all." There was a distinct feeling of concern and confusion at the City during this time. The hope of working on a "pilot project" which would promote a cooperative relationship had not come to fruition. Carlsbad was being forced to defend the Agua Hedionda LCP as if it had been conceived with malicious intent. As soon as one issue was addressed by the City, two new ones had been raised by the Coastal staff. A distinct "adversary relationship" was developing between the City and the Coastal Commission. The City attempted in good faith to respond to the concerns raised by the Commission. For example, the City contacted a credible agri- cultural expert from the University of California to comment on an agricultural issue which had been introduced by the Commission staff. This expert had advised the Commission on agricultural questions before. His response, in writing, supporting the City's position apparently had no effect on the Coastal staff's position and they continued to cite the "problem" as one on which they would not com- promise. The State Department of Fish and Game endorsed the Agua Hedionda Plan in writing; however, the Commission continued to take a previously formulated position on certain wetland "issues." The "good guys - bad guys" attitude was shocking and confusing to City staff and officials. It was becoming clear that the City could do nothing right. Most demoralizing was the final vote hearing, at which the following comment was made by a commissioner: -10- "...I'm disappointed there has not been more cooperation on the part of the City in working with us to achieve an LCP over what essentially, in my opinion, was a development proposal for Agua Hedionda." At that final vote hearing, the Coastal Commission "approved" the Agua Hedionda LCP with 31 conditions of approval. This was May 15, 1978, two years after the "pioneering" effort by the City began. After substantial investment of staff time and City funds, the City had a plan it could not accept and was unable to regain its land use authority. THE END OF A DEMORALIZING EXPERIENCE The official action and documents of the "certified" Agua Hedionda LCP were transmitted to the City on June 12, 1978. Needless to say, the City was not enthusiastic about receiving the packet. Work had already begun on the city-wide LCP by the City staff and morale was subdued. After the first of the year 1979, the City Council reviewed the Agua Hedionda LCP conditions of approval. Although some of the Council considered the situation a lost cause, a position was established on each of the points of controversy. A position paper was sent to the Coastal Commission, with an accompanying invitation to form a nego- tiating committee to discuss a solution. It was specifically reque- sted that if a committee was agreed to that it be comprised primarily of commissioners and council members. The City Council thought that no further progress could be made on a staff-to-staff level. Deci- sions on a policy level were the only path to success in the mind of the Council. The Coastal Commission agreed to the concept and the first meeting of the committee was held on July 6, 1979. During the following months of negotiations, it was difficult at best to actually meet with com- missioners. Nevertheless, the City persisted in a continuing dialog. There was a total of six official committee meetings and at least twice as many informal staff discussions. The Commission changed designated staff representatives three times during the one-and-a- half-year period. Naturally, this contributed to some confusion and redundancy in the process. At least four different sets of comprom- ise positions were presented formally and informally by the City. The negotiations seemed to roll to a stop on a remaining issue of a major highway alignment. The Commission apparently did not wish to compromise in this regard. Their position was the roadway could not be built in the "wetlands" yet they were not prepared to identify the wetlands and, therefore, the roadway was not possible. Recog- nizing that the roadway was not only a vital link in the community, but a regionally significant arterial, the City continued to pursue a resolution. This involved a number of meetings with State Fish -11 - and Game officials, who cooperated under these relatively unusual circumstances. Once a wetlands determination was made, the Coastal staff was moved to a compromise decision. This would not have occurred if the City had not persisted. Agreement was reached in December of 1980. The City then set out to redraft and format the entire plan. Land use plan "certification" came in May 1982. There are few differences between Carlsbad's 1974 General Plan, the first 1976 Agua Hedionda Plan and the approved LCP finally acceptable in 1982! In addition to the original grant, the City of Carlsbad had expended over $100,000 of local taxpayer money. PLANNING FOR THE REST OF THE CARLSBAD COASTAL ZONE As a result of the Agua Hedionda experience, the City formulated some ideas regarding survival in the coastal planning process. Major con- cerns at the beginning of the overall City LCP process (issue identi- fication and work program) centered on the possible excessive expen- diture of City funds and inability to meet deadlines due to long Coastal staff turn around time. The process of LCP preparation, as outlined in the Coastal Act of 1976 seemed to pose no insurmountable task to the City if, in fact, the administration of that process was carried out in good faith. The City began the process in May 1977, with full intent to prepare and complete the entire document by the prescribed deadline. The preparation of the issue identification and work program appeared straightforward in that specific contents of the reports were estab- lished by the Coastal Commission through a so-called LCP Manual. Both initial components were completed in good time and submitted to the Regional Commission for review and approval. Unfortunately, the reservations of the City proved to be real during this review process. The City submitted the issue identification and work program to Regional staff on February 27, 1978. Nothing was heard officially until the City received a letter from the Region's executive direc- tor on April 13, 1978. It stated: "We apologize for our tardiness in responding to the issue identification and work program submitted by the City of Carlsbad. We must inform you, however, that we cannot process the City's issue identifica- tion and work program as they are presently submit- ted. The primary reason is that both the issue identification and work program do not contain all the necessary components." City staff was shocked by this revelation, since the documents had been prepared using the Commission's LCP Manual. This manual spelled out -12- OCEANSIDE BUENA VISTA LAGOON;? HWY 78 6000' AGUA HEOIONOA LAGOON PACIFIC OCEAN I CITY OF CARLSBAD 1977 COASTAL ZONE -13- what was necessary as components of the issue identification and work program and had been precisely followed. In a letter to the Regional Commission executive director, Carlsbad's planning director stated the following: "In light of the fact that you have determined the submittal cannot be accepted, we have, in effect, lost almost two months of plan preparation time which, in my opinion, was not necessary. The obvious intent of the LCP Manual is to insure processing through the Regional and State Commis- sions within a 60-day period. I do not see this intent reflected so far." It was decided that the Coastal staff should, through the staff report process, make any additions they considered necessary to the documents* This would insure a clear translation of their interpretation of the Coastal Act and LCP Manual. It would also keep the City from exceeding the $4,000 already expended on preparing the issue identification and work program. It was additionally hoped that having the documents in the Coastal staff's hands would aid in reminding them that deadlines were in effect. Part of the work program-required contents was a specific expenditure breakdown of expected costs for plan preparation. The City estimate was to cause more controversy as the Coastal staff review progressed. MONEY AND EQUITY The City's estimate of costs for LCP preparation was $120,000. After the regional staff completed their additions and corrections, they revised the estimate to $51,000. The City could not justify further bickering with the Coastal staff. There seemed to be no positive results in planning in good faith regarding coastal "issues." The City had no evidence whatsoever that the Commission intended to meet deadlines, provide adequate funding, or "certify" a Carlsbad prepared Local Coastal Program. In studying various other coastal communities' funding, the City dis- covered that ranges of funding were established in advance for each coastal city. These ranges were apparently "seat of the pants" gues- ses, which, once determined, were relatively inflexible. The City pointed out to the Commission at the time that Commission's staff work program established a $2500 labor month for Carlsbad and $5000 labor month for the City of Imperial Beach. This was considered fun- damentally unfair to the City and continued evidence that the Commi- ssion 1) did not have established standards, or 2) was dealing to Carlsbad from a marked deck. As a result, the City requested that the Coastal Commission prepare its LCP (December 19, 1978). This was an option available to the -U- City through the Coastal Act. Carlsbad was not the first. Mendocino County preceded the City in requesting Commission preparation of the LCP - for very similar reasons to those of Carlsbad. The Commission concluded their in-house staff was not adequate to prepare the plan and decided to hire a consultant. As a result of calling for proposals, they selected a suitable firm. The crowning blow to City officials was that the Coastal Commi- ssion agreed to pay the PRC-Toups planning firm about $120,000 to complete the Carlsbad LCP. This was close to the amount that it had originally rejected from the City almost two years before. LEGISLATED OUT OF THE PROCESS In January of 1980 PRC-Toups started work on Carlsbad's LCP. As they were beginning their work they were confronted with a change in direction mandated by the State legislature. Assembly Bill 462 went into effect on January 1, 1980 and required the Coastal Commission prepare a local coastal program for three properties within the Carlsbad Coastal Zone. It identified these properties by owner and required fast-track processing for them. October 1, 1980 was established as the date by which these A.B. 462 or Mello Bill properties must be "certified" by the Commission. The bill allowed the Commission to certify the LCP without the approval of the City of Carlsbad. The new law contained a substantial incen- tive for the Commission (i.e. Toups) to meet the dealine: if an LCP was not approved by October 1, the specific properties would be excluded from the Coastal Zone. A similar law went into effect in June of 1980. Assembly Bill 1971 (called Mello II) covered all the remaining area within the City's Coastal Zone, excluding Agua Hedionda and the Mello I prop- erties. Mello II removed the City from the LCP approval process as the Mello I bill had previously done. The "excluded from the Coastal Zone" incentive from the Mello I law was carried over to the Mello II legislation (July 1, 1981 was established as the last date for action on the LCP). So, in effect, the Commission was charged with finalizing LCPs for Carlsbad relatively quickly without the necessity of the City's agreement. Both the Hello Bills were protested by the City. The City con- sidered this situation in complete violation of the basic intent of the Coastal Act. Although Carlsbad did not have formal appro- val authority over the LCP documents under preparation, officials sought active participation in the planning process. The City's strategy was to try to effect change where necessary at the prep- aration level prior to formal processing level of review. This approach was somewhat successful in that PRC-Toups was generally more reasonable and understanding of City concerns than the Coas- tal staff. -15- OCEANSiDE i 1 ^X HWY 78 BUENA VISTA 1 i^T^^ -"T* \ IM3K^\ ^^ IL~ - -LS J" ' 4^NwRvr -- s *>=£~^^4r I ^^\W^^ i — -\¥S\r^ u--^] ^W L-! ^® \ \ '"v- .