HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-10-02; City Council; 7902; Carlsbad's LCPC1T\ ;F CARLSBAD — AGENDA ILL
en
I
<D en-P Q)o • -P0) 0) 3S <D 5•H -P.-jd
4-1in dlTj
3:0.3en m
-Sg*•P en GCD «D o
CD
Q *H0 rd'd
-P -HrH
td S-I-e o
QJ 0)
S-I-Ho
oo oo
d, ^I io o
-Io
AR* 7 JO 2.
MTG 10/2/84
DEPT. CA
TITLE:
CARLSBAD'S LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
(MELLO I AND II)
DEPT. HD.
CITY ATTY\jtf>
CITY MGR. Jds
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Council's local coastal plan committee recommends that the
Council by motion:
1. State the City's intention to implement the LCP for the
Mello I & II areas, and
2. Direct the City Manager to return with a work program to
carry out that intention and give permit authority to the
City.
ITEM EXPLANATION
Mayor Casler and Councilman Chick, the City Council's Local
Coastal Program Committee, have asked our office to prepare
this agenda bill placing their recommended action before the
Council for consideration.
A memorandum from the City Manager giving some background on
the City's local coastal planning efforts and discussing some
of the considerations which bear on this question is attached.
On September 16, 1980, the Council, by motion, approved the
September 15, 1980 memorandum from the City Attorney and the
Planning Director as stating the City's policy on the LCP for
the Mello I properties and directed the Mayor to tell the
Coastal Commission the City would not approve or implement the
plan.
On May 26, 1981 the Council, by motion, affirmed its support for
the "Toups plan" as modified by the Regional Commission for the
Mello II properties. The plan adopted by the State Commission
was substantially changed. On June 9, 1981 the Council, by
motion, registered its disagreement with the ordinances written
by the state staff to implement the Mello II LCP as adopted
by the State Commission and stated that the City would not
participate in carrying them out.
If the Council now wishes to consider a change in those positions
your action is to so indicate by motion and direct the City
Manager as the Council determines necessary to carry out the
City Counci's present intentions in the matter.
PAGE 2 of AB#
FISCAL IMPACT
The City Manager reports that if the recommended action is
approved staff will be required to process general plan
amendments, zone changes, prepare enabling ordinances and
to schedule public hearings before the City Council and
Coastal Commission. He will return with a report indicating
the need for additional planning staff to handle this work
and increased workload to process the coastal permits. There
is a possibility that State funds may be available to pay
some of these costs.
EXHIBIT
Memorandum from City Manager dated September 27, 1984
BUENA VISTA
LASOON;?
PACIFIC OCEAN
— J
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MELLO I AREA
AGUA HEDIONDA PLAN AREA
MELLO II AREA
-17-3
September 27, 1984
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
The Coastal Initiative in 1972 and the Coastal Act of 1976
provided a process whereby local government could prepare
and adopt a local coastal plan (LCP) for the areas within
its coastal zone. Carlsbad commenced the planning process
in 1975.
The coastal planning process has been very complex and time
consuming. There are several parts to the Carlsbad Coastal
program.
Agua Hedionda LCP
This plan was prepared by City staff between 1975 and
1982. It was certified by the Coastal Commission in
1982 and is administered by the City. It covers 1,100
acres in and around Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
Mello I - LCP
In 1980 the state legislature mandated that Coastal
Commission adopt a plan for 1^000 acres located north
of Batiquitos Lagoon. This LCP was approved by the
Coastal Commission September 20, 1980 without the
participation or approval of i^he city.
Carlsbad LCP - Mello II
The plan now known as the Carlsbad LCP has also been
designated as "Mello II". The
1977 by the City. The Coastal Commission took over
from the city in 1980 and certified its own plan in
1981. The plan covers 5,000 e.cres of coastal lands in
Carlsbad. It excludes the Agua Hedionda LCP and blankets
in the Mello I LCP.
t plan was commenced in
Mayor and City Council
September 27, 1984
Page 2
In various presentations, hearings and reports in 1980 and
1981 the City Council took strong exception to the actions of
the State Coastal Commission. Those objections fell on deaf
ears. In the Carlsbad case the state did the planning instead
of the city; the state certified the LCP without city
concurrence; and the state administers the permit process
instead of allowing local government to do it.
The net effect is that property owners who wish to develop
in the Carlsbad coastal zone are required to go through a dual
permit process. They must first gain city approval for their
projects and then file an application for Coastal Commision
approval. The time and cost of such a burdensome process has
created problems for all parties--landowners, developers, the
state and the city.
The City's objections to the state certified LCP were explained
in letters filed with the Coastal Commission in 1980, and 1981.
In a letter dated December 29, 1981 the Mayor notified the
Coastal Commission that the City Council had opted not to approve
the Carlsbad LCP and not to submit formal amendments to the
state plan.
Since 1981 there have been some changes which have significantly
altered the conditions of the Carlsbad LCP.
1. Agricultural Subsidy Program.
The legislature has approved and the Governor
has signed AB 3744 (Bradley). The bill eliminates
the agricultural subsidy program in Carlsbad.
2. Low Cost Housing.
In 1982 the legislature eliminated the inclusionary
zoning clause which required 25% of housing units
in the coastal zone to be for low and moderate
income families.
3. Cannon Road.
The city reached agreement in 1982 on the alignment
for Cannon Road from 1-5 to El Camino Real.
4. Wetlands.
The city reached agreement with State Fish and
Game concerning the wetlands boundary for Agua
Hedionda Lagoon. The Batiquitos wetlands boundary
line has been delineated in the city's Lagoon
Management Report.
Mayor and City Council
September 27, 1984
Page 3
5. Grading.
In 1982 the city modified its grading ordinance
to more closely conform to the stringent require-
ments of the Coastal Act. Additional grading
regulations have been proposed by a Coastal
Conservancy study which is receiving city
attention at this time.
In 1984 the City Council appointed Mayor Casler and Councilman
Chick to review the LCP and consider the possibility of
proposing amendments which would allow the City to approve
the LCP.
The committee has reviewed the LCP regulations in detail and
has prepared a report which identifies the inconsistencies
between the LCP and the City General Plan.
The Committee also has noted that the major objections raised
by the city in 1980-81 have been dealt with by the legislature—
e.g. agricultural subsidy program and low cost housing. In
addition several other issues have been resolved in the past
three years. In view of this situation the committee feels that
the Council should consider assuming responsibility for
administration of the LCP. Such an action would resolve the
long standing dispute between the City and the Commission over
jurisdiction and it could eliminate the arduous and costly
dual permit process which now exists.
To be sure this action would not resolve all outstanding issues.
The City will be obligated to process developments in the
Coastal Zone and to recommend amendments to the LCP when
appropriate. The City will need to propose some substitute for
permanent agricultural zoning. Other issues will need to be
resolved over time.
If Council desires to change city policy and to consider
assuming LCP administration there are several courses of
action possible:
1. Adopt the current LCP ordinance and regulations
first and later request amendments.
