Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-08-20; City Council; 7902-4; Local Coastal PlanCARLSBAD — AGEND/ ^ILL AR# yjoz-***! MTG 8/20/85 DEPT. CM TITLE: LOCAL COASTAL PLAN OEPT HD. CITYATTY<QJ/A CITY MGR.5*^ Occa,a. O§ ^O OO RECOMMENDED ACTION: That Council approve the revised Local Coastal Plan (LCP). ITEM EXPLANATION: On February 19, 1985 Council adopted Resolution No. 7913 accepting the existing Carlsbad LCP with amendments and requesting Coastal Commission approval. Since that time your LCP Committee (Mayor Casler and Dick Chick) has been negotiating with Coastal Commission staff and property owners to reach agreement on the wording of the LCP. Essentially all issues have been resolved and the LCP is set for hearing before the Coastal Commission on August 28, 1985 in Los Angeles. The key issue has been agricultural conversion. There are 1581 acres designated agriculture in the Carlsbad LCP. The city's revised proposal is that agricultural land can be converted to a land use specified in the city General Plan in one of three ways: 1. By making a finding that continued agriculture is no longer feasible. 2. By securing approval of a mixed-use plan. 3. By mitigation as provided in Section 30242 of the Coastal Act. (This section allows an owner to purchase prime land in the Coastal Zone on an acre for acre exchange for land to be developed.) The amendment would require that all conversion of coastal agriculture would require Coastal Commission approval as well as City Council approval. In that respect we would still have a dual permit process for agricultural lands. For all other lands in the Coastal Zone the City Council would have final discretion subject to certain appeal rights. If this amendment is approved by Coastal Commission the city will be obligated to adopt various implementing ordinances and to assure jurisdiction for permit processing. AGENDA BILL NO. 8/20/85 Page 2 EXHIBITS: 1. Letter to Peter Douglas, dated 8/2/85 2. Letter to Adam Birnbaum, dated 8/9/85 3. Agenda Bill No. 7903 #3, dated 2/9/85 4. Draft copy of Executive Summary, dated 8/2/85 1200 ELM AVENUE ft ^^? K| TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1989 m*UUsjM (619)438-5599 Office of the Mayor City of Cartefmb August 2, 1985 Peter Douglas Executive Director California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Tom Crandall San Diego District Director 1333 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 125 San Diego, CA 92108-3520 Chuck Damm Deputy District Director San Diego District 1333 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 125 San Diego, CA 92108-3520 RE: FINAL SUBMITTAL OF CARLSBAD LCP AMENDMENT REQUEST Gentlemen: Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the City's final proposed amendment to the Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan. Amendments to the proposal which we provided to you on July 26, 1985 have been made in light of comments received from Coastal Commission staff and interested parties. The new proposal includes a statement of intent, revised Local Coastal Plan language concerning conversion of agricultural lands, a revised coastal agricultural zone which incorporates specific criteria for preservation of prime agricultural land elsewhere in the coastal zone (please see Section 21. .060), and proposed findings concerning agricultural preservation and conversion. The remainder of the proposal remains substantially as submitted. We believe that this proposal addresses all of the concerns raised by staff, the City's Local Coastal Plan committee, and interested parties. We are, of course, available to discuss any aspects of the proposed zone and answer any questions you might have. Because Gary Wayne is on vacation, if you have any -2- questions regarding any technical aspects of the proposal please contact the Assistant City Attorney, Dan Hentschke at 438-5531 . Any questions concerning policy issues can be directed to either me, Council Member Richard Chick, or City Manager Frank Aleshire, Sincerely, MARY H. CALSER Mayor rmh enclosure INTENT The proposed amendment to the Local Coastal Program accomplishes three purposes with respect to agriculture in Carlsbad. First, the amendment provides the basis for a long sought agreement between the California Coastal Commission and the City on management of remaining coastal agriculture in the LCP area consis- tent with applicable provisions of the Coastal Act. Second, the amendment restores the operable provisions of Section 30242 of the Act as it applies to the City. Finally, it provides a mechanism to contribute to the preservation of prime agricultural lands throughout the California Coastal Zone as mitigation for the possible conversion of less productive, marginal non- prime agriculture within the City. With respect to grading on steep slopes, the City's amendment proposal resolves conflicts with previous Coastal Commission actions on the City and County of San Diego LCPs as well as numerous Coastal Commission permit decisions. Since the issues associated with grading on steep slopes (increased erosion potential and sediment discharge into the lagoons, removal of native vegetation, and visual impacts) are the same for Carlsbad, the County of San Diego and the City of San Diego, a similar approach should be applied to all three jurisdictions. EXHIBIT 1. Page 2 3 4 5 5 5-6 7 10-17 22-23 2 4-7 7 8-14 16-17 18-19 19 - Modifications - MELLO BILL I - LAND USE Section Policy 4, Housing Policy 5, Parking (housing ref.) Policy 2, Housing Policy 4, Parking (housing ref.) Policy 2, Agriculture/Planned Devt. Policy 3, Drainage, Erosion Control #1 Policy 3, Drainage, Erosion Control #5 Policy 4, Housing Findings, Agriculture Findings, Housing MELLO BILL I - ZONING ORDINANCES Coastal Resource Overlay Zone #1. Purpose #4. Permitted Uses #9. Housing flO. Findings Planned Agricultural Zone 13 Erosion, Drainage, Sedimentation #5 Agriculture 16 Agricultural Land and Open Space Management Plan Action Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete. Replace witt modified Policy 2. Add new slope language Add new slope language Delete Delete Delete Delete ref. to housing Delete Delete Delete Delete. Replace with CA zone Add new slope language Delete Delete LCP COMMITTEE -2- September 26, 1985 5. Agricultural improvements