^^a» AQUA HEOIONDA X-*-*-*^ 1 f\\ ^— ^^^ jr____ e"""- \% J^PACIFIC OCEAN • \iV? J^^<^^^<<'<i VS^-A \L« « (^„,*«* u" vi y r ^-^ Vi^"^-^^\ fl^^^g^^i^^&BfcgiaS"^'-' " ' '' "_iLL-^_u= •HiiiMiaiiMf v\ 94™ZNs-/) \^=osr>^r\/\) /1 <1 CITY OF CARLSBAD „-*-*. !977 COASTAL ZONE xS;:;:;:;: AREA DELETED [ MELLO 1980) -16- «IMM Lr 6000' ** If ! ^{( /] 1 rJ 1 1 OCEANSIDE BUENA VISTA LAGOON^ HWY 78 6000' PACIFIC OCEAN 1 S. J CITY OF CARLSBAD MELLO I AREA AGUA HEDIONDA PLAN AREA MELLO II AREA -17- Fragmenting the planning areas of the Coastal Zone was consi- dered counterproductive by the City; however, most of the crucial decisions were deferred at the Mello I stage to the Mello II plan. As a result, the City concentrated most of its efforts in working on the Mello II plan. The plan finally recommended by PRC-Toups was generally acceptable to the City. On March 10, 1981 the City Council took action indicating that the "Toups Plan, incorporating the recommended changes trans- mitted herewith, would be acceptable to the City and will sat- isfy the City's requirements for a Local Coastal Program." The City provided specific comments on the LCP and suggested wording that would be satisfactory as substitution for sections of the plan. Substantial support for the City's position was provided. For example, an agricultural committee had been formed to investi- gate alternatives to the Commission's agricultural subsidy program. The committee was primarily made up of farmers in the community. The Regional Commission staff made the following statement regarding the City's position on the LCP in their final staff report: "In evaluating the comments, staff believes that many of the comments have merit and are respon- sive to applicable provisions of the California Coastal Act of 1976." It appeared that the City's "homework" had been a positive step because the Regional Commission in its final vote on the Carlsbad LCP directed its staff to make the various changes the City req- uested. The City and Regional Commission had reached an agreement on the LCP. The Regional Commission approved the Carlsbad LCP on March 27, 1981. This was one of the first productive experiences that had been encountered thus far in the LCP process. The City's feeling of accomplishment was not to last long. The Toups-Regional Commission LCP was not well received by the State Commission. The State Commission staff found major problems with the documents forwarded to them from the Regional Commission. There were a num- ber of State Commission hearings as the deadline for certification approached (July 1, 1980). The State Commission staff was at odds with the City and the Regional Commission. The debate was undoubt- edly going to be heated and time consuming. -18- During the month of May, the State Commission staff, in effect, tossed out the $120,000 PRC-Toups effort as modified by the Regional Commission and rewrote the Carlsbad LCP. This effort "cut and pasted" those portions of the Toups plan that were acceptable and the position of the State staff. Needless to say, this eliminated the progress made by the City up to this point. A new "agricultural subsidy credits program" was installed. This program is in effect today. The Carlsbad LCP was "certified" by the State Coastal Commission on June 3, 1981. A QUESTION OF AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION Carlsbad and the Coastal Commission have, for the most part, been at odds regarding the land use status of agriculture in the City. The root of the problem probably stems from a basic concept of land use hierarchy. Agriculture is commonly regarded as a non- urban use. Non-urban areas are generally provided basic public service by a regional government such as a county (including special districts). As urbanization occurs and existing, or anticipated, demand for services increases, incorporation of local governments takes place. At a conceptual level the county government administered lands provide a "holding" area, which may ultimately be annexed into a full service city government. This would only occur if there was an increase in demand for urban service, that is, development. It is recognized that some rural county areas will never urbanize. The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is an agency which oversees the incorporation of new cities and annexations to exis- ting urbanized areas. In the case of Carlsbad, LAFCO has estab- lished what is referred to as a "sphere of influence." This area is regarded by LAFCO as the area which will ultimately be incorporated into the City. In other words, the area which will be urbanized and provided service by the City of Carlsbad at some time in the future. Currently, there are "inlands" within the sphere of influence which have not yet annexed to the City. When the City developed its General Plan, the assumption was made that the ultimate area of the City would be urban - not rural. Carlsbad's General Plan is a "buildout plan" in that it shows anticipated land uses at the time in the future when the City is built out. Agriculture is regarded, therefore, as an interim use, not a use in perpetuity. The timing of the transition bet- ween rural and urban use is not established by the General Plan. It is recognized that for some of the rural areas in the City the land use transition will take a long period of time. As a matter of fact, the retention of agriculture as long as possible has been, and will continue to be, a policy of the City. The General Plan states the following: -19- OCEANS1DE BUENA VISTA LAGOON^ HWY 78 \ 6000 A6UA HEDIONDA LAGOON PACIFIC OCEAN CITY OF CARLSBAD AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDY AREA PAY FEE LANDS PRESERVED -20- Objective: To prevent the premature elimination of prime agricultural land and preserve said lands wherever feasible. Based on interpretation of wording of the Coastal Act, the Coas- tal Commission has decided that certain "agricultural areas" in the City of Carlsbad should remain designated for agricultural uses "in perpetuity." It is the finality of the perpetuity con- cept that the City cannot accept. From a land use planning stand- point, the concept is not possible. Nothing can be planned to last for ever. No workable land use plan is a static document. A land use plan evolves over time as more information is avail- able and as community goals are formulated. The presumption that planners have all the knowledge at a given time to decide on ultimate land use in perpetuity is a fundamentally incorrect one. The agricultural lands within the City of Carlsbad are not a closed system. The acreage devoted to agriculture and the people who farm that property are part of a much larger farming economy. It is the position of the City that the market, which is an extremely complex system, should dictate the transition of land from agricultural use to some other use. In attempting to treat the Carlsbad agricultural lands as a closed system the Coastal Commission is creating more harm than good. If the policies of the Coastal Act are reviewed in this context they can be interpreted differently than the purely black and white reading of the Coastal Commission. Section 30241 of the Act states: The maximum amount of prime agricultural land shall be maintained in agricultural produc- tion to assure the protection of the areas' agricultural economy, and conflicts shall be minimized between agricultural and urban land uses...(emphasis added) Maximum does not mean al_l_ and the areas' agricultural economy can- not be reduced to fall within jurisdictional boundaries. Apparently the Commission has attempted to implement this goal for each local jurisdiction in the Coastal Zone which had any stage or remnant of agricultural activity. It is arguable that the Coastal Zone is too small an area to study agricultural "problems." Certainly the City of Carlsbad provides an inadequate testing ground for "solutions." Interpreted reasonably, the stated policy does not dictate the requirements of the City's LCP. Section 30242 of the Act states: All other lands suitable for agricultural use shall not be converted to non-agricultural uses -21- unless: 1) continued or renewed agricultural use is not feasible, or 2) such conversion would preserve prime agricultural land or con- centrate development consistent with Section 30241. It is Carlsbad's position that Section 30241 and 30242 do not mandate permanent preservation of "agricultural land" in every coastal city. The Coastal Commission is a regional agency and the Coastal Act provides the policies to consider land uses at a regional level. The Commission has been consistently criti- cized about the level of specificity in its review process. The agricultural requirements in the Carlsbad LCP provide a good example of the Commission's attempt to regulate agricul- tural preservation on a community-by-community level. Carlsbad is the only city in the Coastal Zone which has an "Agricultural Subsidy Credits Program." The program was devel- oped by the State Commission staff and is a variation of a con- cept suggested by PRC-Toups in its plan. The Agricultural Subsidy Credits Program attempts to manipulate the agricultural economy in Carlsbad by mandating a "fee for development" on certain properties and identifying other prop- erties to receive this fee as subsidy for remaining in agricul- ture. The Commission maintains that the program is entirely discretionary and does not force property owners to partici- pate. Technically this is correct. In practice, however, the alternative for not paying the fee is no development. The alternative for not taking subsidy money is continued agricul- tural zoning with no financial aid. Obviously, none of the options are reasonable. The Commission developed and imposed this elaborate system in order to "preserve" about 1000 acres of "agricultural land." The fact of the matter is that most experts agree the land to be saved is marginal at best. When one adds the other vital factors of water cost, labor cost, market access and the like, the concept of permanent preservation becomes almost humerous. The most ironic factor in the program is the fact that the best soil types for agriculture are found on the lands that are given the "option" for development if a fee is paid. Quote from a local farmer: "The big developers got off the hook. The people down here (in the preserve) are just the scape- goats for the whole thing. We don't have the money to fight this." Not one of the farmers in the City has agreed to the program. They have continually stated that they have no intention of -22- participating. They contend that there is no correlation between the availability of agricultural land and the acti- vity of farming. In other words, the land is only one factor in a farmer's decision to farm. If the other factors are not present, available agricultural land will sit fallow. Of the 1000 acres of "preserved" land, possibly half (and this ratio is dropping progressively) may be in production depending on those other factors. The Commission has been accused of for- cing the preservation of open space under the guise of agricul- tural preservation. It is impossible to continue agriculture in an area if the far- mers do not wish to farm. Farmers farm to make a living and if they cannot, they leave. The following statements were made in February 1984 by affected farmers regarding the subsidy program: "It's been known since the '30s that this land (that to be retained in agriculture) is the pits." "That land (in the preserve) is of marginal quality to sustain long-term farming." Local farmers have been trying to diversify to compete in the national market; however: "The key to diversification is better soils and there is the fundamental flaw in the LCP and the subsidy program." "No matter what you did to preserve agriculture, they (the Commission) wouldn't be happy with it." "Most people in agriculture have commitment and love for it. They wouldn't give it up, but they might relocate. But the thing that aggravates me more than anything else is they (the Commission) took that option away. And I think that just about says it for everybody up here." In the last year, two tenant farmers in the subsidy area have gone bankrupt. One farmer landowner has gone bankrupt. One farmer landowner has been selling off part of his land to make up for losses (he cannot borrow against it because it has no value). About 30% of the agricultural leases in the area have been dropped for economic reasons. It looks as if the City of Carlsbad is headed for little sustained agriculture and lots of "open space," not to mention economic hardship for property owners. The Coastal staff states that the subsidy program makes Carlsbad's LCP unique in the State and that "it's a fairly creative approach -23- to dealing with what (I think) everyone thinks is a signif- icant land use issue." A property owner in the development fee area stated the fol- lowing: "I think it's blackmail. Between the delays and the fees, the price of the land doubled. The people who eventually will use the prop- erty will have to pay the penalty." THE CITY HAS HAD A CONSISTENT POINT OF VIEW Carlsbad has taken an active and positive position on coastal planning since the beginning of the statewide coastal process. It is supportive of the intent of the Coastal Act. Any city which did not have a progressive and responsible planning and development process would no doubt shy away from participating in any special purpose statewide land use control project. Carlsbad has: 1. A functioning, up-to-date General Plan which serves as the basis of the City's planning efforts. 2. State of the art Master Planning, Specific Planning, Site Development Planning and Scenic Preservation Planning programs. 3. A Master Drainage Plan which covers the entire city and is referred to as a "model" by the Coastal Commission. 4. A grading ordinance which is considered good enough by the Commission to be imposed by them by reference through their permit system in Carlsbad. 5. An Environmental Ordinance and review system which is considered one of the most comprehen- sive. 6. An active interest in wetland and lagoon preser- vation as evidenced by its leadership-planning for Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoons. 7. An established record of understanding agricul- tural issues. The City of Carlsbad is the only city in the county which has negotiated and maintained a Williamson Act agricultural preserve -24- on over 500 acres of the best farm land in the City. The City also actively main- tains leased farm activity within undeveloped parklands suitable for such use. Carlsbad agrees strongly with the basic tenet of the Coastal Act; that is, that the policies of the Act should be formu- lated into a plan by the local government and tailored to its unique circumstances. Statewide policies must be applied in a way that reflects the diversity of a thousand miles of coastline. Maintaining the integrity of the poli- cies while maintaining flexibility should have been, but was not, the watchword for LCP administration. An independent study of the Coastal Commission done by the University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Governmental Studies in 1978 summarizes the position: "Need for Understanding and Respect There is a lack of sufficient Coastal Commission understanding of local planning problems, and of differences among local jurisdictions. 1. If the coastal planning process is to work, the experience of other coastal states suggests that mutual respect between Coastal Commission staff and their local counterparts (LCP staff) is essential. In several states with substan- tial coastal planning experience, collegia!, peer-review relationships developed between the coastal planners at the different levels. This kind of cooperative team effort can be much more constructive than confrontation, but also takes time, communication and understan- ding by all parties. 