2. Request the Coastal Commission to amend the LCP
first and then adopt amended regulations.
Mayor and City Council
September 27, 1984
Page 4
3. Wait until Sammis and Hunt lands are annexed
to Carlsbad LCP before assuming jurisdiction.
4. Wait until review of Land Use Element of General
Plan is completed.
If the decision is to commence action to assume jurisdiction
it will require staff to prepare enabling ordinances and to
schedule hearings before the City Council and Coastal
Commission. A report will be filed later indicating the
need for additional planning staff to handle this increased
workload. There is a likelihood that State funds may be
available to pay for some of these costs.
FRANK ALESHIRE
City Manager
FA:b
Attachments:
Exhibit A •
Exhibit B •
Exhibit C •
Exhibit D •
Exhibit E •
Exhibit E2
Exhibit F
Exhibit G •
Exhibit H •
- Mello I - City Attorney Memo (9/15/80)
- Mello I - Planning Department Memo (9/15/80)
- Mello I - Council Minutes (9/16/80)
- Mello I - Mayor letter (9/24/80)
- Mello II - Planning Director letter (5/29/81)
- Mello II - Mayor comments to Coastal Commission
(5/21/81)
- Mello II - Council Agenda Bill (6/9/81)
- Agricultural Program Council Agenda Bill (12/15/81)
- Carlsbad LCP - Mayor letter (12/29/81)
7
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 15, 1980
TO: City Manager
FROM: City Attorney
SUBJECT: LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM FOR HELLO BILL FROPERTIESQl }
After reviewing the Coastal Staff recommendation and proposed findings
for this City of Carlsbad Mello Bill properties, we have determined
that the legal considerations remain substantially the same as when
the local coastal program was submitted to the Regional Commission,
i.e., provision of low and moderate income housing in a manner
inconsistent with the City's housing element, permanent preservation
of agricultural land, transfer of development rights and insuring
that the owner of each parcel of property within the coastal zone is
allowed a reasonable economic use. Comments on this LCP should
indicate why the Coastal Commission plans will not work and should
also provide an alternative which meets the mandates of the Act.
Additionally, our criticisms should be tied to one or more of the
following requirements of the Mello Bill:
"(1) Protection of agricultural lands and uses to the
extent feasible.
(2) Minimization of adverse impacts from sedimentation.
(3) Protection of feasible public recreational opportunities.
(4) Provision for economically feasible development con-
sistent with the three elements specified in this
subdivision."
Concerning the first issue, the state staff report continues to
require mandatory inclusionary zoning within the coastal zone in a
manner which is inconsistent with the City's housing element. The
City's past contention has been that the housing crisis ought to
be solved on a city-wide basis pursuant to the housing element and
that the policies, standards and goals of the City's housing element
should be applied to the coastal zone. Apparently this contention
has remained unchanged. However, presently the City dees not have
a housing element which maets all state mandates. While revision
is occurring, it may be difficult within the time allotted for
approval of the LCP for the Mello Bill properties to adopt an
adequate housing element. For this reason, perhaps we should suggest
to the Commission that the housing program suggested by the state
staff report be included until that time in which the City adopts the
new housing element for the entire city at which time the goals,
standards and policies of the City's housing element would apply
City Manager -2- September 15, 1980
to .new residential development in the coastal zone. At that time
the conditions for mandatory inclusionary zoning and the housing
program stated in the local coastal program would no longer be
applicable. We should suggest that language be included in the
LCP which would do this automatically without the need for further
amendment. Such a suggestion would allow the Coastal Commission to
insure that its housing policies are met until the City adopts an
adequate housing element. When the new housing element.is adopted,
the goals, standards and policies of the City's housing element
would be applied to the coastal zone consistent with Section 30213
of the Public Resources Code. Legal challenge to the housing
requirments is also a reasonable choice.
Regarding agricultural preservation, the state staff is recommending
that the transfer development rights or-agricultural subsidy
credit program not be applied'to the Hello Bill property. However,
it is clear from the suggested findings that the state staff does
not intend to preclude the inclusion of the Mello Bill properties
in an agricultural subsidy program which would be applied to the
entire coastal zone under the LCP to be adopted on July 1, 1981.
If that agricultural subsidy program is, in effect, a transfer
development rights program, or requires a developer to subsidize
other agricultural land before he can develop, significant legal .
problems arise. First, general law cities are not now authorized
by the state to engage in transfer development rights programs.
Second, subsidization programs may run a foul of the special tax
limitiations imposed by the constitution. Instead of providing
for permanent agricultural use as suggested by the staff report
or one of the two other agricultural programs, the City ought to
suggest that an extensive agricultural protection program be developed
for property within the coastal zone. This program would protect
agricultural land unless it was shown, based on certain standards and
criteria, that either the land was no longer feasible as agricultural
land or that adverse effects of conversion of the agricultural land
would be mitigated to certain standards. If this were integrated
with an agricultural protection program on a city-wide basis, it
may be possible to allow conversion of agricultural land within
the coastal zone provided that agricultural land outside of the
coastal zone but within-the city was protected. The City must
understand that the Coastal Commission is extremely concerned
about the protection of coastal agricultural lands, particularly
given the mandates of Sections 30241 and 30242. Those sections
require that agricultural land be protected within the coastal
zone. Specific reference to protection of agricultural land and
uses is also made in the Mello Bill itself (Section 30170(f)).
If the City intends to attack the feasibility of agricultural use,
significant factual analysis will have to be made which prove the
feasibility.
City Manager -3- September 15, 1980
Certain of the grading restrictions which we previously objected
to have been modified. However, within the Rancho La Costa area
the density potential based on ranges of slope steepness is
difficult to interpret and implement. Also, it appears there is a
possiblity that the developer would not be able to realize the
full development potential on the slope area and may only be able
to develop up to one half of the development potential on the
property. It does appear, however, that the Coastal Commission
staff is attempting to utilize the procedure we discussed when we
met with them concerning development on slope areas if adequate
mitigation measures were provided. Notwithstanding this attempt,
development is generally prohibited on slopes greater than 20%
without factual justification. The City should recommend use of
both a mitigation technique utilizing existing or future City
ordinances, and perhaps prohibition, if mitigation of adverse
effects is not possible.
As a general comment, the staff report is in many areas vague and
ambiguous. Sentences are susceptible sometimes to two or more
reasonable interpretations and there are a variety of inconsistencies
in the plan. We'll be meeting with a legal representative from
the State Coastal Commission on Tuesday, -September 16, 1980,
to go over these inconsistencies and problems. In addition, the
implementing ordinances have not been provided. The lawyer for
the Coastal Commission indicated that those ordinances would be
provided to us prior to our September 16th meeting. We will be
conveying to the legal representatives for the Commission our
specific legal concerns on specific portions of the implementing
ordinances and the land use plan at that time. Concerning the
Occidental Land Company property, inconsistent provisions for
development are provided in the staff report. If each parcel of
land is developed separately, severe restrictions are placed on
the land and the development potential is severely restricted.