which will aid in the continuation of remaining agricultural production within the Carlsbad Coastal Zone as determined by the Carlsbad City Council. Mello II: Add the following language to A. Basic Agricultural Policies 2. immediately following item b): "or c) payment of an agricultural conversion mitigation fee in an amount not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000 per converted acre has been made." Modify paragraph A.3. to read as follows: 3. Conversion of non-prime coastal agricultural lands shall be permitted pursuant to either Option 1 (Mitigation), Option 2 (Feasibility Analysis) or Option 3 (Conversion Fee) as set forth below in this policy. Consistent with Section 30242 of the Act, no feasibility analysis shall be required if a landowner selects Option 1 or Option 3. Add the following: "Option 3 - Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Fee. Conversion of non-prime agricultural lands shall be permitted upon payment of an agricultural conversion mitigation fee which shall mitigate the loss of agricultural resources by preserving or enhancing other important coastal resources. The amount of the fee shall be determined by the City Council at the time it considers the proposal for development and shall reflect the per acre cost of perserving prime agricultural land pursuant to Option 1 but shall not be less than $5,000 nor more than $10,000 per acre. All mitigation fees collected under this section shall be deposited in the State Coastal Conservancy Fund and shall be expended by the State Coastal Conservancy in the following order of priority: 1. Restoration of natural resources and wildlife habitat in Batiquitos Lagoon. 2. Development of an interpretive center at Buena Vista Lagoon. 3. Restoration of beaches managed for public use in the coastal zone, in the City of Carlsbad. 4. Purchase of agricultural lands for continued agricultural production within the Carlsbad Coastal Zone as determined by the Carlsbad City Council. Mello Bill I - Zoning Ordinances/cont'd... Page Section Action 19 #7 Map and Deed Notice Delete 19 #8 Housing Delete 20 110 Findings Delete 23-24 Conditional Uses sec. 21.42.010 Permitted Uses (A)(B) Delete 41 Permit Procedures #2. Definitions "Conditional Use" Delete -2- i 7 Page 1 2 3 - Modifications - MELLO BILL II - LAND USE Section "Exhibit A" I. #1 Occidental (C) Affordable Housing D, addition to Kelly/Macario Affordable Housing II Revisions to Findings/ I. Staff Recommendation Action Delete Delete Delete: "on the basis of the Findings and Dec- larations con- tained in Part II of this report below." 3-4 5-6 7-8 II Findings and Declaration B,C/D 8 . Housing 9. Alternatives to the Land Use Plan . Policies (end "Exhibit A") Delete Delete Delete 2-4 4 5 6-10 10-14 16 Policy 2-1 Conservation of Agricultural Lands, B. Basic Agricultural Use Regu- lation: Planned Agriculture with C. Designated Agricultural Lands E. Agricultural Subsidy Program F. Permitted Uses on all Agricultural Land G,H,I,J,K,L,M re. Agricultural Subsidy Policy 2-2 "Mixed Use Development" Policy 3-1 Slopes and Preservation of Vegetation Substitute CA zone ref. for PAZ,also replace modified Policy 2-1. Delete, replace with CA map and description Delete Delete, replace with CA wording Delete No change Delete last para- graph. 20 31 Policy 4-7 Accelerated Soil Erosion a). Add new slope language Policy 9-1 through 9-9, Housing Delete Mello Bill"II - Land Use/cont'd... Page 1 1 1 2 4 1-8 9 10, 11 12 13 13 29-32- 33 33 Section Begin "Attachment A" Kelly Point/Macario Canyon A. Maximum Density of Development #1 B. Agriculture/Planned Development C. Drainage, Erosion Control, 11 C. Drainage, Erosion Control, #5 D. Housing MELLO BILL II - ZONING ORDINANCES Planned Agricultural Zone VII Mixed Use Program applicable to the Ecke Property A,B,C VIII Requirements for a Master Plan; A,B,C,D,E,P,G X Findings Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone #3 Development Standards (a) Preservation of Steep Slopes and Vegetation #1, 2 Low and Moderate Income Housing Zone Addition to P-C Zone Kelly Point/ Macario Canyon #1 Permits Required #2 Maximum Density of Development #1 Action Delete Delete Delete, replace with new slope language Delete Delete Delete, replace with CA zone Delete Delete Delete, replace with new findings Delete ref. to conditional use permit Delete, replace with new slope language Delete Delete ref. to conditional uses Delete -2- Mello Bill'II - Zoning Ordinances/cont'd, Page Section Action 34 #3 Erosion, Drainage, Sedimentation Delete, replace (b) with new slope language 34, 35 #3 Erosion, Drainage, Sedimentation (f) Delete 36 #4 Buffers/Open Space Delete 36 #5 Agriculture Delete 37 *6 Agricultural Land Open Space Management Plan Delete 37 #7 Map and Deed Notice Delete 37 #8 Housing Delete 38 #10 Findings . Delete 41 Amendments to Condo Conversion Ordinance 21.47 Delete 43 Conditonal Uses sec. 21.42.010 Permitted Uses (A)(B) Delete -3- MODIFICATION ojj1 MELLO I & II REGARDING AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION A. MELLO I (Hunt - Rancho La Costa), page 5, policy 2 The property shall be developed using the existing planned community zone with the additional requirements contained in the policies herein. All developments as defined by the Coastal Act require a coastal development permit and master plan that is consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan. The master plan shall address the feasibility of continued or renewed agriculture on approximately 200 acres of historic cultivation as shown on the PRC Toups maps. Conversion of any portion of these non-prime agricultural lands to urban uses pursuant to the master plan shall be allowed if the following findings are made: l.a Conversion would preserve prime agricultural land or concentrate development consistent with Section 30250 of the Public Resources Code; or, l.b Continued or renewed agriculture is no longer feasible; and, 2. Conversion would be compatible with continued agricultural use on surrounding lands; 3. The master plan provides overriding benefits to the resources of Batiquitos Lagoon; 4. The master plan provides significant protection and enhancement of environmentally sensitive habitats above and beyond the existing land use control's current requirements. B. MELLO II, page 2, policy Z-l "Conservation of Agricultural Lands" A. BASIC AGRICULTURAL POLICIES 1. Consistent with the provisions of sections 30241 and 30242 of the Coastal Act, it is the policy of the City to contribute to the preservation of the maximum amount of prime agricultural land throughout the Coastal Zone by providing for the balanced, orderly conversion of designated non-prime coastal agricultural lands. Non- prime agricultural lands identified on Map X are desig- nated Coastal Agriculture and shall be permitted to con- vert to urban uses subject to the agricultural mitigation or feasibility provisions set forth in the LCP. 2. Conversion of designated coastal agricultural lands shall be permitted provided that: a) conversion would preserve prime agricultural lands within the statewide coastal zone consistent with sect ions 30241 and 30242 or concen- trate new development consistent with Section 30250 of the Coastal Act; or b) continued or renewed agricultural use is not feasible. 3. Conversion of non-prime coastal agricultural lands shall be permitted pursuant to either Option 1 (Mitigation) or Option 2 (Feasibility Analysis) as set forth below in this policy. Consistent with Section 30242 of the Act, no feasibility analysis shall be required if a landowner selects Option 1. Option 1 — Mitigation Non-prime coastal agricultural lands shall be converted to urban use consistent with the Carls- bad General Plan if, prior to approval of a sub- division map, a mitigation program is in effect that permanently preserves one acre of prime agricultural land within the statewide Coastal Zone for each acre of net impacted agricultural land in the LCP that is converted. For purposes of calculating required mitigation acreage, net impacted agricultural lands are the parcels and acreages designated on Map X, minus the acreages in steep slopes (25% or greater) and areas con- taining sensitive coastal resources that would preclude development. The standards and procedures for such a mitiga- tion program shall be set forth in LCP implement- ing ordinances. Recipients of prime agricultural land interestspursuant to this policy shall be limited to: 1) local or state agencies; or, 2) tax exempt organizations whose principal charitable purposes are consistent with the agricultural miti- gation program and qualify under Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. Further, miti- gation priority shall be given to preserving prime agricultural lands in the coastal zones of counties selected by the State Coastal Con- servancy for pilot program funding, and other counties with similarly qualified programs. Option 2—Determination of Agricultural Feasibility If the feasibility of continued agriculture is questionable, either the City or involved landowners may complete an agricultural feasi- bility study for: a) all coastal agricultural lands in the LCP; b) 3 or 4 subareas which constitute logical subunits; or, c) contiguous landholdings in a single ownership of at least. 100 acres. If Option 2 is selected, that portion of the study area determined to be feasible for continued agriculture, if any, shall be converted upon request of the land- owner to urban use subject to compliance with the provisions of Option 1 above. That portion of the study area determined not to be feasible for continued agriculture could be converted only after: a) the City approves the feasi- bility study; b) an LCP amendment is prepared and submitted to the Coastal Commission that provides for the conversion; and c) the Coastal Commission certifies the LCP amendment as to its conformance with the Coastal Act. For purposes of implementation, neither Option 1 nor Option 2 shall have priority over the other. 4. To maximize and expedite the preservation of prime agri- cultural lands throughout the state coastal zone, all parcels designated coastal agriculture in the LCP shall have an underlying urban land use designation as identi- fied on Map Y. Conversions of coastal agriculture land permitted by the City in conformance with either Option 1 or Option 2 as set forth in Policy 2 shall be consistent with the land use designations' on Map Y. 5. Conversions of parcels designated coastal agriculture that are requested for uses other than the underlying land use designation on Map Y shall be subject to an LCP amendment to allow the City and Coastal Commission to determine the consistency of proposed urban uses with other applicable provisions of the LCP and the Coastal Act. 13 Chapter 21. Coastal Agriculture Zone Sections: 21. .010 Purpose and intent. 21. .020 Definitions. 21. .030 Development of coastal agricultural land. 21. .040 Permits required. 21. .050 Permitted uses on agricultural lands. 21. .055 Lot and yard standards - agricultural lands. 21. .060 Development of coastal agricultural land. 21. .070 Findings required before conversion to urban areas. 21. .075 Development on coastal agricultural lands not consistent with underlying land use designation. 21. .080 Proximity of urban development to existing developed areas. 21. .090 Rezone upon conversion. 21. .100 Review by Planning Commission. 21. .010 Purpose and intent. The Coastal Agriculture (CA) Zone is established to implement Sections 30170(f), 30171, 30241, 30242 and 30250 of the California Coastal Act and the Local Coastal Land Use Plan certified on _ . This zone recognizes agriculture as a priority use under the Coastal Act and protects that use by establishing mechanisms to assure the continued and renewed agricultural use of agricultural lands. The local coastal plan recognizes that long term agriculture may not be feasible and establishes agriculture as an interim use. Therefore, this zone allows urban development of such lands if specific findings are made or mitigation measures are undertaken. 21. 