2. There is need for more personnel working in the coastal planning process at the regional and state levels who have backgrounds and expe- rience in urban planning and in the ways in which local decisionmaking processes work. 3. There are wide variations among coastal com- munities in degree of urbanization, economic base or lack thereof, fiscal and human resour- ces, prevailing public attitudes, susceptibi- lity to developmental pressures, environmental factors, natural resources, recreational oppor- tunities and many others. These differences should be acknowledged and considered in the coastal planning process." -25- HHERE ARE SENSITIVE COASTAL RESOURCES? In the City's view, one of the most detrimental circumstances in the coastal planning process was the failure of the Coastal Commission to comply with one requirement of the Coastal Act. That requirement was for the Commission to identify "signifi- cant coastal resources" at the outset of the LCP process. Section 30502 of the Coastal Act of 1976 states, in part: (a) The Commission, in consultation with affec- ted local governments and the appropriate regional commissions, shall, not later than September 1, 1977, after public hearing, designate sensitive coastal resource areas within the Coastal Zone... Section 30500 states the requirement for a Local Coastal Program, Section 30501 requires the establishment of procedures for LCP development, and Section 30502 calls for the Commission to iden- tify important resources. The legislation is clear in its prio- rity in this regard. From a planning standpoint, the identification of those "things" on which the plan will focus is accepted procedure. Planning for resources which are not known, or specifically defined, leads to confusion, indecision and conflict. If all parties concerned know the rules and "things" those rules effect, the planning process usually works. In failing to identify sensitive coastal resources, the Commission staff was able to argue that any given area contained them and, therefore, required intense scrutiny. It is the City's position that much of the existing Carlsbad Coas- tal Zone does not contain significant coastal resources. Modifi- cation of the Coastal Zone boundary after 1977 indicates that the Commission did not feel certain areas in Carlsbad had resources which necessitated their protection. Almost 1000 acres were excluded from Carlsbad's zone. The lands excluded have identical characteristics to much of the existing property still within the Coastal Zone. THE CITY WANTS A SOLUTION The remaining substantial issues between the City and the Coastal Commission in the Carlsbad LCP are agriculture and the Coastal Zone boundary. The City will not agree to the Agricultural Sub- sidy Credits Program. The area now subject to Coastal Commission authority is excessive and is not reflective of sensitive coastal resources. Separate from these issues, there is a distinct possi- bility that an agreement could be reached on a Local Coastal Plan for Carlsbad. -26- The Coastal Commission has recognized the City's redevelopment program and returned permit authority in this area. The Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan is certified. There are few conflicts between the City's General Plan and the Commission's LCP for a good portion of the remaining Coastal Zone area. It has been since 1972 that Carlsbad lost its land use authority in the Coastal Zone. The City has continuously wor- ked in good faith to regain that authority in the context of the prevailing coastal laws. It has not been a completely fruitful experience, but can be set right. The City stands ready to participate in the reso- lution of the remaining issues once and for all. -27- OCEANSIDE BUENA VISTA LAGOON;? HWY 78 6000 SCALE CITY OF CARLSBAD PACIFIC OCEAN COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARIES EXISTING AND PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED |"»|i||"» -28- LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM SUMMARY & ANALYSIS 5-84 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS CITY OF CARLSBAD RESEARCH/ANALYSIS GROUP PREPARED BY TOM HAGEMAN, PRINCIPAL PLANNER MAY 14, 1984 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION A Maps C,D II. SUMMARY OF LAND USE POLICIES 1 - North Coastal Zone Area 1. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat 1 2. Geologic, Floodplain, Shoreline Hazards 2 3. Public Works and Public Services . 5 4. Recreation and Visitor-Serving Uses 5 5. Shoreline Access 6 6. Scenic, Visual, Historic Resources 8 7. Affordable Housing 9 III. SUMMARY OF LAND USE POLICIES 12 - Central Coastal Zone Area 1. Agriculture 12 2. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat 17 3. Geologic, Floodplain, Shoreline Hazards 19 4. Public Works and Public Services 22 5. Recreation and Visitor-Serving Uses 22 6. Shoreline Access 23 7. Scenic, Visual, Historic Resources 25 8. Affordable Housing 26 IV. SUMMARY OF LAND USE POLICIES 28 - South Coastal Zone Area Hello Bill I - Standard Pacific 1. Maximum Density of Development 28 2. Buffers 29 3. Drainage, Erosion Control 29 4. Housing 30 5. Parking 30 6. Environmental Impact Report 30 Occident!'al Land 1. Land Uses 30 2. Housing 31 3. Drainage, Erosion Control 32 4. Parking 32 5. Environmental Impact Report 32 Rancho La Costa Property 1. Maximum Density of Development 32 2. Agriculture/Planned Development 33 3. Drainage, Erosion Control 33 4. Housing 34 5. Buffer/Open Space 35 6. Parking/Siting 35 7. Environmental Impact Report 35 Mello Bill II Properties 1. Agriculture 36 2. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat 43 (Batiquitos Lagoon Policy 3-3) 3. Geologic, Floodplain, Shoreline Hazards 45 4. Public Works and Public Services 49 5. Recreation and Visitor-Serving Uses 50 6. Shoreline Access 51 7. Scenic, Visual, Historic Resources 53 8. Affordable Housing 54 V. SUMMARY OF IMPLEMENTATION (Zoning) 57 Mello Bill I 1. Coastal Resource Overlay Zone 57 2. Planned Agricultural Zone 59 3. Planned Community Zone - Rancho La Costa 62 4. Changes to Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance 63 Mello Bill II 1. Planned Agricultural Zone 66 2. Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone 69 3. Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone 70 4. Low/Moderate Income Housing Zone 75 5. Addition to Planned Community Zone - 75 Kelly Point, Macario Canyon 6. Changes to Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance 76 INTRODUCTION It is the intent of this report to provide a focal point for discussion and comparison at a general level of Carlsbad's "certified" Local Coastal Programs (LCPs) and the City policy or position. The comparison format is a summary of the certified docu- ments by policy group found in the "land use plan" portions of the LCPs. There are three functional segments of the City's Coastal Zone: the Agua Hedionda LCP, which is an agreed to plan and not a subject of this report; the Mello Bill I LCP, which covers specific properties in the southern part of the coastal zone, and the Mello Bill II LCP, which covers the remaining coastal zone area. Each of these regulatory docu- ments has separate land use and implementation components. Many of the LCP sections are long and detailed. As one can imagine, this creates a very complicated set of rules and regulations to understand. One of the reasons the City has never agreed to adopt the Mello I and Mello II documents is that they would be difficult to administer. In order to reduce the complexity of understanding the concepts of the LCPs, staff has structured this analysis to deal with three geographically identifiable areas in the coastal zone. The existing LCP policies are summarized and applied to the geographic coastal zone area. Hopefully, this will provide an understandable link between areas of the City and the generalized LCP rules and regulations. The format of this report presents the LCP policies accompanied by notations of existing city policy or practice in the left margin. As one progresses through each geo- graphic area of the coastal zone, north to south, the sum- marized LCP policy can be compared to the position of the City. Each policy group is presented in the order found in the certified LCP. Following the policy summary and comparison section, is a summary of the Mello Bill I and Mello Bill II implementing ordinances. Because the land use plans are so detailed, there -A- is less difference between "land use" and "zoning" than nor- mally found in local government plans. The implementation summary is presented to show how the Coastal Commission "translates" its policies into zones. Each zone is presen- ted in the order found in the certified LCP. This summary is intended for general review only. If it is necessary to analyze the particulars of a given policy, it is suggested that the "official" LCP document be used. -B- OCEANSIDE BUENA VISTA LAGOON;? HWY 78 \ 6000' PACIFIC OCEAN J Illlllllllllll CITY OF CARLSBAD MELLO I AREA AGUA HEDIONDA PLAN AREA MELLO II AREA -c- OCEANS1DE BUENA VISTA LASOO" '"" HWY 78 \ PACIFIC OCEAN CITY OF CARLSBAD NORTH CZ AREA CENTRAL CZ AREA SOUTH CZ AREA -D- SUMMARY OF EXISTING CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE POLICIES NORTH COASTAL ZONE AREA: Generally that area of the Coastal Zone (CZ) bounded by Buena Vista Lagoon on the north, Agua Hedionda Lagoon (AHLCP boundary) on the south and the existing CZ boundary on the east. LCP Land Use Plan Policy Groups Applicable ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREAS Similar concept in O.S. element No similar policy G.P. shows residential 10-20 d.u. per acre Similar concept in O.S. & con- servation ele- ment, geo & seismic safety element and grading ordinance Policy 3-1: Slopes and Preservation of Vegetation 1. Establishes the importance of non-agricultural "natural" slopes for habitat and erosion con- trol values. 2. Prohibits the development of slopes of greater than 25%. 3. Allows a development credit of up to one dwel- ling unit per acre to be allowed on developable land for each acre of land in 25% slope. Policy 3-2: Buena Vista Lagoon 1. Addresses the first row of lots bordering the lagoon. 2. Allows up to four dwelling units per acre. 3. Requires detailed topographic and vegetation maps to be submitted to the city. -1- 4. Infers that the city should locate the boundary of the wetland and 25% slopes. 5. Requires a 100 foot setback from the edge of the No similar lagoon - and an open space easement as a condition policy of approvali Less than -joo feet is allowed if the shoreline is bounded by 25% slopes. 6. Density is calculated excluding the wetland areas. 7. Storm drains proposed by the city which would be carried through or empty into the lagoon are dis- allowed. 8. No further land divisions are allowed except by PUD permit. Policy 3-4: Grading and Landscaping Requirements 1. These are in addition to the grading ordinance in Similar conceptin grading tne Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan model. ordinance „ „ .. . ..L. . , „ ^ L -, ^ ..-,-,2. Grading is prohibited from October 1 to April 1. 3. All graded areas must be landscaped by October 1 and checked for adequacy on December 1. GEOLOGIC, FLOODPLAIN. AND SHORELINE HAZARD AREAS Policy 4-1: Coastal Erosion 1. Requires site specific geologic investigation for all new development along the shoreline (refers to Commission's Geologic Stability and Bluff top Guide- lines). 2. The required report must insure bluff stability for at least 75 years, or life of structure. -2- 3. Encourages directing runoff away from bluff and No conflict drought-resistant vegetation. 4. If assurance of structural stability cannot be provided, (presumably from required report) aNo similar policy waiver of public liability must be provided. Policy 4-2: Coastal Erosion 1. Pursue mitigation measures which address causesNo conflict of beach erosion. Policy 4-3: Coastal Erosion 1. Allows shoreline structures such as breakwaters and groins only to serve "coastal dependent uses" or protect existing structures in danger or mitigate adverse impacts on local sand supply. . ., 2. Permits for shoreline structures may include beachNo similar policy replenishment requirements. 3. Seawall "maintenance" shall be included in the issuing structure permit. 4. Projects which produce dredge spoils shall be req- uired to deposit them on the beach if suitable. Policy 4-4: Coastal Erosion No similar policy. ^ Disallows all development on beach or ocean bluffMost controlled by State P & R face _ except accessways for public. Policy 4-5: Landslides and Slope Stability Similar concept 1. -Emphasises soil investigations in the La Jolla in geologic & seismic safety Group soils. element 2. Requires soils investigations for all develop- ment in areas known to be prone to landslide -3- (again refers to Coastal Commission's Geologic Stability and Blufftop Development Guidelines). Policy 4-7: Accelerated Soil Erosion 1. No development on 25% slopes. 2. Requires a runoff plan by licensed engineer to No similar insure no increase in peak runoff for a 10-year policy frequency storm. Refers to catch basins, silta- tion traps, etc. as examples of controls. 3. All approvals shall include detailed maintenance Similar concept provisions for drainage/erosion facilities. in grading ordinance 4. All drainage/erosion control facilities shall be installed prior to, or concurrent with deve-lopment. Policy 4-8: Accelerated Soil Erosion 1. Changes from natural conditions shall be a minimum. Policy 4-9: Accelerated Soil Erosion mi ar concep ^ Suggests general methods of minimizing erosion to ordinance on-site erosion during a grading operation. Policy 4-10: Accelerated Soil Erosion 1. Calls for general sedimen't control from grading sites, Policy 4-11: Flood Hazards Similar concept ^ Cites use of the Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan with in floodplain overlay zone |_CP changes. Policy 4-12: Flood Hazards 1. Calls for amendment of the city grading ordinance to "greatly reduce" on-site and off-site erosion due to construction. -4- Policy 4-13: Flood Hazards Suggested in 1. Calls for formation of improvement districts in master drainage plan undeveloped areas to implement the Master Drain- age Plan. 2. Requires downstream erosion facilities prior to upstream development. Policy 4-14: Flood Hazards Fees suggested in 1- Calls for new drainage facilities (in improvement master drainageplan districts) to be financed by bond, or per acre fees. Policy 4-15: Flood Hazards No conflict !• No development in 100 year flood plains. Policy 4-16: Flood Hazards No conflict !