Agricultural land, however, is protected under that development
scenario. It may be under that development scenario that a
reasonable return on the property may not be possible. If this is
so, the City would have difficulty in implementing that particular
development scheme. Under the other development scenario,
increases in development potential are allowed provided that the
property develops as one complete unit. Permanent agricultural
land must be provided under the second scenaro as well. As long
as under both scenarios each individual legal parcel is afforded a
reasonable return to the property owner, development restrictions
under the coastal zone would probably withstand constitutional
scrunity. In order to attack the Commission's proposed findings
on this issue, evidence of the proposal's unworkability will need
to be provided.
City Manager -4- September 15, 1980
There are significant legal questions revolving around the imple-
mentation of this local coastal program. We have had discussions
with the Coastal staff and they indicate that it is their opinion
that once the Commission adopts the land use plan and the.ordinance
they will continue to issue developmental permits pursuant to the
adopted LCP until such time as the City approves by resolution in
a ministerial capacity the plan, the implementing ordinances and
the procedural documents. It is our opinion that upon the
effective date of adoption of all the implementing ordinances by
the Coastal Commission, that under Section 30519 of the code, the
Regional Commission would lose its power to issue coastal develop-
ment permits. , This is assuming that the. procecural ordinances are
adopted either by the Commission or by the City. We have also
discussed other legal issues such as the right to referendum and
due process with the Coastal staff. These are legal issues over
which the Commission really has no authority and may have to be
resolved in litigation subsequent to the enactment of the local
coastal program by the Coastal Commission. A further report on
the outcome of our meeting with the Coastal Commission's attorneys
will be forthcoming after the September 16th meeting. We will
attempt to have comments for you so that they can be presented to
the Council that evening. One final note, we have reviewed the
comments on the Mello Bill properties provided by the Planning
Department. These comments are an accurate reflection of the effect
of the proposal and the City's contentions. From an advocacy stand-
point, however, simply declaring that certain actions are arbitrary,
unnecessary, or contrary to past City policy may not be adequate.
Obviously the Commission does not think that the actions are any of
those things except, perhaps, contrary to City policy. If the City's
goal is to set up a good case against the Commission, we will need
to at sometime present a good factual and policy statement why we
can't or shouldn't do what the Commission requires. If the City
cannot show that the City's proposals meet the requirements of the
Coastal Act policies and mandates as v;ell or better than the
Commission's proposals, or at least cannot present a reasonable
argument that they do, or next best, hope for challenge may be on
legal grounds against the implementation process. Those strategies
will have to be developed later.
If we'can of further assistance, please let us know.
VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR., City Attorney
DANIETJ S. HENTSCHKE, Assistant
City Attorney
DSJI/mla
cc: Tom Hageman
DATE: September 15, 193*0
TO: Frank Aleshire, City Manager
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: MELLO BILL LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
The following summarizes the major issues of the State
Coastal Commission staff recommendation regarding the
Mello Bill Properties Local Coastal Program.
1. Standard Pacific (83 acres)
Current Zoning: RD-M (Multiple Zone)
Current General Plan: Medium Density (4-10)
A. Land Use: Residential, maximum 7 du/acre.
Poinsettia Lane may be extended to eastern edge
of property.
B. Buffers Open Space: Minimum 15't of gross acreage
irf~open s p a ce~a~d~ya cent to north end east boundaries
to provide buffer zones. Buffers may include
roadways, and sha]] generally be 500' on north.,
and 100' on eastern boundary.
C. Drainagc, Erosion: Site specific report required.
ATIImprovements noted in Carlsbad Master Drainage
Plan shall be fully improved between property and
Batiquitos Lagoon (i.e., storm drain) prior to
initial grading.
Housing: Mandatory inclusionory, 251 affordable
wltTE2~S% density bonus.
(Comments: Allowable density closely approximates curient
genera] plan and zoning. Requirements for buffer areas
may require new site plan and tentative tract map for
property. Off-site drainage requirements.wil1 be costly
to developer, and it may be difficult to form an
assessment district to spread costs among effected
properties. Housing requirements are counter to
stated city policy, and make no allowance for city's
Housing Element.
2. Occidental (143 acres)
Current Zoning: C-2/P-C
Current General Plan: R-C, "C, T-S/ Medium Density (4-10 du)
A- Land Use: Designated Planned Agricultural Development.
Two d e v e 1 opment scenarios are recommended. The first
is allowable if the five parcels are developed
separately, the second if the parcels are developed
under a single master plan.
1. Separate Parcel Development: Parcel with soils
classifTe~cT Class I to IV can be developed at 1
du per 10 acres, provided development is "clustered
on lots adjacent to existing roads of no greater
than one acre." All remaining agricultural lands
shall be permanently protected by agricultural
conservation easement.
Parcels with soils of Class YI+ can be developed
at 2 du/acre, clustered to provide minimum 300'
buffers adjacent to agriculture, and remaining
agriculture lands shall be covered by conservation
easement s.
2. 'PIanned Agricultural Zone: If all parcels are
"cfeVeTo7~e~cT"un"d"e~r one "master plan, the following
may occur:
Residential uses on Class YI+ soils at 4 du/acre,
using RD-M standards.
Commercial uses on two parcels south of
Poinsettia, provided 35% of land is exclusively
tourist commercial.
Exclusive Agriculture under conservation easement
for 2 parcels north of Poinsettia and adjacent
to 1-5.
B. Housing: Mandatory inclusionary if development of
eastern most parcel at 4 du/acre occurs at 251
affordable with 25% density bonus.
C. Erosion, Drainage: Site specific report required.
All mitfigation measures and Carlsbad Drainage Plan
improvements between property and Batiquitos Lagoon
must be installed prior to grading.
Comments: Recommended land uses for most of property
are inconsistent with city zoning/general plan. Maximum
residential development (approximately: 100 units +
affordable) will require new site plnn and tentative
-2-1.3
tract map for property, and is proposed to occur on
land currently designated for city park/school site.
Coastal staff proposes undefined development mechanisms
(i.e., agricultural conservation casement and planned
agricultural zone). These may be difficult to administer
and implement. Affordable housing recommendations and
permanent agriculture designation are counter to
stated city policy.
3. Rancho La Costa (774 acres)
Current Zoning: Planned Community (P-C)
Curent General Plan: Low-Medium Density (0-4 du/acre)
A. Land Use : Maximum residential development to be
computed as follows:
1. Agricultural land shall result in an allowable
development intensity of 1 dwelling unit per ten .
acres;
. 2. All slopes greater than 25 percent shall result in
an allowable development intensity of 1 dwelling
unit per ten acres;
3. All slopes greater than 20 percent but less than
25 percent shall result in a development intensity
of 1 dwelling unit por five acres;
4. All slopes greater than 15 percent but less than 20
• percent shall result in a development intensity
of 1 dwelling unit per acre.