020 Definitions. For the purposes of this zone, terms used herein are defined as follows: A. "Coastal Agricultural Lands" means those agricultural lands identified on Map X attached to the Land Use Plan certified on . The following are the lands identified on Map X: Site II 377 approximate acres Site III 275 Site IV 109 Lusk 93 Bankers 27 " " Total: 881 B. "Class I - IV Agricultural Land" means all land which qualified for rating as Class I through Class IV in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Land Use Compatibility Classification. C. "Class V - VIII Agricultural Land" means all land which qualified for rating as Class V through Class VIII in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Land Use Compatibility Classification. D. "Land Division" means the creation of any new property line whether by subdivision or other means. E. "Net Impacted Agricultural Land" means the net acreage of parcels designated "coastal agricultural lands" where the land is suited to agriculture and continued or renewed agriculture is feasible. Net impacted agricultural lands in the LCP are identified on Map and the following: Site II acres Site III acres Site IV acres Lusk/Bankers Site acres Total acres F. "Underlying Land Use Designation" means those urban uses which are consistent with the urban land use designation established by the Carlsbad General Plan and to which agricultural lands may be converted in conformance with this chapter. Such underlying land use designations uses are specified on Map for coastal agricultural lands. G. "Urban Uses" means any use other than a use permitted by Section 21. .050 including any use necessary or convenient to urban use. 21. .030 Urban Development of coastal agricultural land. Coastal agricultural land may be converted from agricultural use and developed for urban use in compliance with the procedures of this chapter. 21. .040 Permits required. No development, including but not limited to land divisions,as defined in Section 21.04.108 of this Code shall occur without a Coastal Development Permit having first been issued pursuant to Chapter 21.65 of this Code. A master plan or a planned development permit processed according to Section 21. .060 shall be considered a coastal permit if also processed in compliance with Chapter 21.65. 21. .050 Permitted uses on agricultural lands. The provisions of this section shall apply to any coastal agricultural land which has not been approved for development pursuant to this chapter. A. On any Class I through Class IV Agricultural Land the following uses only are permitted: 1. Cattle, sheep, goats and swine production, provided that the number of any one or combination of said animals shall not exceed one animal per half acre of lot area. 2. Structures for containing animals shall not be located within fifty feet of any habitable structure on the same parcel, nor within three hundred feet of an adjoining parcel zoned for residential uses. 2. Crop production. 3. Floriculture. 4. Horses, private use. 5. Nursery crop production. 6. Poultry, rabbits, chinchillas, hamsters and other small animals, provided not more than twenty five of any one or combination thereof shall be kept within fifty feet of any habitable structure, nor within three hundred feet of an adjoining parcel zoned for residential uses. 7. Roadside stands for display and sale of products produced on the same premises,. with a floor area not exceeding two hundred square feet, and located not nearer than twenty feet to any street or highway. 8. Tree farms. 9. Truck farms. 10. Wildlife refuges and game preserves. 11. Other uses or enterprises similar to the above customarily carried on in the field of general agriculture including accessory uses such as silos, tank houses, shops, barns, offices, coops, stables, corrals, and similar uses required for the conduct of the uses above. 12. One single family dwelling per existing legal building parcel. B. On any Class V through VIII Agricultural Land the following uses only are permitted: 1. All of the permitted uses listed above. 2. Hay and feed stores. 3. Nurseries, retail and wholesale. 4. Packing sheds, processing plants and commercial outlets for farm crops, provided that such activities are not located within 100 feet of any lot line. 5. Greenhouses, provided all requirements for yard setbacks and height as specified in Chapter 21.07 of this Code are met. 21. .055 Lot and yard standards - agricultural lands. The provisions of this section shall apply to any coastal agricultural land which has not been approved for development pursuant to this chapter. 1 . The minimum required lot area of any newly created lot shall not be less than ten acres unless the City Council finds that smaller parcel sizes will not adversely affect the agricultural use of the property. 2. Every newly created lot shall have a minimum width of the rearline of the required front yard of not less than three hundred feet. 3. Every lot shall have a required front yard of forty feet. Except as otherwise provided in Section 21. .050 no 3. (C, building or structure shall be located on the required front yard. 4. Every lot and building site shall have a side yard on each side of the lot or building site not less than fifteen feet in width unless otherwise permitted by Section 21. .050. 5. Every lot and building site shall have a rear yard of not less than twenty five feet unless otherwise permitted by Section 21. .050. 6. No building or structure shall exceed thirty five feet in height. 7. Buildings and structures shall not cover more than forty percent of a lot. 8. All residential structures shall conform to the provisions of Section 21.07.120 of this Code. 21. .060 Development of coastal agricultural land. Coastal agricultural lands may be converted from agricultural to urban uses pursuant to the following procedures: a. Zoning approvals: 1. For property over 100 acres in area a master plan shall be submitted and processed according to the provisions of Chapter 21.38 of this Code. The uses permitted pursuant to the master plan shall be those permitted by the provisions of the Carlsbad General Plan and certified Local Coastal Program in effect at the time the application is submitted. 