• Calls for adoption of Master Drainage Plan. Policy 4-17: Seismic Hazards 1. Calls for Uniform Building Code to be updated for No similar more adequate earthquake protection. policy 2. Calls for specific geologic investigations for develop- ment of four units or more to address liquifaction in known problem areas. PUBLIC WORKS AND PUBLIC SERVICES CAPACITIES Policy 5-1: No conflict 1' Calls for completion of "regional sewerage transporta- tion system." RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVING USES Policy 6-6: City is 1. Calls for new visitor serving facilities as well as pursuing existing facilities at Elm and Ocean Avenues. -5- Policy 6-8: 1. A portion of C-2 zone 2. No conflict SHORELINE ACCESS No similar policy No conflict Policy 7-1: 1. Policy 7-2: 1. Policy 7-3: 1. No similar policy Defines visitor serving commercial uses: Hotels Motels Recreation facilities Restaurants and bars Amusement parks Public parks Horticultural gardens Farmers markets Customary accessory uses States that the May Co. properties at the east end of Buena Vista Lagoon are designated for commercial use (not visitor serving). Requires an access point on the "vacant parcel located adjacent to-the Army/Navy Academy at Del Mar Street." Recommends that the Coastal Conservancy and CalTrans provide signing for shore access points. Requires the city to ensure lateral access to the shore- line and "formalize shoreline prescriptive rights." Irrevocable offers of dedication must be provided as a condition of approval to ensure shoreline access. -6- \No similar policy (Native Sun Prop, conditioned to provide access) Policy 7-6: 1. No similar policy Regulated by permit Policy 7-8: 1. Policy 7-10: 1. No conflict Policy 7-11 1. Up to State P & R Indicates historic public use adjacent to Buena Vista Lagoon and requires new development to include continued provision. (Refers specifically to the area near the "railroad tracks to the ocean shoreline.") Requires an access trail along the southern shore- line of Buena Vista Lagoon to be developed in consul- tation with Department of Fish and Game. Requires a dedication of access easements from adjacent properties. Offer of dedication is for 21 years and the minimum width of the access is 25 feet, "upland" from sensitive habitat areas. Establishes guidelines for development of the "Native Sun" property at north end of Ocean Street. Identifies the existing Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance parking standards as "appropriate for the future dev- elopment of various land uses." Identifies portions of the state beach areas (not specifically) as underutilized. Calls for their development through the State Parks and Recreation Department "master plan." -7- Policy 7-12: 1. Requires "single family infill" development seaward No conflict of Ocean Street to be set back from the ocean by the "string!ine" method. Policy 7-13: 1. Restricts all future public improvements from obstruc- No conflict tion of coastline visual access. Policy 7-14: No similar 1. Recommends all vertical access to the beach be at policy least 10 feet in width. Policy 7-15: 1. Requires the "Mcmahon property" on Ocean Street to Complete . dedicate verticle access as a part of coastal permit F2875. SCENIC AND VISUAL RESOURCES; HISTORIC RESOURCES Policy 8-1: Similar concept l. Calls for the Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone (exis-in Scenic High- ways element ting) to be applied "where necessary" through the city coastal zone to preserve views. 2. Calls for all parcels considered for development to be individually reviewed for potential view obstruction. policy 3. Designates the Planning Commission to enforce "approp- riate" height limitations, "see-through construction" and limitation of topographic alterations. Policy 8-2: 1. Calls for the city to work with property owners toNo conflict determine which local and federal programs for Historic -8- Preservation could be utilized. Policy 8-3: 1. Calls for the city to adopt a policy by which Similar concept ... . j. • ...• ^ uin Housina unique characteristics of older communities element can be protected." Emphasis is placed on the "Elm Street corridor." Policy 8-4: Similar concept 1- Calls for the city to implement measures to miti- in Title 19/ Environmental Ord. 9ate native impacts on archaeological and paleon- tological resources. Policy 8-5: 1. Sets standards for on premise signs: Some conflict - each business: one facade sign. with city zoning ordinance - shopping complex: one directory sign 15' high maximum. - 3 or less commercial uses on one parcel: monument : sign not to exceed 8' in height. ? - "tall" freestanding and roof signs prohibited. - off-premise/billboards prohibited. No conflict - square footage for signing is to be dictated by the current city standards. AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES Similar but not exact wording in Housing element Policy 9-1: 1. Policy 9-2: 1. 90 units shall be "rehabilitated" in the coastal zone. Allows demolition of low/moderate income units only for health and safety reasons, or to implement redevelopment plans. -9- Policy 9-3: 1. No similar wording Requires one for one replacement for those units demolished. Requires displaced tenants to be given "priority" under Section 8 program. Disallows condo conversion when: - it would displace low/moderate income households. - the vacancy rate is less than 5% for total avai- lable rental stock. Allows conversions if 30% of the units are reserved for low/moderate income housing and other criteria are met. Policy 9-4: 1. Requires an "overlay zone" for "permanent" mobile No conflict nome uses to be developed and applied for existing mobile home uses. Policy 9-5: No conflict 1- Cites various sources of assistance for housing. Policy 9-6: 1. Cites use of the "Housing Development Fund" to allow the city to participate in covering public costs ofNo conflict construction in return for development of guaranteed low/moderate income rents. Policy 9-7: Similar but not exact wording in Housing element 1. Requires the city to provide incentives for provision of "affordable" housing. Examples: -10- - up to 25% bonus in density. - half reduction in off-street parking - reduction of fees - provision of city-wide Master EIR __ Policy 9-8: 1. Established the following standards for new resi- dential construction of 20 for-sale units or more: - 10% for "low income" No similar - 15% for "low or moderate" policy - 25% density bonus by right - "affordability and resale controls" required Policy 9-9: 1. Defines low income, moderate income and affordable housing for use in the LCP. -11- SUMMARY OF EXISTING CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE POLICIES CENTRAL COASTAL ZONE AREA: Generally that area of the Coastal Zone (CZ) bounded on the north by Agua Hedionda Lagoon (AHLCP boundary), Palo- mar Airport Road on the south and the existing Coastal Zone boundary on the east. LCP Land Use Plan Policy Groups Applicable AGRICULTURE Policy 2-1 1 No similar policy Establishes the "basic agricultural policy" for Carlsbad's coastal zone. - protect and promote agricultural use on suitable lands. - agriculture is essential to the local economy. - large lot zoning is not adequate to protect the resource and insure long-term utilization. - incentives and assistance are necessary to pro- mote continued use. - it may be acceptable under provisions of the Coastal Act to allow conversion of some agri- cultural land in order to provide "incentives" for the remaining lands to remain in production. -12- No similar policy No similar policy Establishes "basic agricultural use regulation: planned agriculture": - requires city to adopt the "Planned Agricul- tural Zone" (PAZ) for all "suitable" agricul- tural lands in the coastal zone because of the following factors: - agricultural soils - climate - surrounding land use - lot size - public service availability - absence of sensitive natural, or man-made, features. Designates agricultural lands by reference to an exhibit and further describes by the following: - all have soils rated at Class 1 through VIII - all have a history of crop production. Describes the agricultural subsidy program: - defines "subsidized agricultural lands" for "continued or renewed agricultural production." These lands are "eligible to receive subsidies for continued agriculture. - defines "potentially developable agricultural lands as those suitable for conversion for develop- ment. Requires these lands to pay a fee to "offset1 adverse impacts on continued agriculture. -13- - defines "mixed-use agricultural lands" as those on which some urbanization can take place in conjunction with continued agricultural produc- tion. 5. Calls out the specifics of the Agricultural Subsidy Program. 6. Calls out permitted uses on all agricultural lands. - Class 1 through Class IV lands = traditional agricultural uses plus one single-family dwelling per existing legal parcel. No similar " class v tnr°ugn Class VIII lands = all those per- policy mitted in previous section plus some retail uses such as nurseries, farm outlets, hay and feed stores and the like. 7. Calls out conditional uses and uses on agricultural lands identified by the LCP but not participating in the Agricultural Subsidy Program. - potentially developable lands not participating are designated for a maximum density of one dwel- ling per 10 acres. - subsidized agricultural lands not participating shall be governed by uses established by #6 above. Policy 2-2: 1. Sets specific uses for "mixed-use lands" and identifies the "Site 1" area as the Ecke parcel east of Paseo del Norte and north of Palomar Airport Road. -14- No major conflict -clarification of "permanent" necessary Policy 2-3: 1. No conflict - conversion of land to urban uses may occur pursuant to approval of master plan for the property. - calls out uses conditionally permissable for existing legal parcels subject to a Master Plan (see next item). - allows up to 90 acres of commercial or resi- dential development on the "site 1" (Ecke) property (to be clustered along Paseo del Norte and Palomar Airport Road) in return for dedication of a permanent agricultural easement to the city or Coastal Conservancy over the remaining area. Designates those properties which "have been in agricultural production in the past" but are allowed to convert to urban uses - without participating in the Agricultural Subsidy Program. - a 20-acre parcel owned by State Parks and Recreation on the north-east quadrant of Carlsbad Boulevard and Palomar Airport Road. - a 50-acre parcel owned by Burroughs Corporation on Avenida Encinas. - a 6-acre parcel owned by Ecke on Avenida Encinas. - a 13-acre parcel owned by Ukegawa south of Palomar Airport Road to be designated for "Planned Industrial" uses. It is suggested that the site be used for agri- cultural processing purposes. -15- Policy 2-4: 1. No conflict in general 2. Policy 2-5: 1. Policy 2-6: No conflict Policy 2-7: 1. Policy 2-8: 1. No conflict - justifies the conversion of these proper- ties by indicating their development will provide "stable urban/rural boundaries." Identifies about 100 acres of "agricultural land" along El Camino Real too small and fragmented for sustained agriculture. Designates these lands as residential; one dwel- ling unit per acre. Disallows any subdivision of the land if it is under cultivation. Calls on the city to support floriculture by recog- nizing the UC Extension Service efforts to establish a farm cooperative/flower auction in north county. Requires the city to "take measures" to reduce the reliance on imported water in agriculture. Suggests possible methods. States that the "city supports the policy of the Met- ropolitan Water District" to provide agricultural users water at a lower rate than domestic users. Requires the city to support proposals for public expen- ditures for "minor drainage improvements and other similar projects" which make designated land more suitable for agricultural use. -16- No conflict No conflict No similar policy Similar concept in grading ordinance Policy 2-9: 1. Calls on the city to work with the Federal Government regarding foreign labor. Policy 2-10: 1. Calls on the city to "continue" support of other groups' and boards' educational/regulatory efforts regarding agriculture. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREAS Policy 3-1: Slopes and Preservation of Vegetation 1. Establishes the importance of non-agricultural "natural" slopes for habitat and erosion control values. 2. Prohibits the development of slopes of greater than 25%. 3. Allows a development credit of up to one dwelling unit per acre to be allowed on developable land for each acre of land in 25% slope. Policy 3-4: Grading and Landscaping Requirements 1. These are in addition to the grading ordinance in the Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan model. 2. Grading is prohibited from October 1 to April 1. 3. All graded areas must be landscaped by October 1 and checked for adequacy on December 1. Policy 3-5: 1. Designated the "Kelly Point/Macario Canyon area" as "Planned Residential/Agriculture." The policy refers to Attachment "A" for specifics. -17- No similar policy No similar policy Density: - 80% of the "acres in cultivation in the 1980 tax year" are designated for one dwel- ling unit per 10 acres. - the remaining 20% are allowed the "maximum intensity of development" recognizing slopes. - 25% slopes or greater are designated one dwelling unit per 10 acres. - slopes between 20 and 25% = 1 d.u. per 5 acres. - slopes between 15 and 20% = 1 d.u. per acre. - slopes between 10 and 15% = 2 d.u. per acre. - slopes less than 10% = 6 d.u. per acre. - requires the area to be planned using the PC zone and Master Plan provisions. Agriculture/PC development: - requires'the master plan to be conditioned to provide the "80%" agricultural land specified as "permanent" agriculture. Drainage, Erosion Control: - no structures on 25% slopes or greater. - if "highly erodible soils are involved" no structures on 10% slopes or greater. - runoff must be controlled so as not to exceed its "present state" - necessary improvements must be made on site and off. - siltation mitigation devices must be installed prior to site grading. -18- - all undeveloped slopes must be placed in open space easements. - changes in the "Drainage, Erosion Control" req- uirements may be made if "innovative techniques" are used and the overall permissable density is cut in half - other qualifications are also imposed, for example, if lands 20% or greater No similar are involved, only 1/4 of the slope area can be policy "disrupted." Housing: - 15% of the allowable housing shall be "affordable to a full range of low and moderate income house- holds." - a 20% density bonus is applicable. Parks: - Allows parks as a permitted use subject to the standards in "Drainage, Erosion Control." GEOLOGIC. FLOODPLAIN AND SHORELINE HAZARD AREAS Policy 4-1: Coastal Erosion 1. Requires site specific geologic investigation for all new development along the shoreline (refers to No similar Commission's Geologic Stability and Blufftop Guide-policy lines). 