5. All slopes greater than 10 percent but less than
15 percent shall result in a development intensity
of 2 dwelling units per acre;
6. All areas with a slope of less than 10 percent
shall result in a development intensity of 6 units
per acre.
Development shall use city's planned community zone
standards. "As a condition of approval of any master
plan the city shall require that ... Class I - IV soils
... no more than 200 acres.... shall be permanently
restricted by agricultural use."
B. Drain a g e , F. r o s i on
No grading or structures on slopes of 20%+,
or highly erodable soil slopes of ]0?
0+.
Exceptions for critical road access only.
-s-
All appropriate on/off site drainage devices
shall be installed prior to grading.
All undeveloped slopes shall be placed in
open space easements.
Modifications of criteria shall be allowed if
application results in less than, (but not to
exceed) 1/2 of allowable density.
Site specific report required.
C. Housing mandatory inclusionary of 15% affordable with
251 (Tensity bonus.
^• Buffers/Open Space: Buffer areas on at least 100'
sTdj'acent~tc> agriculture, protected through conservation
easements. •
Comments: The slope/density formula is complex and
prohibitive. Coastal staff recommends that the city
require permanent agricultural preservation as condition
of master plan approval, counter to city policy. Staff
seems to state that not more than 50% of the allowable
density may occur; this appears to be highly ambiguous.
Agricultural conservation mechanism is undefined, and may
be difficult to administer. Affordable housing
recommendations are counter to city policy.
PT:ar
9/15/80
•\
1 jiiiMiMl^liL:^!-^
I Bin,
oH
PM
Iin
U)8
oi
Cttp ot (usristiaa
Page 11 COUNCIL
September 16, 1980 307
(77)
Council recognized Dave Walton of Del Mar. Mr.
Walton explained the urgency of his request for
approval in advance of the next meeting was due
to the fact that his construction loan was
scheduled to be funded on the following day.
Coundil directed this item added to this
Agenda.
Council approved the final map of Carlsbad Tract
79-8.
COUNCIL REPORTS
JAC
Council Member Casler indicated she would be
meeting with the Vista Sanitation District
representative to discuss JAC reorganization.
Perks & Recreation Commission
Motion
Ayes
Motion
Ayes
Council Member Lewis indicated the Commission
•was desirious of guidance from Council relative
to development of Calavera Lake.
It was the consensus of Council that Council
Member Lewis respond to the Parks & Recreation
Commission that the development of Calavera
Lake will be considered by the consultant
retained to perform the Parks & Recreation
Element of the General Plan. Council policy
on the development of Calavera Lake will be
determined following completion of the
consultant's report and recommendations.
Legislation/Replenishment of Beaches
Mayor Packard referenced a communication from
representative Clair Burgener relative to
clarification of Council understanding of the
purpose of funds granted to Oceanside for
restoration of their beaches. Mayor Packard
indicated it was the also the City's under-
standing that the funds granted to Oceanside
not be used as part of -any project to remedy
erosion problems.
Council expressed appreciation that Mr.
Burgener recognized and understood the purpose
and intent of the funds.
State Coastal Commission Hearing on Mello Bill
Properties.
Mayor Packard explained the State Commission
would be meeting on Thursday, September 18, 1980
<,and it was urgent that Council take an officic'il
' position .
Council directed this matter placed on this
Agenda.
Hold on
Ayes X X X
_
dtp ot <Lansuau
Page 12
September 16, 1980 308
Mayor Packard referenced the September 15, 1980
Memorandums from the City Attorney and the
Planning Department to the City Manager, which
articulated concerns as to the Local Coastal
Plan for the Mello Bill Properties. Additionall
a Resolution has been prepared to present concer
to the Sta.te legislature. Mayor Packard noted
that while the City may not approve or disapprov
the plan, it is important that Council opposi-
tion go on record.
Council adopted the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 6306, URGING LEGIS-
LATURE TO PROVIDE BY STATUTE THAT
THE- LOCAL HOUSING ELEMENT FULFILLS
THE MANDATE OF THE COASTAL ACT TO
PROVIDE LOW AND MODERATE IK COME
. HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES.
Council also approved the September 15, 1980
.Memorandums from the City Attorney and the
Planning Department to the City Manager, as
articulating the official policy of the City
with regard to the LCP for the Mello Bill
Properties, and directed the Mayor to convey
the same on Thursday, September 15, 1980.
ADJOURNMENT
By proper motion, Council adjourned at 10:24
P.M. to Tuesday, September 23, 1980 at 7:00
P . K . for a Work Study Meeting in the Council
Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad.
Respectfully submitted,
Motion
Ayes
Motion
Ayes
X }X X
X X
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ ,
City Clerk
Anita D. Murphy,
Recording Secretary
IA1M-0 t
438-5563
""w \'?f*WfPf iVA.««'*Ji«y.>/Office of ttic Mayor
Clip of €&tis&ab
September 24, 1980
Commissioners '
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
631 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Dear Commissioners:
Becaxise of the significant objections which the City continues
to have regarding the Local Coastal Program for the "Mello
Bill" properties, the City Council has determined that it does
not intend to participate in the implementation of the plan.
In the City's opinion, the LCP does not meet the mandates of
Section 30170(f) or the policies of the Coastal Act and does
not reflect the needs of the City or its residents. Many of
our expressed concerns have fallen on deaf ears. The Commis-
sion's response, that we may seek change through the amend-
ment process, is both inadequate and unrealistic. Because the
adoption of this program will undoubtedly set a precedent for
the Local Coastal Program for the remainder of the City of Carlsbad,
I would again like to renew our concerns.
First, the City Council believes that the provisions for mandatory
inclusionary zoning for low and moderate income housing within
the coastal zone, without regard to the provisions of the City's
Housing Element, is contrary to the express language of Section
30213 of the Resources Code which states:
"New housing in the coastal zone shall be developed
in conformity with the standards, policies and goals
of local housing elements adopted in accordance with
requirements of Subdivision(c) of Section 65302 of
the Government Code."
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad has accepted the
responsibility to provide housing opportunities within the
entire City of Carlsbad for all economic sectors of the
community. The Commission's mandate for inclusionary zoning
within the coastal zone disrupts overall City policies and
Commissioners -2- September 24, 1980
ignores the demographic, economic and social realities of the
City of Carlsbad. Because the standards, goals, and policies
.of local housing elements apply to the entire City, including
the coastal zone, the Council believes it is,more appropriate
to deal with the housing crisis on a city-wide basis. Because
most of the residential areas of the City of Carlsbad are with-
in five miles of the coast, and readily accessible through
convenient public and private transportation, the Commission's
mandatory inclusionary zoning for low and moderate income
housing cannot be justified under the goal of obtaining access
to Carlsbad's coastal resources.
The second major area of concern to the City of Carlsbad is the
permanent agricultural zoning which the Commission has imposed.