2. For property less than 100 acres in area a planned development permit shall be submitted and processed pursuant to Chapter 21.45 or 21.47 of this Code, whichever is applicable. The uses permitted pursuant to the planned development permit and the development standards shall be as follows: Land Designation on Permitted Uses and Carlsbad General Plan Development Standards Residential Low Density R-1 40,000 Residential Low Medium Density R-1 10,000 Residential Medium Density R-DM Residential Medium to High Density R-DM Planned Industrial P-M (Map Y of the Certified Local Coastal Plan shows existing permitted land use categories) b. Development permitted based upon mitigation of lands zoned coastal agricultural. A master plan or planned development permit for urban development of lands zoned coastal agriculture shall, in addition to complying with all aspects of the City's General Plan shall include the following items: 1. An enforceable, non-revocable commitment by the property owner to preserve permanently one acre of prime agricultural land within the California Coastal Zone for each net impacted acre of non-prime coastal agricultural land in the 4. n LCP proposed for development. The preserved land shall be located in an area selected by the State Coastal Conservancy and approved by the City Council. This enforceable commitment shall require, prior to issuance of a building permit the permanent transfer or dedication of interest in the prime agricultural land to a grantee that is a local or state agency, or a tax exempt organization qualifying under Section 501(c)(3) of the U. S. Internal Revenue Code. Grantees also shall be limited to organizations and agencies whose principal purposes are consistent with the preservation of agriculture. 2. The following documentation pertaining to the prime agricultural land outside the LCP that is being permanently preserved: A. Parties. Identification of the grantor and grantee (i.e. property owner, and government agency or tax exempt organization having a letter determination from the IRS documenting qualification per Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code). B. Legal Description. A legal description of the prime agricultural lands being preserved. C. Type and Purpose of Easement. A clear statement defining the type and purpose of the easement or other form of property interest being used to protect prime agriculture. Acceptable interests include, but shall not be limited to, conservation easements, transfers in trust, common law easements, open space easements, restrictive covenants, equitable servitudes, fee ownership or any other permanent restriction approved by the City Council. D. Statement of Intent. A statement of intent by the grantor shall be submitted declaring an intent to protect agricultural land through the creation of easements or other interests running with the property, and a declaration of intent by the grantee to honor such grantor intent in perpetuity. E. Documentation. Maps, reports, aerial photographs shall be incorporated into the easement showing evidence of the agricultural lands that grantor and grantee intend to preserve. F. Rights, Restrictions, Permitted Uses and Reservations. Grantee shall demonstrate the necessary authority to monitor and enforce compliance with terms of the agreement as the trustee or guardian. Restrictions shall proscribe all reasonably foreseeable activities that could be potentially harmful to conservation values. G. Executory Limitation. Provisions for forfeiture of the easement or interest by the grantee to another qualified organization should the grantee fail to maintain the land for agricultural use shall be included. H. Assignment. Grantee shall agree to hold easements or interests for conversation purposes and guarantee that he will not transfer the easement except to an organization qualified to hold such interests under the relevant California and Federal laws and the terms of this section. I. Habendum Clause. The interest in property shall inure to the benefit of the grantee. All restrictions shall bind all subsequent purchasers or title holders of the 5. /r restricted land and shall continue as a servitude running with the land in perpetuity. 3. Prior to building permit issuance, the property owner shall present to the City Manager proof of dedication by grantor and acceptance by grantee of an appropriate interest in prime agricultural lands pursuant to subsection b.2. c. Urban development of lands shown to be not feasible for continued or renewed agricultural use. In lieu of the procedures established by subsection b. property owners may complete an agricultural feasibility study prior to conversion of lands designated coastal agriculture. The purpose of the feasibility study shall be to determine, consistent with Section 30242 of the Coastal Act, if continued or renewed agriculture is feasible on the subject property. 1. An applicant or group of applicants may complete an agricultural feasibility analysis for one or any combination of the following study areas: (1) all coastal agricultural lands in the LCP area; (2) individual feasibility analyses for each of four subunits in the LCP (refer to Map X) — Site II 377 approximate acres Site III 275 " " Site IV 109 " " Lusk/Bankers Site 120 " " or, (3) an individual study for the Hunt property may be submitted as part of a submitted master plan for each of its subunits. 2. Feasibility studies submitted for the purpose of determining the viability of continued or renewed agriculture on coastal agricultural parcel(s) shall provide the following: A. Description of the farm unit under study including discussions of land capabilities, crop patterns, and minimum economic farm size B. Investment cost analysis C. Farm unit cash flow analysis (production costs, income, etc.) D. Tax considerations relative to feasibility E. Implications of future trends in water cost and availability, land and labor costs, and market competition. 3. Upon completion, the agricultural study shall be submitted to the City for review and approval concurrent with the filing of a master plan or planned development permit. A. If the study finds that continued or renewed agriculture is feasible the property owner has the choice of: (1) maintaining agricultural uses; or (2) proceeding with conversion and mitigation pursuant to the procedures set forth in subsecton B of this section. B. If the feasibility study finds that continued or renewed agriculture is not feasible and City Council concurs, the City shall review the submitted master plan or planned development permit on its merits and for consistency with the other provisions of this Code and the Local Coastal Plan. If City Council determines that the development is in conformance with all provisions of the Code and the Local Coastal Plan, it may be approved without mitigation for conversion of agricultural 6. land. The approved feasibility study and master plan or planned development permit approved by the City shall be prepared as as LCP amendment and submitted to the Coastal Commission for certification. The master plan, planned development permit or coastal permit shall not be final unless the Local Coastal Plan amendment is approved by the Coastal Commission. d. Site I Special Restrictions. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this chapter, Site I as shown on Map X shall not be converted to urban use except as specifically permitted by the Local Coastal Plan provisions for urban development of Site I. 21. .070 Findings required before conversion to urban uses. A. Where a property owner has agreed to preserve prime agricultural land elsewhere in the state coastal zone pursuant to Section 21. .060 then the City Council prior to approval of a master plan or planned development permit must find that: 1. The conversion would preserve prime agricultural land in a manner consistent with Section 30242 of the Public Resources Code, the certified Local Coastal Plan and this chapter. 2. The master plan or planned development permit is consistent with the certified LCP. 3. Conversion would concentrate urban development consistent with Section 30250 in areas able to accommodate it, and within or adjacent to developed areas. 4. Conversion would be compatible with continued agriculture on adjacent agricultural lands. 5. Consistent with the certified LCP and Section 30241 of the Coastal Act, conversion would contribute to limiting conversions of prime agricultural land and create stable urban/rural boundaries within prime agricultural lands located elsewhere in the coastal zone. B. Where a property owner has elected to complete an agricultural feasibility analysis, and the property owner and City agree, based on that analysis, that continued or renewed agriculture is not feasible on the subject lands, and a City Council approved feasibility analysis and master plan/planned development permit must incorporate City findings declaring that: 1. Continued or renewed agriculture is not feasible on the subject parcel(s) and, consistent with Section 30242 of the Coastal Act, conversion of the parcels designated coastal agriculture in the LCP shall not require the preservation of prime agricultural lands elsewhere in the coastal zone. 2. Development permitted is consistent with the certified LCP. 3. Permitted development is compatible with continued agriculture on adjacent agricultural lands. 21. .075 Development on coastal agricultural lands not consistent with underlying land use designation. Conversions of coastal agriculturallands to urban uses other than those 7. underlying land use designations identified on Map may be permitted pursuant to the procedures and findings set forth in Sections 21. .060 and 21. .070 relative to the preparaton and submission of an LCP amendment for Coastal Commission certification. Uses other than those underlying land uses specified on Map shall require an amendment to the LCP. 21. .080 Proximity of urban development to existing development areas.Urban development of agriculturallands shall be located: 1. Contiguous with or in close proximity to existing developed areas; 2. In areas with adequate public facilities and services; 3. Where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources. 21. .090 Rezone upon conversion. Concurrently with an applicationforconversion from an agricultural to an urban use an application for a corresponding zone change shall be submitted. The zone change shall not be approved unless the City Council finds that the property is approved for urban development pursuant to this Chapter. 21. .100 Review by Planning Commission. Applicationsfor conversionsfrom agriculturalto urban use shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission in the same manner as applications for zone changes under Chapters 21.52 and 21.54 of this Code. 8. X. FINDINGS 1. Coastal Agriculture: A Unique Statewide Coastal Resource Coastal agriculture, particularly prime agricultural lands, is a coastal resource of statewide significance. Prime agri- cultural lands provide a combination of soils and coastal climate that create special conditions contributing to crop diversity, high productivity, and reduced energy and water consumption. Prime agricultural lands are key elements in both local and state economies. Non-prime coastal agricul- ture on lower quality soils also is valuable for producing special crops but the productivity, economic importance, and long-term viability of non-prime agriculture cannot compare with prime agricultural lands. 2. Coastal Agriculture in Carlsbad The City of Carlsbad does not contain prime agricultural lands. All of the remaining coastal agriculture in the City is located on non-prime lands (e.g. lands with Class III or poor- er soils and a Storie Index Rating less than 80). Previous agricultural feasibility studies completed for the LCP area indicate that the viability of continued or renewed agricul- ture is questionable and will be influenced by the following factors: market—especially competing products; the relative cost of water, labor, and land; transportation costs; regula- tory policies; and the mounting pressures of urbanization. Carlsbad agriculture experiences an advanced stage of the pressures that increasingly can be seen in other coastal areas, such as Monterey County. As the state population and economy expand, agricultural lands are increasingly vulner- able to conversion. The greatest pressures occur along the coast. Coastal areas are valued for homes as well as agricul- ture, and land values for urban use exceed agriculture land values. As urbanization continues, increases in property taxes and land speculation accelerate land conversions and the costs of protecting agricultural lands escalate. High estate taxes (created by high land values) make continued farming difficult for landowners attempting to transfer own- ership to heirs. Property and estate taxes are levied accord- ing to assessed and fair market values of the property. This tax burden, in combination with the need to plan for a secure retirement, force farmers to sell their land. Because such lands are not affordable to farmers more agricultural lands are urbanized. Based on the above considerations, the City finds that over the