2. The required report must insure bluff stability for at least 75 years, or life of structure. 3. Encourages directing runoff from bluff and drought- No conflict resistant vegetation. -19- No similar policy No conflict No similar policy No similar policy Most controlled by State P & R Policy 4-5: 1. Similar concept in geo. & seismic safety element 4. If assurance of structural stability cannot be provided, (presumably from required report) a waiver of public liability must be provided. Policy 4-2: Coastal Erosion 1. Pursue mitigation measures which address causes of beach erosion. Policy 4-3: Coastal Erosion 1. Allows shoreline structures such as breakwaters and groins only to serve "coastal dependent uses" or protect existing structures in danger or miti- gate adverse impacts on local sand supply. 2. Permits for shoreline structures may include beach replenishment requirements. 3. Seawall "maintenance" shall be included in the issuing structure permit. 4. Projects which produce dredge spoils shall be req- uired to deposit them on the beach if suitable. Policy 4-4: Coastal Erosion Disallows all development on beach or ocean bluff face - except accessways for public. Landslides and Slope Stability Emphasises soil investigations in the La Jolla Group soils. Requires soil investigations for all development in areas known to be prone to landslide. Policy 4-6: Accelerated Soil Erosion 1. Applies to areas "west of existing Paseo del Norte, west of 1-5 and El Camino Real, upstream of exis- ting storm drains." -20- - site specific reports on methods of mitigating increased runoff and soil erosion required. No similar - refers to the standards in the Appendix policy of the Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan as "minimum" requirements plus: - grading from April through September only - revegetation of all slopes after grading - method of permanent "maintenance." Policy 4-8: Accelerated Soil Erosion 1. Changes from natural conditions shall be minimum. Similar Policy 4-9: Accelerated Soil Erosion concepts in , , J . . . . . .grading • Suggests general methods of minimizing erosion to on-site erosion during a grading operation. Policy 4-10: Accelerated Soil Erosion 1. Calls for general sediment control from grading sites. Policy 4-11: Flood Hazards Similar concept 1 • Cites use of the Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan with in floodplain overlay zone LCP changes. Policy 4-12: Flood Hazards ,, 1. Calls for amendment of the city grading ordinance to "greatly reduce" on-site and off-site erosion due to construction. Policy 4-13: Flood Hazards 1. Calls for formation of improvement districts inSuggested in master drainage undeveloped areas to implement the Master Drain-plan age Plan. -21- 2. Requires downstream erosion facilities prior to upstream development. Policy 4-14: Flood Hazards Fees suggested 1. Calls for new drainage facilities (in improvement in master drain- age plan districts) to be financed by bond, or per acre fees. Policy 4-15: Flood Hazards No conflict ^ No devel°Pment in 10° year flood plains. Policy 4-16: Flood Hazards 1. Calls for adoption of Master Drainage Plan. Policy 4-17: Seismic Hazards 1. Calls for Uniform Building Code to be updated No similar for more adecluate earthquake protection. policy 2. Calls for specific geologic investigations for development of four units, or more, to address liquifaction in known problem areas. PUBLIC WORKS AND PUBLIC SERVICES CAPACITIES Policy 5-1: No conflict 1- Calls for completion of "regional sewerage transportation system." RECREATION AND VISITOR-SERVING USES Policy 6-2: 1. Calls for a "new regional park containing 200 M3.G3.Z* i OC nvon P k to "^ acres in order to adequately serve the public." 2. Suggests the Agua Hedionda LCP area, or Bati- quitos Lagoon area. -22- Policy 6-4: 1. No similar policy Policy 6-5: 1. No conflict Policy 6-8: 1. A portion of C-2 zone SHORELINE ACCESS No conflict Policy 7-2: 1. Policy 7-3: 1. Calls for "additional overnight camping faci- lities" and suggests Agua Hedionda LCP area or the Batiquitos area. Calls for an additional 40 acres of visitor- serving uses to be established in the coastal zone. This equals approximately 200 rooms. - suggested areas are 1-5 and Palomar Airport Road and/or Poinsettia Lane. Defines visitor-serving commercial uses: Hotels Motels Recreation facilities Restaurants and bars Amusement parks Public parks Horticultural gardens Farmers markets Customary accessory uses Recommends that the Coastal Conservancy and CalTrans provide signing for shore access points. Requires the city to ensure lateral access to the -23- No similar policy. Most up to State P & R Policy 7-4: 1. Policy 7-5: 1. Up to State P & R Policy 7-9: 1. Policy 7-10: 1. No conflict Policy 7-11 1. Up to State P & R shoreline and "formalize shoreline prescrip- tive rights." Irrevocable offers of dedication must be pro- vided as a condition of approval to ensure shoreline access. Requires an additional access point at Carlsbad Boulevard and Palomar Airport Road. Requires that the "ill-defined walkways" and access points along much of South Carlsbad State Beach be improved as part of the State Parks and Recreation Master Plan process. Requires that the 20-acre parcel at the north east quadrant of Carlsbad Boulevard and Palomar Airport Road be developed for parking of approximately 1500 vehicles. Identifies the existing Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance parking standards as "appropriate for the future development of various land uses." Identifies portions of the state beach areas (not specifically) as underutilized. Calls for their development through the State Parks and Recreation Department "master plan." -24- Policy 7-13: 1. No conflict Restricts all future public improvements from obstruction of coastline visual access. No similar policy Policy 7-14: 1.Recommends all vertical access to the beach be at least 10 feet in width. SCENIC AND VISUAL RESOURCES; HISTORIC RESOURCES Policy 8-1: Similar con- -| cept in Scenic Highways ele- ment 2. No similar policy 3. Policy 8-2: 1. No conflict Policy 8-3: Similar con- cept in Housing element 1, Calls for the Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone (existing) to be applied "where necessary" through the city coastal zone to preserve views. Calls for all parcels considered for development to be individually reviewed for potential view obstruction. Designates the Planning Commission to enforce "appropriate" height limitations, "see-through construction" and limitation of topographic alterations. Calls for the city to work with property owners to determine which local and federal programs for Historic Preservation could be utilized. Calls for the city to adopt a policy by which "unique characteristics of older communities can be protected." Emphasis is placed on the "Elm Street corridor." / -25- Policy 8-4: Similar concept 1. Calls for the city to implement measures to in Title 19/Environmental mitigate negative impacts on archaeological Ordinance , . . . . .and paleontological resources. Policy 8-5: Some conflicts ^ Sets standards for on premise signs: with city , . . . .zoning " eac^ Business: one facade sign. or inance _ ^opp^pg complex: one directory sign 15' high maximum. - three or less commercial uses on one parcel: monument sign not to exceed 8' in height. ? - "tall" freestanding and roof signs prohibited. - off-premise/bin boards prohibited. No conflict - square footage for signing is to be dictated by the current city standards. AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES Similar but not exact wording in Housing element Policy 9-1: 1. Policy 9-2: 1. 2. 3. 90 units shall be "rehabilitated" in the coastal zone. Allows demolition of low/moderate income units only for health and safety reasons, or to implement redevel- opment plans. Requires one for one replacement for those units demolished. Requires displaced tenants to be given "priority" under Section 8 program. -26- Policy 9-5: No conflict 1. Policy 9-6: 1. No conflict Policy 9-7: 1. Similar but not exact wording in Housing element Policy 9-8: 1. No similar policy Policy 9-9: 1. Cites various sources of assistance for housing. Cites use of the "Housing Development Fund" to allow the city to participate in covering public costs of construction in return for development of guaranteed low/moderate income rents. Requires the city to provide incentives for pro- vision of "affordable" housing. Examples: - up to 25% bonus in density. - half reduction in off-street parking. - reduction of fees. - provision of city-wide Master EIR. Established the following standards for new resi- dential construction of 20 for-sale units or more: - 10% for "low income" - 15% for "low or moderate" - 25% density bonus by right - "affordability and resale controls" required. Defines low income, moderate income and affordable housing for use in the LCP. -27- SUMMARY OF EXISTING CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE POLICIES SOUTH COASTAL ZONE AREA: Generally that area of the Coastal Zone (CZ) bounded by Palomar Airport Road on the north, the Carlsbad city boundary on the south and the existing CZ boundary on the east. LCP Land Use Plan Policy Groups Applicable Note: The South Coastal Zone Area contains the "Mello Bill I" properties which are the "Standard Pacific," "Occidental Land" and "Rancho La Costa" parcels. These areas were "certified" by the Coastal Commission prior to and separately from the LCP for the rest of the city. The reason is not clear, but the format for the "certified" document is different from the LCP for the remaining coastal zone (Mello Bill II). Therefore, this sum- mary will cover the Mello Bill I properties first, then resume the establi- shed policy summary format. STANDARD PACIFIC PROPERTY Maximum Density of Development Policy 1: 1. Seven dwelling units per gross acre maximumNo conflict using the city's RD-M zone or PC zone. 2. Requires an "overlay zone" to be imposed No similar which "incorporates the Coastal Act require- policy ments." -28- 3. States that all uses in the RD-M zone Conflict with city definition of conditional use 4. Allows Poinsettia Lane to be extended only are "conditional uses" through the overlay zone. No conflict No similar policy to the eastern boundary of the site. 5. States that the LCP is not intended to pre- clude access to the east. Buffers Policy 2: 1. Requires a concrete block wall 6 feet high to be constructed between residential uses and agricultural uses. 2. Allows "partial" alternatives such as "natural topographic separations." 3. Requires "maintenance" of these areas to be provided by the homeowners association. Drainage, Erosion Control Policy 3: 1. Requires "site-specific" mitigation for increased runoff and sedimentation, identified through indi- vidual report. 2. The report must be subject to the requirements of the city's Model Erosion Control Ordinance in the appendix of the 1980 Master Drainage Plan. 3. Requires all mitigation to be complete prior to initial grading. 4. Grading allowed between April and October only. Some con- flicts in specific wording -29- 5. Requires revegetation of graded areas immediately. 6. Requires permanent maintenance of the miti- gating facilities. Housing No Policy 4: similarpolicy !• Requires 25% "affordable" housing with a 25% density bonus. Parking Policy 5: No 1. Indicates that parking shall be dictated by theconflict city's ordinance. Environmental Impact Report Policy 6: Noconflict ^' Requires an EIR for the development proposed on site. OCCIDENTAL LAND PROPERTY . Land Uses - Planned Development Poli cy 1: 1. Requires the "Planned Agriculture Zone" to be applied to the property. No 2. Call out agriculture as the "primary use" withsimilar policy conditional uses possible. 3. Provides alternatives for "development." - on Class I through IV soils 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres. - on Class IV, or below, 2 dwelling units per acre. -30- No conflict in land use No similar policy Housing Policy 2: No similar it policy - requires retention of existing trees on site. - if all five parcels of the Occidental land are jointly planned and developed, the fol- lowing apply: - soils below Class IV = 4 d.u. per acre. - commercial uses may be allowed on the parcels south of Poinsettia Lane adjacent to 1-5 if 35% of the land area is devoted to tourist commercial. - the two parcels north of Poinsettia Lane and the "easternmost" parcel with Class I - IV soils shall be permanently designated as agricultural by recordation of an "agri- cultural easement." - the following applies if the owner records the "easement": ...development may be allowed on 25 acres east of Paseo del Norte with up to 7 d.u. per acre. ...development may be allowed on 28 acres below Class IV soil east of Paseo del Norte with up to 7 d.u. per acre. Requires that 25% of the units be "affordable" if the 4 and/or 7 d.u. per acre densities are approved - and allows a 25% density bonus. -31- Some con- flicts and additions to existing policy Drainage, Erosion Control Policy 3: 1. If the 4 and/or 7 d.u. per acre plans are allowed, requires site specific studies to pro- vide mitigation for increased runoff and sedimen- tation, subject to the city's Model Grading Ordinance. 2. Requires all mitigation to be complete prior to initial grading. 3. Grading allowed between April and October only. 4. Requires revegetation of graded areas immediately. 5. Requires permanent maintenance of facilities. Parking Policy 4: No conflict !• Indicates that parking shall be dictated by the city's ordinance. Environmental Impact Report ' Policy 5: No conflict 1. Requires an EIR for the development proposed on site. RANCHO LA COSTA PROPERTY Maximum Density of Development Policy 1: 1. Agricultural land = 1 d.u. per 10 acres. 2. Slopes greater than 25% = 1 d.u. per 10 acres.No similar policy 3. Slopes between 20 and 25% = 1 d.u. per 5 acres. -32- 4. Slopes between 15 and 20% = 1 d.u. per acre. 5. Slopes between 10 and 15% = 2 d.u. per acre. 6. Areas with less than 10% slope = 6 d.u. per acre. Agriculture/Planned Development Policy 2: No conflict !• Requires the use of a Master Plan for development of the property. 