The City believes that permanent agricultural restrictions for
the properties involved are not supported by the economic data.
The City Council recognizes agriculture as an important industry
and resource in the City of Carlsbad and has begun to adopt pro-
grams which will protect the economic feasibility of agriculture
in the City for as long as possible. However, the City Council
realistically recognizes that there comes a time when no economic
return can be made through agriculture. Permanent agricultural
protection prohibits the conversion of the land to a different
use. If government demands that the property be maintained in
a' use which is not economically productive, inverse cond^;nnation
may result. The City of Carlsbad does not wish to be placed in
that position at this time. The City recognizes that protection
of coastal agricultural lands, particularly given the mandates of
Sections 30241 and 30242, is-an important policy of the Coastal
Commission. However, the City believes that this protection can
be better achieved through methods other than permanent agricultural
use restrictions. The evidence presented at the Commission's own
public hearing supports the City's proposition.
Finally, the City has significant concerns over the grading
restrictions imposed by the Local Coastal Program for the Mello
Bill properties. The development restrictions based on slope,
particularly those applied to the Rancho La Costa properties,
clearly indicate that the Commission is not concerned with the
protection of the environment but is rather imposing severe
developmental restrictions based on an arbitrary standard. The
City desires to protect its significant coastal resources',
including the lagoons, but believes that goal can be accomplished
through the use of strict grading standards, mitigation techniques
and other requirements rather than simply resorting to a ban on
development.
c
Commissioners - • -3- *• September 24, 1980
Many of the resources sought to be protected by the Coastal Act
exist in the City of Carlsbad. These resources are among the
assets which make Carlsbad unique among California coastal cities.
The City Council desires to protect these resources according to
the policies of the Coastal Act, but in many respects has been
given a "Hobson's" choice in the LCP for the Mello Bill properties.
To accept the plan and ordinances as adopted by the Commission
would be to subject our City to liability, necessitate programs
for which we lack legal authority and require that we act contrary
to what we believe is best for the City of Carlsbad. If we fail
to adopt them, it appears the requirements will be imposed upon
us by a continuation of the permit process. At this time we choose
the latter course and advise the Commission that the City does not
intend to implement the provisions of the Local Coastal Program or
the zoning ordinances as presently proposed for the Mello Bill
properties. If the Commission persists in this exercise of State
land"use control, you should do so with the knowledge that you will
be responsible for the implementation and administration of the
plan. . • .•.,.. -.: . -...-.. ..• .., • •• .-... . . .. .• . ., ...... .. ,-.-'. .....
Very "truly yours,
n A/' x< -
RONALD C. PACKARD
Mayor
JXCP/DSH/mla
cc: Assemblyman Robert C. Frazee
DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
D Assistant City Manager
(714) 438-5596
D Building Department
(714) 438-5525
Q Engineering Department
(714) 438-5541
D Housing & Redevelopment Department
(714)438-5611
(if Planning Department
(714) 438-5591
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Citp of Cartebab
May 29, 1981
Michael Fischer, Executive Director
California State Coastal Commission
631 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
SUBJECT: Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan
Dear Mr. fisher,
Included herewith is a brief city staff analysis of the city's
major concerns and objections with the recommendations of the
state commission s1;aff regarding the Carlsbad Local Coastal
Plan.
On May 26, the Carlsbad City Council took action reaffirming the
advisory findings of the San Diego Regional Commission. Once
again, we urge the Commission to support the findings of the
Regional Commission, and to' adopt the Local Coastal Plan
supported by the Carlsbad City Council.
If I
me.
can be "of further assistance in this regard, please contact
Very
ames C. Hagaman
Planning Director
JCH:PT:rh
Attachment
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 28, 1981
TO: Frank Aleshire, City Manager
FROM: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Summary of Major Objections/Concerns with State
Commission Staff Recommendations for Carlsbad Local
Coastal Program
The following outlines the city staff analysis of the major
objections/concerns with the state commission staff
recommendations for the Carlsbad LCP.
1. Agricul ture. State recommends agricultural subsidy
program administered by coastal conservancy, allowing
land along 1-5 to convert by paying subsidy fee
($24,000/acre) , and requiring areas between Palomar
Airport Road and Batiquitos Lagoon to remain in
permanent agriculture. Include review of program by
state commission on annual basis.
2. Cannon Road State staff has deleted all reference
to' Cannon Road from the Carlsbad LCP.
3. Macario Park State staff makes no direct
reference to Macario Park, designates park site as
mixed agriculture/residential use; allows for park
development at "future, undetermined site", recommends
residential use for General Plan non-residential
reserve area impacted by airport influence/crash
zone. (Policy 64)
4. Kelly Point Area recommends Rancho La Costa
"sliding density scale" for Kelly point area,
(policy 3.5)
5. Land Use Map State staff has not included a
revi sed land use map with staff report. Toups land
use map contains numerous errors and ommissions.
6. Grading Ordi nance recommends amending municipal
grading ordinance (policy 4-12)
7. Buena Vista Lagoon recommends down-zoning all
vac ant B.uena Vista La goon lots (including Point San
Malo) from 10-20 du/acre to 0-4 du/acre. (policy 3.2)
8* Mello Bil1 recommends increasing density of
Occidental parcels (Hello Bill LCP) to 12 du/acre
for participation in Agriculture Subsidy program.
Recommended density exceeds existing general plan, is
not consistent with general plan density range
concept. Mello Bill properties are not appropriate
for inclusion in Carlsbad LCP.
9. Encina Fishing Area/Beaches included in staff
recommendations;should be deleted, these lands are
in the Aqua Hedionda Specific Plan Area, (policy 6.3)
10. Condo Conversions prohibit condo conversion
where majority of displacees are "low/moderate
income"; re-quire 30% mandatory . i ncl usi on where
conversion is approved, (policy 9-3)
11. Affordable Housing mandatory inclusionary zoning
of 25%. (policy 9.9)
12. Agricultural Buffers requires minimum 100'-300'
buffer between agriculture and new development,
(policy 24)
JCH:PT:rh
-2-
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 26, 1981
TO: Frank Aleshlre, City Manager
FROM: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Summary of Major Policy Changes in Carlsbad LCP State
Staff Report
The following highlights the major policy revisions to the
Regional Commission approved Carlsbad LCP, as proposed in the
State Commission Staff Report.
(p2-16) 1. Agriculture State recommends agricultural subsidy
program administered by coastal conservancy, allowing
land along 1-5 to convert by paying subsidy fee
($24,000/acre), and requiring areas between Palomar
Airport Road and Batiquitos Lagoon to remain in
permanent agriculture. Include review of program by
state commission on annual basis.
(p 23) 2. Cannon Road .State staff has deleted all reference
to Cannon Road from the Carlsbad LCP.