short term agriculture may be marginally viable on non- prime agricultural lands in the LCP area. However, the City also finds that, based on the above considerations, coastal agriculture is not a viable long term use. 3. Protecting Prime Agricultural Lands: A Mitigation Program Recognizing the above factors and trends, the City finds that it is beneficial to permit the orderly conversion of non- prime agricultural lands in the LCP as part of an overall effort to protect prime agriculture in other parts of the Coastal Zone consistent with sections 30241, 30242, and 30250 of the Coastal Act. The proposed approach to coastal agriculture set forth in the amendment requires the permanent preservation of one acre of prime agriculture outside the City but in the Coastal Zone for each net acre of non-prime agriculture permitted for con- version in the LCP. The amendment outlines new City policies and a "Coastal Agriculture" zone (including necessary find- ings, standards, and procedures) to replace existing LCP pro- visions. Pursuant to this approach, all coastal agriculture and all net impacted agricultural lands in the LCP are desig- nated on LCP maps. Property owners have the option of: 1) converting coastal agricultural lands to uses specified by underlying urban land use designations with acre-for-acre mitigation based on net impacted agricultural land; or 2) contesting the agricultural designation and completing an agricultural feasibility study to determine whether continued agriculture is viable. If a landowner is willing to mitigate the conversion of land designated coastal agriculture, con- version may proceed consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use designations without completing a feasibility study and without a subsequent LCP amendment. Consistent with sections 30241 and 30242, the City finds that this approach contributes to the creation of stable urban/ rural boundaries in prime agricultural areas, limits conver- sions and reduces land use conflicts on the periphery of such areas, and buttresses the subregional economy of prime agri- cultural areas. The program also concentrates development adjacent to developed areas able to accommodate it, consistent with Section 30250 of the Act. The amendment also restores the operability of Section 30242 by providing for demon- strable mitigation for conversion of agricultural lands without relying on mitigation fees. 2.3 4. Benefits of the Proposed Amendment Over Alternatives The proposed LCP amendment achieves maximum effectiveness in protecting prime agriculture by encouraging -and facilitating the early preservation of prime agricultural land. Pursuant to this approach lands designated coastal agriculture are presumed to require mitigation prior to conversion. A feasi- bility study is required only if landowners contest the LCP agricultural designation and elect to complete a feasibility analysis. In such cases, the City or landowner initiates the study and, if the study determines that continued or renewed agriculture is not feasible, the City submits an LCP amend- ment to the Coastal Commission containing the feasibility study and findings, and proposed urban uses. Alternatives to the program outlined in this amendment include the following: A. Requiring A Feasibility Study Before Mitigation One alternative would be to require the completion of feasibility analyses before any conversions could be approved. The City finds that such an approach would be less protective of prime agricultural resources than this amendment and that it would not be consistent with the Coastal Act because: 1) Requiring a feasibility study as a precondition for mitigation is in direct conflict with Sec- tion 30242 of the Act. Section 30242 provides property owners the alternative of proceeding with either mitigation or a feasibility analysis as mutually exclusive, non-sequential options. A feasibility study as a precondition to mitiga- tion is reasonable only if prime agriculture is being considered for conversion, or if the non- prime lands under consideration are adjacent to and supportive of prime agricultural lands. The Carlsbad LCP does not contain prime agriculture and any requirement conditioning mitigation upon the prior completion of a feasibility study would be contrary to Section 30242 of the Act and with- out apparent benefit or logic. 2) Protection of prime agricultural lands would be delayed indefinitely in the case of a landowner ~ who is willing to mitigate but is forced to com- plete a feasibility study. Additional delays would result while the City and Coastal Commis- sion debate and approve/reject findings. During this delay period, key parcels throughout the coastal zone could be converted to urban use, thus diminishing the benefits of this program and undermining the stability of prime coastal agricultural areas. 3) This alternative would result in less prime agri- cultural land being permanently protected. All LCP parcels would be subject to feasibility tests and the results of such tests can't be prejudged. It would appear inevitable that study findings could establish the non-feasibility of some par- cels, thereby allowing lands designated coastal agriculture in the LCP to be converted without mitigation. Therefore, requiring a feasibility test, in addition to delaying mitigation, can only reduce mitigation—it cannot add one acre to the amount of prime agricultural land that will be protected pursuant this amendment. 4) Requiring all parcels to undergo feasibility studies provides an incentive for landowners to contest the coastal agriculture designation, and thus constitutes a disincentive to mitigate. B. Maintaining Coastal Agriculture in Carlsbad A second option to this LCP amendment is the long-term maintenance of remaining agricultural lands in the LCP. The City finds that this alternative is not feasible and would be less protective of coastal resources than the proposed amendment for the following reasons: 1) For the reasons outlined in Finding 2 above, con- tinued, long-term agriculture is not viable in the City's coastal zone. 2) The people of the Sate of California have more to gain by the protection of prime coastal agri- culture than efforts aimed at protecting less productive non-prime agricultural lands. 