2. Designates "all development" as "conditional uses Conflict w/city definition of anc* requires a coastal permit and master plan." conditional use3. Requires at least 200 acres of Class I through IV No similarpolicy soils to be permanently restricted to agriculture. Drainage, Erosion Control Policy 3: 1. If density is allowed pursuant to Policy 1, the fol- lowing are standards: - no grading on slopes in excess of 20%. - if soil is "highly erodible" no gradingNo similar policy in areas greater than 10%. - drainage and runoff shall not exceed "present state" and on and off-site miti- gation is required. - all mitigation measures are to be installed prior to on-site grading. - all undeveloped slopes must be placed in open space easements. - the above (Policy 3) standards may be modified through "innovative techniques," however, only -33- No similar policy Housing Policy 4: No similar i. policy if this results in less than half of the development potential stated in Policy 1. - if Policy 3 standards are modified grading may not exceed more than one quarter of the 20% or greater slopes. - provides criteria for selecting developable slope areas. - requires a site-specific technical report which uses the Model Erosion Control Ordinance and preserves the "natural drainage system" in the undeveloped watersheds. - requires a runoff control plan which assures no increase in peak runoff from the developed area over the expected current rate from a 10- year frequency storm. - suggests runoff types of control facilities. - requires detailed maintenance agreements for necessary facilities. - all facilities for runoff/erosion control must be installed prior to on-site grading. - no grading from November 1 thru March 31. - specifies detailed slope stabilization deadlines during the construction process. Requires 15% "affordable housing" as part of appro- ved development. -34- No similar policy 2. Allows a 20% density bonus for affordable housing. Buffer/Open Space Policy 5: 1. Requires a 6-foot block wall between resi- dential and agricultural uses - calls for inclusion of "natural topographic separations." 2. Requires permanent maintenance provisions. 3. Calls for use of roadways as buffers. Parking/Siting Policy 6: 1. Calls for "innovative siting and design •p criteria" due to severe site constraints. Environmental Impact Report Policy 7: No conflict T- Requires an EIR for development of the site. -35- SUMMARY OF EXISTING CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE POLICIES SOUTH COASTAL ZONE AREA: This portion of the summary does not cover policies for the Mello Bill I properties. (See the preceding section.) AGRICULTURE Policy 2-1 1 No similar policy LCP Land Use Plan Policy Groups Applicable Establishes the "basic agricultural policy" for Carlsbad's coastal zone. - protect and promote agricultural use on suitable lands. - agriculture is essential to the local economy. - large lot zoning is not adequate to protect the resource and insure long-term utilization. - incentives and assistance are necessary to pro- mote continued use. - it may be acceptable under provisions of the Coastal Act to allow conversion of some agri- cultural land in order to provide "incentives" for the remaining lands to remain in production. -36- 2. Establishes "basic agricultural use regulation: planned agriculture": - requires city to adopt the "Planned Agricul- tural Zone" (PAZ) for all "suitable" agricul- tural lands in the coastal zone because of the following factors: - agricultural soils - climate - surrounding land use - lot size - public service availabilityNo similar policy - absence of sensitive natural, or man-made features. 3. Designates agricultural lands by reference to an exhibit and further describes by the following: - all have soils rated at Class I through VIII - all have a history of crop production. 4. Describes the agricultural subsidy program: - defines "subsidized agricultural lands" for "continued or renewed agricultural production." These lands are "eligible to receive subsidies for continued agriculture. - defines "potentially developable agricultural lands as those suitable for conversion for develop- ment. Requires these lands to pay a fee to "offset" adverse impacts on continued agriculture. - defines "mixed-use agricultural lands" as those -37- on which some urbanization can take place in conjunction with continued agricultural 1 production. 5. Calls out the specifics of the Agricultural Subsidy Program. 6. Calls out permitted uses on all agricultural lands. - Class I through Class IV lands = traditional agricultural uses plus one single-family dwel- ling per existing legal parcel. - Class V through Class VIII lands = all those permitted in previous section plus some retail uses such as nurseries, farm outlets, hay and feed stores and the like.. * 7. Calls out conditional uses and uses on agricultural lands identified by the LCP but not participating No similar policy in the Agricultural Subsidy Program. - potentially developable lands not participating are designated for a maximum density of one dwel- ling per 10 acres. - subsidized agricultural lands not participating shall be governed by uses established by #6 above. 8. Refers to the Mello Bill I LCP and discusses an "option" for the Occidental Land property, if the owner elects to participate in the Agricultural Subsidy Program: -38- No similar policy it is not clear whether the option for residen- tial density is intended to supercede the Niello Bill requirements or in addition to it. the area east of 1-5 and north of Poinsettia is designated for a maximum of 12 d.u. per acre (the Niello Bill I requirement appears to allow 7 d.u. per acre). it is also unclear how the policy intends to deal with open space dedication on the Occidental Land property, it states that "82 acres located north of of Poinsettia Lane on both sides of 1-5 are not sub- ject to a recorded offer to dedicate an open space easement." It goes on to say that if a "Master Plan" is approved the Commission will "recind the offer to dedicate." the Lusk Lands are required to adhere to the following: - a Master Plan as required in the city's zoning ordinance is required and payment of the agricul- tural subsidy fee (if development is desired). - allows commercial development on any of the Lusk Land - at least 25% of two parcels must be "visitor- serving." - a maximum residential density of 12 d.u. per acre is allowed. - requires development to occur pursuant to Ch. 21-38 of the city's zoning ordinance and the Coastal Res- ource Overlay Zone in the Mello Bill I LCP zoning ordinance. -39- No conflict No similar policy 9. - requires that "affordable housing" be provi- ded subject to "Section 9 of the Coastal Resource Overlay Zone" (presumably in the Wello Bill II implementing ordinances). - Shell Oil Lands and Bakers Life and Casualty Lands are required to develop through a Master Plan with additional regulations stated below: - a maximum density of 12 d.u. per acre - uses Ch. 21-38 of the city zoning ordinance and the "RD-M zone" and the Coastal Resource Overlay Zone in the Mello Bill I LCP - requires "affordable housing" by Section 9 of the Coastal Resources Overlay Zone. Describes the specifics of the Agricultural Subsidy Program. The following does not attempt to detail the provisions of the program. If specifics are needed it is recommended that pages 8, 9 and 10 be referred to in the Mellow Bill II LCP land use plan. - administration: requires a payment schedule to be developed in consultation with land owners - assumes that the allocation of payments will take place within 5 years. - 2/3 of the total fund is to be used for pay- ments to owners and 1/3 is to be used for improvements to aid agriculture. - allows 1% of the fees for adminsitration. - calls for a report recommending how to use improvement funds. -40- - if after 5 years it is determined that the funds "are not needed" in Carlsbad they may be used elsewhere. - calls for the city to administer the program or if the city does not participate the Coastal Conservancy. - computation of fees: sets the fees at $24,050 per gross acre and describes the methodology of compu- ting the fee. - calls for the fee to be "adjusted" using the Consumer Prince Index (CPI). - calls for the initial adjustment on January 1, 1982. - cash grants: identifies $4,352,647 as the total fund for the first year of the program. - identifies the payment schedule to allocate funds. No similar _ calls for the owners to "demonstrate good faith"policy by recording an irrevocable offer to dedicate a permanent agricultural easement over their lands in order to receive payment. - calls for the offer to run for 21 years "with the property." - disallows subdivision of the land with the offer to dedicate. - calls for the offer to be made prior to payment of funds. -41- '\ Policy 2-3: 1. No conflict Policy 2-4: 1. (No conflict in general) Policy 2-5: 1. No conflict - improvements fund: identifies $3,217,488 as the total funds available the first year for improvements. - calls for the funds to be used for "physical or institutional improvements needed to facilitate long-term agricultural production." Identifies properties which have been in agricultural production in the past but shall be allowed to convert to urban uses without participation in the subsidy program. - allows the 13-acre "Ukegawa" land south of Palomar Airport Road to convert to industrial uses, pref- erably "supportive of the agricultural economy." - justifies the conversion of these properties by indi- cating their development will provide "stable urban/ rural boundaries." Identifies about 100 acres of "agricultural land" along El Camino Real too small and fragmented for sustained agriculture. Designates these lands as residential; one dwelling unit per acre. Disallows any subdivision of the land if it is under cultivation. Calls on the city to support floriculture by recogni- zing the UC Extension Service efforts to establish a farm cooperative/flower auction in north county. -42- Policy 2-6: 1. Policy 2-7: 1. Policy 2-8: 1. No conflict Policy 2-9: 1. Policy 2-10: 1. Requires the city to "take measures" to reduce the reliance on imported water in agriculture. Suggests possible methods. States that the "city supports the policy of the Metropolitan Water District" to provide agricultural users water at a lower rate than domestic users. Requires the city to support proposals for public expenditures for "minor drainage improvements and other similar projects" which make designated land more suitable for agricultural use. Calls on the city to work with the Federal Government regarding foreign labor. Calls on the city to "continue" support of other groups' and boards' educational/regulatory efforts regarding agriculture. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREAS Policy 3-1: Similar concept in '• O.S. element 2. No similar policy Slopes and Preservation of Vegetation Establishes the importance of non-agricultural "natural" slopes for habitat and erosion control values. Prohibits the development of slopes of greater than 25%. -43- No similar policy Policy 3-3: 1. 2. No similar policy , Allows a development credit of up to one dwel- ling per acre to be allowed on developable land for each acre of land in 25% slope. Addresses Batiquitos Lagoon. Indicates erosion, drainage and sedimentation were addressed in the Mello I LCP. Calls for same requirements and policies for Mello II LCP. Calls for clustering of development to preserve "sensitive habitat areas" and maintenance of "permanent open space." Establishes the following "minimum" standards for areas which develop "a'djacent to the lagoon." - minimum 100 foot setback from "wetland" and refers to the Policy 3-2 for Buena Vista Lagoon to establish wetland. - two-thirds of the development allowed is to be clustered on half the property furthest from the lagoon. - requires all "mature trees" to be "preserved." - requires the offer to dedicate "land for public recreation use" to the city or coastal conservancy. - calls the offer "irrevocable for a term of 21 years." - requires the land dedication to be "a size adequate to accommodate public use" including picnic tables and public parking. -44- No similar policy Similar concept in grading ordinance No similar policy - requires an "access trail parallel to the lagoon shore," at least 15' wide with "unob- structed views." - allows a density credit of 1 d.u. per acre for each 2%% of total lot (excluding wet- lands) which is "maintained in open space and public recreation in excess of 50% of total lot area." - allows land divisions bordering the lagoon only with a "planned development permit" over the entire original parcel. - allows a maximum of .12 d.u. per acre. Policy 3-4: ' Grading and Landscaping Requirements 1. These are in addition to the grading ordinance in the Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan model. 2. Grading is prohibited from October 1 to April 1. 3. All graded areas must be landscaped by October V and checked for adequacy on December 1. GEOLOGIC. FLOODPLAIN AND SHORELINE HAZARD AREAS Policy 4-1: Coastal Erosion 1. Requires site specific geologic investigation for all new development along the shoreline (refers to Commission's Geologic Stability and Blufftop Guide- lines) . 2. The required report must insure bluff stability for at least 75 years, or life of structure. 