(p 24) 3. Macarip Park State staff makes no direct
reference to Macario Park, designates park site as
mixed agriculture/residential use; allows for park
development at "future, undetermined site." (policy
64)
(p 18) 4. Kelly Point Area recommends Rancho La Costa
"sliding density scale" for Kelly point area,
(policy 3.5)
(p 16 & 5. Steep Slope prohibits development on 25% +
p 20) slope; allow up to 1 du/ac credit, (policy 3-1, 4.7)
(p 21) 6. Grading Ordinance recommends amending municipal
grading ordinance (policy 4-12)
(p 16) 7. Buena Vista Lagoon recommends down-zoning all
vacant Buena Vista Lagoon lots (including Point San
Malo) from 10-20 du/acre to 0-4 du/acre. (policy 3.2)
(p 7) 8. Mello Bill recommends increasing density of
Occidental parcels. (Mello Bill LCP) to 12 du/acre
for participation in Agriculture Subsidy program.
(p 24) 9. Encina Fishing Area/Beaches included in staff
recommendations;should be deleted, these lands are
in the Aqua Hedionda Specific Plan Area, (policy 6.3)
(p 31) 10. Condq Conversions prohibit condo conversion
where majority of displacees are "low/moderate
income"; require 30% mandantory inclusion where
conversion is approved, (policy 9-3)
(p 32) 11. Affordable Housing mandatory inclusionary zoning
of 25%. (policy 9.9)
(p 14) 12. Agricultural Buffers requires minimum 100'-300'
buffer between agriculture and new development,
(policy 24)
JCH:PT;rh
-2-
VICE MAYOR'S COMMENTS TO STATE COASTAL COMMISSION 5/21/81
RE: CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM MELLO JT
Chairman Grote and Members of the Commission:
I am Mary Casler, Vice Mayor of Carlsbad and speak on behalf of
the Mayor and the City Council.
This LCP as presented to you is heavily padded. Of the 79
policies it contains, 34 are already in effect in the city.
Several more refer to state lands and there are 2 very obvious
errors. We have reviewed the staff recommendations for the
Carlsbad LCP with deep disappointment, especially in the area of
agriculture.
Your staff has not moved from its stance taken in
January. The staff has ignored the advisory approval
of the Regional Commission, which heard the city's LCP
and passed it unanimously. The staff has discarded the
findings of the Regional Commission. The staff has
repudiated the input of the city of Carlsbad. Your
staff has ignored the soil classifications of the
agricultural lands. They are recommending land stay in
agriculture which is the poorest in the city. Land
recommended for development is the best soil.
I can only conclude that the staff has tilted the scales in
favor of the large landowners of the "Mello 1" properties who
can well afford to purchase development rights from our smaller
farmers and leave them up the creek in years to come when their
soil is no longer productive.
We ask a return to the "mixed use" concept as approved by the
Regional Commission. It will work and it will preserve
agriculture.
In housing, we ask you to accept the city of Carlsbad's Housing
Element. We are making very satisfactory progress in its
implementation. Last Tuesday we approved a development of 82
units to be sold between 60-80 thousand dollars (very low for
San Diego County) and we included a provision that the owner
must live in his unit for a year, in order to discourage
speculation. We do have subsidized housing now and an
additional project is before the Planning Commission to add
another 40 units for seniors. We are providing "our fair share"
but we are doing it near stores and bus lines - not in the
hinterlands which the coastal zone encompasses.
We consider this an unworkable plan. We request you ask your
staff for an evaluation of the alternative as presented by the
city and we ask you Commissioners to consider it carefully. We
feel it is a plan which fulfills the objectives of the Coastal
Act and will be one of which we can all be proud.
AGENDA BILL
INITIAL: TH:LS
AGENDA BILL NO: 6 fr 3 7 DEPT. HD.
DATE: _ JUNE 9. 1981 _ CTY. ATTY. V/~/3
DEPARTMENT: _ PLANNING DEPARTMENT _ CTY. MGR.v^7
SUBJECT: CARLSBAD (MELLO BILL II) LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP)
IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES
STATEMENT OF THE MATTER:
On June 16, 17, or 18 the State Coastal Commission plans to take action on the
subject implementing ordinances. Adoption will create a "certified" LCP. The
action will take place under a similar process to the one taken in the Mello
Bill I LCP in October 1980.
The Carlsbad LCP implementing ordinances are designed to carry out the Land Use
Plan portion of the LCP. The State Coastal Commission adopted a land use plan
recommended by their staff over the objections of the city on June 3, 1981.
Because planning staff is strongly opposed to the Land Use Plan adopted by the
State Coastal Commission, we cannot support the accompanying implementing ordi-
nances. We also concur with the City Attorney's opinion and recommendation re-
garding the ordinances. The City Attorney, in correspondence to the Planning
Director, states:
"As you are well aware, the position of this office is that a number of the
programs specified in the Local Coastal Plan are legally suspect. Likewise,
the ordinances implementing those portions of the plan are suspect...We
could not recommend to the City Council that they take any steps to imple-
ment the ordinances as they are presently drafted...If the Coastal Commis-
sion adopts its staff recommendation, the posture that we would recommend on
the Mello Bill II properties would be the same that we have taken on the
Mello Bill I properties. That is, the State has instituted state land use
planning for the coastal zone in the City of Carlsbad and that because the
program is contrary to the best interests of Carlsbad, this city will not go
along with the program...Of course, this results in a two-step process for
developers, but that process is unavoidable given the respective positions
of the City Council and the State Coastal Commission."
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: None.
RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff to prepare a letter for the Mayor's signature stating that the city
disagrees with the recommended implementing ordinances and will not participate
in carrying them out if adopted by the State Coastal Commission. This letter
would be forwarded to the State Coastal Commission prior to the final vote hear-
ing on June 16, 17 or 18.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from Mayor Packard to State Coastal Commission, dated May 28, 1981.
2. Letter from Mayor Packard to State Coastal Commission regarding non-partici-
pation in Mello Bill I implementation, dated September 24, 1980.
3. A copy of the implementing ordinances are available for review in the Plan-
ning Department.
APPROVED EXHIBIT F
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the Mayor
TELEPHONE:
(714)729-1181
Cttp of Cartebafc
May28, 1981
California State Coastal Commission
Lenard Grote, Chairman
631 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Dear Commissioner Grote,
On May 26, 1981, the Carlsbad City Council reviewed the
recommendations of the State Commission staff regarding the
Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan, and considered the procedural
aspects of the certification process. The City Council took
action strongly reaffirming our position as presented to the San
Diego Regional Commission, and to support the advisory findings
of that body.
I strongly urge you to consider the city's position as approved
by the Regional Commission. Vie believe that this plan represents
a viable program which meets the requirements of the Coastal Act,
protects sensitive environmental and coastal resources, and
balances the need to protect resources of statewide and local
significance while recognizing the validity of local
participation in the planning process.
In regards 'to the Stafte Commission staff recommendations, I must,
strongly object to the programs proposed by your staff. The city
has serious reservations regarding the feasibility of implement-
ing your staff's proposals, particularly regarding agriculture
and housing. We feel that the policy program proposed by state
staff is confusing and unwieldy, and recognizes neither the
city's existing general plan nor the program recommended by your
own consultant PRC Toups: In view of these reservations, it
would be impossible for the city to participate in an LCP as
drafted by the State Commission staff. •
In summary, 1 again urge your support for the Toups plan as
modified by the San Diego Regional Commission and hope that this
will allow us to move forward in adopting and implementing a
Local Coastal Program sensitive to the needs of both the city of
Carlsbad and the state of California.
Very truly yours,
Mayor Ronald C. Packard
RCP:PT:rh
cc: Planning Director
City Attorney '"-i
Ron Beckman
city Council
CITY^-- CARLSBAD — AGENDA >. LL
AR# £77O- */
MTR 12/15/81
npp-r PL
TITLE:
TTPTWFF PN RPPTrTTTTITRAT PRF^FPVATTnN
PROGRAMS IN THE COASTAL ZONE.
DEPT. HD. -l^//
CITY ATTY\/^%
CITY MfSR: -^^
X
o
i
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is recommended that the Council direct staff to discontinue work on a
substitute agricultural plan.
ITEM EXPLANATION
On October 13, 1981 staff and the Agricultural Advisory Committee made a
recommendation to the City Council proposing an alternative to the Coastal
Commission agricultural subsidy credits program.
The City Council did not react altogether favorably to the proposal and
suggested that staff modify the program. In addition, Council directed staff to
meet with the Coastal Commission staff to explore the possibility of
substituting a program designed by the city for the current LCP subsidy plan.
City staff met with the Coastal Commission staff on November 18, 1981. The
Coastal staff indicated substitution was possible, however, they presented
specific criteria that must be met in a city program.
The attached report addresses some of the pros and cons of the two apparent
choices which are:
1. Pursue a substitute.
2. Allow the existing program to remain in effect.
Staff is concerned that the costs of pursuing an alternate program will
potentially outweigh the results.
FISCAL IMPACT
Option 1; Pursue substitute agricultural program:
Staff
Associate Planner
Principal Planner
Planning Director
Time
1/2
-1/4
As necessary
Length of Study
1 Months
1 Months
7 Months
Approximately 5 City Council hearings.
Option 2; Allow the existing program to remain in effect; no cost.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Exhibit 1, Discussion
EXW8IT6
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 7, 1981
TO: Frank Aleshire, City Manager
FROM: James Hagaman, Planning Director
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING SUBSTITUTION OF A CITY AGRICULTURAL
PRESERVATION PROGRAM FOR THE CURRENT LCP PROGRAM.
At the City Council meeting of October 13, 1981, the Council ex-
pressed some concern regarding a proposed city wide agricultural
preservation program. They directed staff to concentrate only on
the coastal zone and to pursue agricultural preservation only as
a possible substitute for the current LCP subsidy program.
Potential changes in the program suggested by Council were the
following:
1. Make the program less restrictive on identified agricultural
land in the long term (explore using only zoning as an
approach).
2. Address what would occur on agricultural lands after pro-
duction died out.
3. Investigate making the program totally voluntary.
In addition, Council directed staff to meet with the coastal
staff to discuss the possibility of substituting a city program
for the LCP program.
City staff met with the coastal staff on November 18, 1981. A
number of conclusions were reached, they were:
1. The coastal staff indicated that they would consider a "mixed
use" (in which a portion of a developed site would be re-
tained in agriculture) substitute for the LCP subsidy pro-
gram.
2. They would not consider the program as presented to the Coun-
cil on October 13, or a program modified in the manner sugge-
sted by Council to city staff.
3. A substitute program must contain the following components at
a minimum:
a) It must cover all lands identified in the LCP as agricul-
tural (see attachment 1). No soil type criteria may be
used to identify agricultural land.
b) Any substitute program must preserve at least the same
amount of acres of agricultural land as the LCP program
(about 1100 acres; the plan presented to Council on Oc-
tober 13 would preserve about 400 acres by mixed use).
c) The program must be mandatory and binding on all affected
property.
d) The program must incorporate land use control more bind-
ing than zoning, although zoning could be used in some
areas. The binding method suggested by coastal staff was
an open space easement in perpetuity.
Subsequent to the November 18th meeting the city staff was in-
formed by the Commission staff that if the city wished to propose
a substitute they would have to do so prior to January 1, 1982.
They indicated a possible extension if this deadline could be
granted up to 6 months. The LCP subsidy program is scheduled to
begin operation on January 1, 1982.
Given the circumstances, there appears to be two alternatives;
continue pursuing a substitute program (based on the Commission's
"minimum" requirements,) or allow the existing LCP program to re-
main in effect indefinitely.
There are positive and negative aspects to the apparent choices,
they are:
Pursue Substitute Program
PROS:
a) Provide a more equitable approach to agricultural preser-
vation.
b) Resolve one of the major conflicts in the LCP disa-
greement between Carlsbad and the Coastal Commission.
c) Eliminate the subsidy payment scheme which is complex and
unique to Carlsbad's LCP.
CONS:
a) May never be agreed to by the Commission. For example,
some conflicts in the Agua Hedionda LCP have not yet been
resolved, although negotiations have been going on since
1978.
b) May be difficult to acquire support from all affected
property onwers. Some property owners are already com-
mitted to the Coastal Commission's subsidy plan.
-2-
c) New land use restrictions would be imposed by the city.
d) May force the Council into a position of enforcing a pro-
gram in which, under normal circumstances, they would not
participate.
Do Not Pursue a Substitute Program
PROS:
a) No commitment of staff or City Council time (including
program preparation and continuing administration).
b) Clearly maintains identification of the Coastal Com-
mission's LCP as the "problem document" (this would be
important in the case of litigation).
c) Does not draw the city into the debate between property
owners and the Coastal Commission over an issue which is
now clearly a Coastal Commission policy. Property owners
who felt a change was necessary would be channeled
directly to the Coastal Commission for relief.
d) No new land use restrictions would be imposed by the
city.
CONS:
a) The subsidy program would continue to be imposed on prop-
erty within Carlsbad's current and future areas of juris-
diction.
b) A major LCP conflict would not be resolved.
The choice between the two alternatives is not a clear one in
staff's opinion. It is natural to set goals of clearing up con-
flicts and to pursue regaining lost land use controls. However,
the judgement must also take into consideration the practical
side of attainment. It is at this point the details are numerous
and cloudy.
Staff has two m_ajor concerns, recognizing the substantial amount
of time required to attain success. These concerns are primarily
based on previous experience in dealing with the Coastal Com-
mission. Agua Hedionda LCP contains issues that have placed the
city and Coastal Commission in similar negotiating position.
Staffs two concerns are:
1. The Coastal Commission may never concede to a substitute for
the agricultural subsidy credits program. In effect, the
Commission has a very restrictive program ready to go now.
Even though it will not take effect until January 1 , they
have been negotiating with some property owners for months.