3. Encourages directing runoff from bluff and drought- resistant vegetation. -45- No conflict Policy 4-2: 1. Policy 4-3: 1. No similar policy Policy 4-4: Controlled by State P & R 1 Policy 4-5: Similar concept 1 in geo. & seismic safety element <L If assurance of structural stability cannot be provided, (presumably from required report) a waiver of public liability must be provided. Coastal Erosion Pursue mitigation measures which address causes of beach erosion. Coastal Erosion Allows shoreline structures such as breakwaters and groins only to serve "coastal dependent uses" or protect existing structures in danger or mitigate adverse impacts on local sand supply. Permits for shoreline structures may include beach replenishment requirements. Seawall "maintenance" shall be included in the issuing structure permit. Projects which produce dredge spoils shall be req- uired to deposit them on the beach if suitable. Coastal Erosion Disallows all development on beach or ocean bluff face - except accessways for public. Landslides and Slope Stability Emphasises soil investigations in the La Jolla Group soils. Requires soil investigations for all development in areas known to be prone to landslide. -46- •Policy 4-6: 1. No similar policy Policy 4-7: 1. Similar grading in grading ordinance Accelerated Soil Erosion Applies to areas "west of existing Paseo del Norte, west of 1-5 and El Camino Real, upstream of existing storm drains." - site specific reports on methods of miti- gating increased runoff and soil'erosion required. - refers to the standards in the Appendix of the Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan as "mini- mum" requirements plus: - grading from April through September only - revegetation of all slopes after grading - method of permanent "maintenance." Accelerated Soil Erosion Requires all slope in excess of 25% to be "undisturbed." Requires no increase in "peak runoff" from that of the existing undeveloped site during a "10- year frequency storm." Provides examples of runoff control facilities and requires them not to be "concentrated in one area." Requires permanent maintenance arrangements for facilities. Requires all runoff control facilities be instal- led prior to on-site grading. -47- Master plans have similar provisions Similar concepts in grading ordinance Policy 4-11 Similar concept in floodplain overlay Suggested in master drainage plan Suggested in master drainage plan 6. Requires all "undevelopable slopes" to be placed in open space easements. Policy 4-8: Accelerated Soil Erosion 1. Changes from natural conditions shall be minimum. Policy 4-9: Accelerated Soil Erosion 1. Suggests general methods of minimizing ero- sion to on-site erosion during a grading operation. Policy 4-10: Accelerated Soil Erosion 1. Calls for general sediment control from grading sites. Flood Hazards Cites use of the Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan with LCP changes. Policy 4-12: Flood Hazards 1. Calls for amendment of the city grading ordinance to "greatly reduce" on-site and off-site erosion due to construction. Policy 4-13: Flood Hazards 1. Calls for formation of improvement districts in undeveloped areas to implement the Master drain- age Plan. 2. Requires downstream erosion facilities prior to upstream development. Policy 4-14: Flood Hazards 1. Calls for new drainage facilities (in improve- 1. -48- ment districts) to be financed by bond, or per acre fees. Policy 4-15: Flood Hazards 1. No development in 100 year flood plains. Policy 4-16: Flood Hazards No conflict ^ Calls foy, adoption of Master Drainage Plan. Policy 4-17: Seismic Hazards 1. Calls for Uniform Building Code to be updated No similar for more adequate earthquake protection, policy 2. Calls for specific geologic investigations for development of four units, or more, to address liquifaction in known problem areas. PUBLIC WORKS AND PUBLIC SERVICES CAPACITIES Policy 5-1: 1. Calls for completion of "regional sewerage transportation system." Policy 5-2: 1. Calls for the city to meet "growth demands beyond the coastal zone" by Encina WPCF No conflict . , . . .. ,, .enlargement and implementing the Wastewater Reclamation Master Plan. Policy 5-3: 1. Calls for the city to participate in Phase IV expansion of Encina WPCF. Policy 5-5: 1. Calls for the city to complete Poinsettia Lane as a major arterial by 1995. -49- No conflict 2. Stipulates no assessment of agricultural lands to support completion. RECREATION AND VISITOR-SERVING USES No Policy 6-1: conflict with P & R element 1. Altamira = OK No. La Costa = ? 2. Policy 6-2: 1. Macario Canyon 2. No similar policy Policy 6-4: 1. Policy 6-5: 1. No conflict Calls for "additional city parks" at a minimum size of 5 acres. Identifies the parks as "Altamira Park (11 acres)" and "North La Costa Park (5 acres)." Calls for a "new regional park containing 200 to 300 acres in order to adequately serve the public." Suggests the Agua Hedionda LCP area, or Bati- quitos Lagoon area. Calls for "additional overnight camping faci- lities" and suggests Agua Hedionda LCP area or the Batiquitos area. Calls for an additional 40 acres of visitor- serving uses to be established in the coastal zone. This equals approximately 200 rooms. - suggested areas are 1-5 and Palomar Airport Road and/or Poinsettia Lane. -50- A portion of C-2 zone Policy 6-8: 1. Defines visitor-serving commercial uses: Hotels Motels Recreation facilities Restaurants and bars Amusement parks Public parks Horticultural gardens Farmers markets Customary accessory uses Policy 6-9: Up to State 1. Calls for consideration of the campground at P & R South Carlsbad State Beach to be day-use only. 2. Allows residential and recreation-commercial G.P. shows resi- .... .---.. r- •>dential 10-20 uses y n9nt on properties fronting on Carls- el, u./acre bad Boulevard across from South Carlsbad State Beach - only if there is no agricultural conflict. SHORELINE ACCESS Policy 7-2: 1. Recommends that the Coastal Conservancy and Cal- No conflict Trans provide signing for shore access points. — Policy 7-3: No similar policy 1. Requires the city to ensure lateral access to the shoreline and "formalize shoreline prescrip- tive rights." -51- 2. No similar policy -Policy 7-5: 1. Up to State P & R •Policy 7-10: 1. No conflict Policy 7-11: 1. Up to State P & R Policy 7-13: No conflict Policy 7-14: No similar 1. policy Policy 7-15: 1. Up to State P & R Irrevocable offers of dedication must be provided as a condition of approval to ensure shoreline access. Requires that the "ill-defined walkways" and access points along much of South'Carlsbad State Beach be improved as part of the State Parks and Recreation Master Plan process. Identifies the existing Carlsbad Zoning Ord- inance parking standards as "appropriate for the future development of various land uses." Identifies portions of the state beach areas (not specifically) as underutilized. Calls for their development through the State Parks and Recreation Department "master plan." Restricts all future public improvements from obstruction of coastline visual access. Recommends all vertical access to the beach be at least 10 feet in width. Calls for day-use only at South Carlsbad State Beach campground as "additional campground faci- lities are provided within the Carlsbad area." -52- 2. Requires this designation in the "master planning efforts by the State of California." SCENIC AND VISUAL RESOURCES; HISTORIC RESOURCES Policy 8-1: 1.Similar concept in Scenic Highways element 2. No similar policy 3. Policy 8-2: 1. No conflict Policy 8-3: Similar concept in Housing element Policy 8-4: Similar concept in Title 19/ Environmental Ordinance 1 Calls for the Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone (existing) to be applied "where necessary" through the city coastal zone to preserve views. Calls for all parcels considered for development to be individually reviewed for potential view obstruction. Designates the Planning Commission to enforce "appropriate" height limitations, "see-through construction" and limitation of topographic alterations . Calls for the city to work with property owners to determine which local and federal programs for Historic Preservation could be utilized. Calls for the city to adopt a policy by which "unique characteristics of older communities can be protected." Emphasis is placed on the "Elm Street corridor." Calls for the city to implement measures to mitigate negative impacts on archaeological and paleontological resources. -53- Policy 8-5: Some conflict "! • Sets standards for on-premise signs: with city , . . , ,zoning " e business: one facade sign. ordinance _ shopping complex: one directory sign 15' high maximum. - three or less commercial uses on one parcel: monument sign not to exceed 8' in height. ? - "tall" freestanding and roof signs prohibited. - off-premise/billboards prohibited. No conflict " sc?uare Dotage for signing is to be dictated by the current city standards. AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES Policy 9-1: 1. Policy 9-2: Similar but not exact ^• wording in Housing element No similar policy Policy 9-3: 1. 90 units shall be "rehabilitated" in the coastal zone. Allows demolition of low/moderate income units only for health and safety reasons, or to implement redevelopment plans. Requires one for one replacement for those units demolished. Requires displaced tenants to be given "priority" under Section 8 program. Disallows condominium conversion when: - it would displace low/moderate income households - the vacancy rate is less than 5%. -54- No similar policy No conflict Policy 9-4: 1. Policy 9-5: 1. Policy 9-6: 1. •Policy 9-7: Similar but not exact wording in Housing element 1 Policy 9-8: 1. No similar policy Allows conversion when: - 30% of the units are reserved for low/ moderate housing. Requires an "overlay zone" for permanent mobile home use at existing parks. Cites various sources of assistance for housing. Cites use of the "Housing Development Fund" to allow the city to participate in covering public costs of construction in return for development of guaranteed low/moderate income rents. Requires the city to provide incentives for provision of "affordable" housing. Examples: - up to 25% bonus in density. - half reduction in off-street parking. - reduction of fees. - provision of city-wide Master EIR. Established the following standards for new residential construction of 20 for-sale units or more: -55- - 10% for "low income" - 15% for "low or moderate" - 25% density bonus by right No similarpolicy - "affordability and resale controls required. Policy 9-9: 1. Defines low income, moderate income and affordable housing for use in the LCP. -56- LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION (ZONING) SUMMARY Note: There are actually three Local Coastal Programs within the City of Carlsbad; they are referred to as the Agua Hedionda LCP, the Mello Bill I LCP and the Mello Bill II LCP. The Mello Bill II LCP is some- times called the Carlsbad LCP. All LCPs have separate land use plans. The Agua Hedionda LCP does not yet have final implementing ordinances, however, the two Mello Bill LCPs contain land use and implementation sections. This summary of the implementation measures of the Mello Bill LCPs (the Agua Hedionda LCP has been agreed to by the City and the Coastal Commission and not subject to this discussion) attempts to give an over- " view of the major additions made by the Commission to the general zoning intent of the City. If detailed review of the implementation sections of the two LCPs is necessary, it will be essential to review the LCP docu- ments themselves. The overview begins with the Mello Bill I implementation which covers three properties: Occidental Land, Standard Pacific and Rancho La Costa Properties. This will be followed by a description of the Mello Bill II implementation. MELLO BILL I Coastal Resource Overlay Zone Purpose: 1. "Supplements" underlying zones. 2. Provides "additional" resource protection. -57- 3. Covers property in the "watershed of Bati- quitos Lagoon." 4. Requires development to be compatible with the "unique habitat." 5. Protects agricultural uses. 6. Protects "low/moderate" housing. Authori ty/Conf1i ct: 1. If conflicts arise between existing ordinances and this zone, this zone will supercede. *Note: The zone generally disallows "subsequent amendments to the underlying zones," or sections of the overlay without approval of the Coastal Commission. Permits: 1. Requires all "developments" to obtain a "coastal development permit." Permitted Uses: 1. Calls all uses of the underlying zone "con- ditional." Density: 1. Maximum = 7 d.u. per acre. 2. P-C or RD-M zones required. 3. Existing parking standards apply. Mitigation: 1. Requires "all" mitigation identified in the project EIR to be incorporated into the con- ditions of approval. -58- Erosion Sedimentation, Drainage: 1. Requires all "permit applications" to include a report on erosion sedimentation and drainage by a "qualified professional." 2. Generally restates the provisions of the policies set forth in the Land Use section of the LCP for erosion sedimentation and drainage. Buffer: Housing: Restates like policies found in the Land Use Plan. Restates like policies found in the Land Use Plan. Findings: 1 Requires "findings" to be made with all "deci- sions granting a development." These essentially reaffirm conformity with previous sections. 2. Requires findings for all denials. Planned Agricultural Zone Purpose: 1. Established to implement sections of the Coas- tal Act. 2. Calls agriculture a "priority." 3. Requires a "master plan" to protect agriculture. -59- 4. Calls for standards on "prime and non-prime" agricultural 'lands. 5. "Fosters" renewed agriculture. 6. Provides development "opportunities" for "visitor-serving commercial users." Definitions: 1. Covers agricultural lands, commercial recrea- tion, land division, non-agricultural land, agricultural parcel and visitor-serving corn- commercial. Permits Required: 1. Requires all "developments" to obtain a coas- tal development permit." Permitted Uses: 1. Covers Classes I through VIII agricultural land. 2. Very similar to the City's Exclusive Agricultural Zone (E-A). Conditional Uses: 1. Designates "land divisions" and uses identified by master plan as "conditional." Land Divisions: 1. Requires a "coastal development permit" for land divisions in the planned agricultural zone. Planned Agricultural Permit: 1. Requires a master plan 2. Sets submittal requirements. -60- 3. "Additional Residential Development" is allowed at 1 d.u. per 10 acres. 4. Minimum lot area = 1 acre. 5. Requires a "buffer" for each d.u. 6. Allows up to 2 d.u. per acre for Class V- VIII land. 7. Allows commercial and residential uses if "Planned Agricultural Zone is developed as a single unit." 8. Provides a "package deal" if the land owners "recombine or develop as a single unit." - Class V-VIII soils = 4 d.u. per acre - allows 28 acres south of Poinsettia to develop with the City C-I designation. 9. Provides an additional package deal if the landowners elect to recombine or develop as a single unit prior to December 1, 1980 and record an irrevocable offer to dedicate an agricultural easement on certain property. - 7 d.u. per acre density - commercial uses o.k. Requirements for a Master Plan: 1. Calls for the following: - master plan document with specific inclusions, - easements over agricultural lands. -61- - an "Agricultural Land Management Plan." - specific wording on a map and deed. - specific housing requirements. - buffers. Findings: 1. Requires approval and denial findings. Addition to Planned Community Zone - Rancho La Costa Additional standards: 1. In addition to the previously mentioned master planned standards, others are included. 2. Permi ts - coastal development permit. - all uses are "conditional." - master plan required. 3. Maximum Density - same as those established in the land use plan for Rancho La Costa. 4. Erosion, Drainage, Sedimentation - same as those in land use plan. 5. Buffer/Open Space - more detail than land use plan. 6. Agriculture - more detail than land use plan. 7. Agricultural Land and Open Space Management Plan requires a "plan" for both agricultural and open space and calls out specifics. 8. Map and Deed Notice - calls for specific wording on these documents and points out that adjacent -62- residential uses should be prepared to "accept" agricultural "inconveniences." 9. Housing - modifies the previously stated general housing requirements. 10. Siting/Parking - calls for "innovative siting and design criteria" but does not give specifics. 11. Findings - calls for approval and denial findings. Changes to Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance Definition: 1. Adds the "definition" of development from the Coastal Act of 1976. 2. Adds a definition of "structure" - "includes but not limited to" : - any building - road - Pipe - flume - conduit - siphon - aqueduct - telephone line - electrical power transmission and distribution line. Sign Ordinance - additions: 1. Each "business" = 1 facade sign -63- 2. Each "shopping complex" = 1 directory sign up to 14 feet high. 3. Monument signs = 8 feet high where "three or fewer commercial establishments exist on a parcel." 4. "Tall" freestanding and rood (roof?) signs are not allowed. 5. Off-premise signs disallowed. Conditional Uses: 1. Excludes some exisitng conditional uses from the coastal zone, e.g. cemeteries, churches, public and private schools. 2. Adds wording to the conditional use section as it pertains to the coastal zone. Variances: 1. Adds that the variance must be consistent with the LCP. 2. Adds that the variance must not adversely affect "coastal resources." Boundaries of the Coastal Zone: 1. Allows the boundaries of the zones within the Coastal Zone to be modified under certain circum- stances. 2. Does not apply to the existing coastal zone boundary. 3. Gives specifics of zone boundary change request pro- cedures. -64- Permit Application: 1. Generally uses the existing code. Dedication of Land and Fees for School Facilities: 1. Deletes land dedications as stipulated in Chap- ter 21.55 of the city code from the coastal zone. Private Agreements: 1. Adds wording to the existing section. Judicial Review, Enforcement and Penalties: 1. Same as existing code. Violations: 1. Adds the Public Resources Code.to the existing section. Coastal Development Permit Procedures: 1. Establishes some unique definitions, for example: - "Allowable Use" = any use allowed by right which does not require a public hearing, or any discretionary or non-discretionary permit of the approving authority. - "Conditional Use" = any use which requires a public hearing. 2. Calls out appeal areas in the coastal zone. 3. Provides requirements for coastal development permi ts. 4. Identifies "exemptions." 5. Generally parallels the existing coastal commi- ssion's administrative procedures for permits. -65- LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION (ZONING) SUMMARY MELLO BILL II This section contains an overview of the Mello Bill II implementation. The affected area is generally the entire Carlsbad coastal zone exclu- ding the Agua Hedionda LCP and the Mello Bill I areas. Planned Agricultural Zone Purpose: 1. Established to "implement" the Coastal Act. 2. Recognizes agriculture as a "priority use." 3. Establishes "mechanisms" to assure the con- tinued and renewed agricultural viability. 4. Calls agriculture "essential" to the'local economy. 5. Calls for "agricultural zoning" and "large lot zoning" as needed incentives. 6. Calls for permitted and conditional uses as well as an agricultural subsidy program. 7. Calls the agricultural subsidy program "volun- tary." Definitions: 1. Identifies "agricultural lands." 2. Identifies "subsidized agricultural lands." -66- 3. Identifies agricultural lands suitable for development. 4. Defines Class I-IV agricultural lands. 5. Defines Class V-VIII agricultural lands. 6. Defines land division as the creation of any new property line. 7. Defines visitor-serving commercial uses. - hotels and motels - customary recreational facilities - restaurants, bars, entertainment, dancing - theme amusement parks - "farmers"/markets - accessory uses. Permits Required: 1. Necessary for all "development." Permitted Uses on Agricultural Lands: 1. Calls out the usual low intensity agricultural uses for Class I-IV and Class V-VIII soils. 2. All "land divisions" are conditional. Conditional Uses and Land Divisions of Agricultural Lands: 1. Calls out uses for the lands not participating in the subsidy program. - 1 d.u. per 10 acres - no agricultural parcels less than 20 acres for field crops; 10 acres for greenhouses -67- - the section does not apply to the Occi- dental Land property - disallows additional residential use on the "subsidized agricultural lands." Agricultural Subsidy Program: 1. Restates the provisions spelled out in the land use plan portion of the LCP. Mixed Use Program Applicable to the Ecke Property: 1. Restates the provisions spelled out in the land use portion of the LCP. Requirements for a Master Plan: 1. Adds provisions to those of the city's existing requirements. - must identify agricultural and non- agricultural areas - must show easements - must include an "agricultural land management plan" - a statement on the map and deeds must inform surrounding development that agricultural "inconveniences" may occur - "affordable housing" must be shown - buffers must be provided. Findings: 1. Requires findings for approvals and denials. -68- Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone Purpose: 1. Supplements underlying zone with additional "resource protection." 2. Covers Buena Vista Lagoon, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, Batiquitos Lagoon and steep sloping hillsides. 3. Establishes regulations which "provide the best wildlife habitat characteristics." 4. Encourages "proper lagoon management." 5. Deters soil erosion. 6. Implements sections of the Coastal Act. Applicant: 1. "Applicable to all properties in the Coastal Zone." 2. The zone prevails in conflicts with other zones or provisions. Permit: 1. "Development" requires a coastal development/ conditional use permit. Development Standards: 1. Preservation of steep slopes and vegetation. - prohibits development on 25% slopes - allows up to 1 d.u. per acre "credit" - requires an irrevocable offer to dedicate slope areas for open space. -69- 2. Drainage, Erosion, Sedimentation, Habitat - covers Buena Vista Lagoon and restates provisions in the land use plan - covers Batiquitos Lagoon "watershed" and restates provisions in the land use plan for the Rancho La Costa properties - covers areas "west of existing Paseo del Norte, 1-5 and along El Camino Real" upstream of existing storm drains and restates standards from the land use plan - covers "all other areas in the Coastal Zone/1 and provides extensive provisions similar to those in various sections of the land use plan. Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone Purpose: 1. Covers the "beaches, bluffs, and the land area immediately landward thereof." 2. Controls development to maintain the "public's interest" in maintaining unique resources, pro- moting safety and access, and avoiding bluff erosion. Application: 1. Applied to the area between the sea and the first public road parallel to the sea. -70- Permitted Beach Uses: 1. Permit required. 2. Steps and stairways. 3. Bath houses. 4. Temporary refreshment stands (no seating). 5. Rental concession stands. 6. Lifeguard towers. 7. Picnic facilities. 8. Trash containers. 9. Beach shelters. Conditional Developments: 1. Allows uses "substantially similar" to the above by "coastal shoreline development permit and conditional use permit requirements." 2. Covers "revetments, breakwaters, groins, sea- walls" and the like. Developments of Uses Not on the Beach Subject to CD Permit: 1. Defines non-beach as areas at an elevation of 10 feet or more above mean sea level. 2. Allows grading and excavation at "a minimum necessary." 3. Requires drainage to be away from the bluff or non-damaging to the bluff. 4. Disallows deposition on the bluff or beach. 5. Calls for use of the "stringline method" for siting new development fronting the ocean. -71- Public Access: 1. Requires a minimum of 25 feet of dry sand beach at all times as a condition of new development. 2. "Lateral access" is also required for the following: - seawalls, etc. - areas of "historic public use" - if the project adversely affects existing public access - developments of "non-priority uses," for example: . residential . non-visitor . non-coastally oriented commercial/industrial - areas identified for access in the LCP - Buena Vista Lagoon - north end of Ocean Street. Standards: 1. Calls for findings to be made in determining amount and type of additional lateral access. 2. Gives criteria for determination. Bluff Top Access: 1. Calls for bluff top access in situations where there is no beach or the beach is inaccessible. -72- 2. Requires at least a 25 foot accessway. 3. Requires the access in addition to lateral beach access if "new developments along the bluff top" result in "additional burdens to public access." 4. Defines the bluff top. 5. Requires a "monument" to be placed as a fixed reference point for the access. Vertical Access: 1. States that developments between the shore and first public road may be required to pro- vide lateral and vertical access. 2. Establishes standards for determining if vertical access is required. 3. Establishes standards for access development. Special Access Requirements for Developments of New Developments on Sites Containing Evidence of Historic Public Use Siting and Design: 1. Development may not "diminish" potential public rights. 2. Allows development to occur in the "area of potential historic public use" with provisions. 3. The access requirement does not waive potential perscriptive rights. 4. Specifies the parcels seaward of Carlsbad Boule- vard adjacent to Buena Vista Lagoon as showing evidence of historic use. -73- Mechanism for Guaranteeing Public Access: 1. Calls out legal instruments required - irrevocable offer - outright grant, fee interest, or easement - deed restrictions. 2. Requires title information from the applicant. 3. Calls out legal procedures. Continued Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone Site Plan Required: 1. Requires a site plan application for development in the zone. 2. Calls out application requirements. Site Plan Review Criteria: 1. Calls for the "Director" to review and evaluate site plans on the following criteria: - Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone - Appearance - Ocean Views - Retention of Natural Features - Grading and Earth-moving - Public Access. Geotechnical Reports: 1. Requires reports to be submitted to the Planning Director. 2. Specifies contents of the reports. -74- Waiver of Public Liability: 1. Requires the waiver for all coastal shore- line development permits. 2. Requires the applicants to assume liability for shoreline hazards. 3. Disallows claims by the applicant against the Commission or City. 4. Disqualifies the applicant from claiming public disaster funds. Low and Moderate Income Housing Zone Generally restates provisions made in the land use plan. Addition to the Planned Community Zone - Kelly Point, Macario Canyon Additional Standards: Upper Agua Hedionda Watershed 4 1. Requires a coastal development permit for development. 2. Establishes "maximum density of development" by restating requirements of the land use plan. 3. Requires a master plan. 4. Calls for specific treatment of erosion, drain- age and sedimentation as previously stated in the land use plan. 5. Calls for buffers/open space as stipulated in the land use plan. 6. Calls for the master plan to designate permanent agricultural areas (80% of the land in produc- tion in 1980). -75- 7. Requires that the mechanism for assuring per- manent agriculture is an easement in "perpetuity." 8. Requires an "agricultural land open space manage- ment plan." 9. Requires a map and deed notice which calls on adjacent residents to be prepared to accept agricultural inconveniences. Housing: 1. Requires "affordable housing" at the ratios estab- lished in the land use plan. Parks: 1. Designated parks as permitted use subject to the erosion, drainage, sedimentation section. Siting/Parking: 1. Calls for "innovative siting and design criteria." Findings: 1. Requires approval and denial findings. Changes to the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance Definition: 1. Same as Hello I implementation. Changes to Scenic Overlay Zone: 1. Calls for "maintenance" of existing views and panorama. 2. Calls for the site review process to disallow "damage to the visual beauty of the coastal zone." -76- 3. Calls for height limitations, clustering development and "frequent view." Changes to the Condominium Conversion Ordinance: 1. Conversions not permitted when: - it would displace low/moderate income households - the city vacancy factor is less than 5% for rental stock. 2. Conversions permitted when: - 30% of the units are for low/moderate income housing. Modifications to the Sign Ordinance: 1. Same as Mello I implementation. Conditional Uses: 1. Same as Hello I implementation. Variances: 1. Same as Hello I implementation. Local Coastal Program Amendments: 1. Refers to the amendment procedures of the Coastal Act of 1976 as those required to process an amendment. Permit Application: 1. Generally uses the existing code. Dedication of Land and Fees for School Facilities: 1. Deletes land dedications required in the existing zone from the coastal zone. -77- Judicial Review, Enforcement and Penalties: 1. Same as existing section. Private Agreements: 1. Adds wording to existing section. Notification of Litigation and Attorney General Intervention for Developments in the Coastal Zone: 1. Allows the city to request the Commission's Executive Director to request intervention of the Attorney General when suit has been filed regarding the issuance of a coastal permit. Violations: 1. Adds the Public Resources Code into the existing section. Amendment to the Open Space Zone: 1. Requires Carlsbad State Beach "developments" to obtain permits pursuant to the certified LCP. Amend Ordinance Applicable to CEQA: 1. Apparently calls for a change in Title 19 of the city code to add specific wording regar- ding archeological and paleontological resources. Coastal Development Permit Procedures: 1. Same as Mello I provisions. -78-