-3-
Some of these property owners are now committed to the LCP
program. Staff does not see the negotiating process as expe-
ditious. As a practical matter, the Coastal Commission has
all the bargaining chips. They can hold out for the "best"
proposal from the city with little lost except time.
2. The concept of agricultural preservation in perpetuity is
solely the Coastal Commission's. Within the effected area
there are two distinct groups of property owners. The group
is polarized on the for and against sides. This is a
potentially volatile situation for the city to participate
in, particularly when litigation seems almost assured.
To attempt to anticipate all the potential consequences of
embarking on a negotiating process as briefly outlined above
would be impossible. However, given the experience staff has
acquired over the years with the Commission, and the primary
concerns expressed here, staff cannot justify recommending
continued work on a substitute agricultural program.
Attachments;
Map of agricultural lands
TH:ar
12/8/81
-4-
3<t
\W"- - - v - "'^"^
ATTACHMENT A
AGRICULTURAL LANDS
LANDS PRESERVED
TO RAY SUBSIDT
1200 ELM AVENUE &*r****ft* TELEPHONE:
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 . Fl X^'' Pi (714)438-5561
Office of the Mayor
Citp of Cartebab
December 29, 1981
Tom Crandall, District Director
California Coastal Commission
San Diego District
6154 Mission Gorge Road, Suite 220
San Diego, California 92120
CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
Dear Mr. Crandall:
This is a follow-up to your letter of November 12, 1981. The
City Council has decided not to file a request with the Coastal
Commission to revise or amend the Carlsbad LCP. The City's
position remains as stated in the past — the LCP is the Com-
mission's plan and any modifications should be initiated by
the commission, not by the City.
This means that we will continue a dual permit process. We will
advise property owners to file applications for development
permits with the City to be processed under City Zoning Ordinances
and General Plan. We will also advise property owners to file
with the Coastal Commission in order to receive State approval
consistent with the adopted Carlsbad LCP. This dual process is
not in accordance with the intent of the Coastal Act which is to
return land use planning implementation to local government.
Since the Coastal Commission has overruled the recommendations of
the City and has adopted an LCP which is unacceptable to the City
Council, we feel that a dual permit process is the most reasonable
option open to us.
This decision means that Carlsbad will not recommend a substitute
to the Coastal Commission agricultural subsidy program. The City
Council remains opposed to the state's agricultural subsidy program
because we believe it to be bad public policy and legally questionable.
The Coastal Commission has already rejected the City's proposed
agricultural incentive program. Since the parties cannot agree,
we feel the burden must be placed on Carlsbad property owners to
propose modified agricultural programs which can be approved by the
City and the Coastal Commission. In fact, we know that some agri-
cultural land owners have already discussed a "mixed use" plan with
your staff. Handling the agricultural issue on a piecemeal, project-
by-project basis seems faster and more effective than trying to
fabricate a new policy. We have no reason to believe that the
Coastal Commission would consider any modifications to the agricultural
subsidy program at this time. ^f**"
N
Grandall December 29, 1981California Coastal Commission Page 2
On January 1, 1982 the Coastal Conservancy will implement the
agricultural subsidy program. Under the program adopted by
the Coastal Commission the Conservancy could collect $7 million
in subsidy payments from Carlsbad developers. The City Council
feels very strongly that this money should be spent in Carlsbad
to benefit Carlsbad agriculture. Current rules would allow the
Conservancy to spend the money anywhere in California. We will
oppose the transfer of that money out of the city .'and wish to
suggest regulations which would prohibit such transfer. How can
we initiate such a regulation?
In regards to the Agua Hedionda LCP, the City intends to process
a "resubmittal" to the Coastal Commission. Since 1977 the City
has been working with the Commission to draft an acceptable LCP.
We think we have now resolved the 32 issues the Commission staff
objected to in 1979 — except for Cannon Road.
We propose to meet with State Fish and Game officials to work
out an acceptable alignment for Cannon Road. The major issue is
that the road runs through designated wet lands. Vie will explore
mitigation measures and present' to the Coastal Commission a
specific plan with conditions acceptable to Fish and Game. In
summary, we intend to resubmit the Agua Hedionda LCP for public
hearings and Coastal Commission Certification in 1982.
We intend to take no action on the Carlsbad LCP. This will re-
quire the Commission to implement the LCP as certified.
Thank you for meeting with us. We intend to continue to work
with your staff and with property owners to resolve problems
as they come up. Under present coastal policies, both the City
and the State exercise authority over developments in the coastal
zone. We hope the Commission will someday see fit to return
permit authority to the City - as envisioned by the legislature.
Respectfully,
RONALD C. PACKARD
Mayor
RCP:gb
cc: City Council
City Attorney
Planning Director
Mike Fisbher
Senator William Craven
Assemblyman Robert Frazee
Paul Eckert, Chairman, Board of Supervisors
Dwight Spiers
Don Agatep
Peter Mackauf
A
State of California, Edmund G. Btuwn Jr., Governor
a.\\
California Coastal Commission
San Diego District
6154 Mission Gorge Road, Suite 220
San Diego, California 92120
(714) 280-6092
ATSS 636-5868
/V/V /S /
November 12, 1981
Mayor Ron Packard
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue •
Carlsbad, California 92003 '
Subject: Resolution of Differences Concerning the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program
Dear Mayor Packard:
Last Oune the Coastal Commission certified the local coastal program (LCP) for
the City of Carlsbad. It is my understanding that several provisions of the
LCP are in a form that is currently unacceptable to the City. I suspect the
unacceptable provisions include at least those LCP policies regarding low and
moderate income housing and the agricultural subsidy program. With the recent
passage of legislation v/hich eliminates the Commission1 ;•••. responsibility for
affoxdable housing programs, I have hopes that the Commission and the City can
resolve any remaining differences and approve a mutually . acceptable LCP.
While the Coar-tal Commission is> committed to preserving the maximum amount of
agricultural land feasible within the Carlsbad coastal zone, it .was clear] y,
indicated in the LCP that, the Commission was willing to consider alternative
approaches other than the agricultural subsidy program in preserving agricultural
lands. As the agricultural subsidy program is scheduled to become effective on
January 1, 1902 , timing of preparation and adoption of alternative programs is
critical. It may be that the Commission rccoiiOT'-nded agricultural subsidy program,
or a variation thereof, in conjunction with otl: .V mechanisms for preserving
agricultural lands (e.g. mixed us-..-- program, for example) could provide a solution
to what I perceive as 'the major remaining "stumbling bl^-k" to completing the
certification process for Carlsbad's LCP. .
I v.'ould like to offer my assistance resolving, any remaining issues in the
Carlsbad LCP. Therefore, please don't hesitate to contact me if yon or your
staff have questions or desire a meeting to discuss the matter further-
Good luck in your congressional campaign.
Sincerely
TOM CRANDALL
District Director
TC;lro
cc: .'Jim Ilagrnnan
Hob Brown
O'lmck Dnmm