3) Efforts to save LCP non-prime agriculture will proceed at the expense of mitigation of prime agriculture. For all of the above reasons, the City finds and declares that the agricultural mitigation program incorporated into the LCP amendment is consistent with Coastal Act policies and objectives and, particularly, that this approach is the most protective overall of coastal resources. aT~'*~^'c.C—. Map X .*:- MAP Y '.**•'.* -xr* rX*-^ r-i ^^.-Cr/SSSS^^^vS^- Residential/Density Low (0-1.5 du/ac) Low-Medium (0-4 du/ac) Medium (4-10 du/ac) Medium-High (10-20 du/ac) ••^ooaj.^ LEGEND* Planned Industrial ' Open Space Non-Residential Reserve Drainage and Erosion Control Any development proposal that affects steep slopes (25% inclina- tion or greater) shall be required to prepare a slope map and analysis for the affected slopes. Steep slopes are identified on the PRC Toups maps. The slope mapping and analysis shall be prepared during the C2QA environmental review on a project-by- project basis and shall be required as a condition of a coastal development permit. 1) For those slopes mapped as possessing endangered plant/animal species and/or coastal saga scrub and chapparal plant cotnmunitias, highly erodible soils.Tgeologic hazards, the following policy language would apply: a) Slopes of 221 grade and over shall be preserved in their natural state, unless the application of this policy would preclude any reasonable use of the property, in which case an encroachment not to exceed 101 of the steep slope area over 221 grade may be permitted. For existing legal parcels, with all or nearly all of their area in slope area over 22% grade, encroachment may be permitted; however, any such encroachment shall be limited so that at no time is more than 20% of the entire parcel (including areas under 22% slope) permitted to be disturbed from its natural stale. This policy shall not apply to the construction of roads of the City's circulation element or the development of ul.ility systems. Uses of slopes over 22% may be made in order to provide access to flatter areas if there is no less environmentally damaging alternative available. b) Ho further subdivisions of land or utilization of Planned Unit Developments shall occur on lots that have their total area in excess of 22% slope unless a Planned Unit Development is proposed which limits grading and development to not more than 10% of the total site area. c) Slopes and ar«as remaining undisturbed as a result of the hillside review process, should be placed in a permanent open space easement as a condition of development approval. The purpose of the open space easement shall be to reduce the potential for localized erosion and slide hazards, to prohibit the removal of native vegetation except for creating firebreaks and/or planting fire retardant vegetation and to protect visual resources of importance to the entire community. 2) For all other steep slope areas not mapped, the City Council may allow exceptions to the above grading provisions provided the following mandatory findings to allow exceptions are made: 1. A soils investigation conducted by a licensed soils engineer has determined the subject slope area to be stable and grading and development impacts mitigatable for at least 75 years, or life of structure. 2. Grading of the slope is essential to the develop- ment intent and design. 3. Slope disturbance will not result in substantial damage or alteration to major wildlife habitat or native vegetation areas. 4. If the area proposed to be disturbed is predomin- ated by steep slopes and is in excess of 10 acres/. no more than'one third of the total steep slop* area shall be subject to major grade changes. 5. If the area proposed-to be disturbed is predomin- ated by steep slopes and is less than 10 acres, complete grading may be allowed only if no inter- ruption of significant wildlife corridors occurs. 6. Because north-facing slopes are generally more prone to stability problems and ia many cases contain more extensive natural vegetation, no grading or removal of vegetation from these areas will be permitted unless all environmental impacts have—been mitigated. Overriding circumstances are not considered adequate mitigation. EXHIBIT #2 CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-1989VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR. (619) 433.553-) CITY ATTORNEY V ' DANIEL S. HENTSCHKE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY August 9, 1985 Adam Birnbaum Coastal Planner California Coastal Commission San Diego District 1333 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 125 San Diego, California 92108-3520 RE: AMENDMENT TO FINAL SUBMITTAL OF CARLSBAD LCP AMENDMENT REQUEST Dear Mr. Birnbaum: Pursuant to our telephone conversation on August 8, 1985 the City requests that its amendment request submitted to you on August 2, 1985 be amended in the following respects: A. Concerning the modification of Mello I and II regarding agricultural preservation - the provisions for amendment of the Mello I (Hunt - Rancho La Costa) property should be amended by the deletion of the sentence which reads, "The master plan shall address the feasibility of continued or renewed agriculture on approximately 200 acres of historic cultivation as shown on the PRC toups maps." In addition, the sentence immediatley following the deleted sentence in the paragraph should be modified to read as follows: "Conversion of any portion of the nonprime agricultural lands as shown on the PRC toups maps to urban uses pursuant to the master plan shall be allowed if the following findings are made:" That modification should be accompanied by a modification to section 21. .020 of the Coastal Agricultural Zone to add "Hunt-(a portion thereof)" and the number 200 to subsection (A) which defines coastal agricultural lands. B. Section 21. .020 of the Coastal Agricultural Zone should be amended by the amendment of subsection (E) to read as follows: "Net impacted agricultural lands" means -2- for purposes of calculating required mitigation acreage, the parcels and acreages designated on Map X suitable for agricultural use minus the acreage in steep slopes (25% or greater) and areas containing sensitive coastal resources that would preclude development." Section 21. .060 of the Coastal Agricultural Zone be amended in subsection (b}(1) on page 5 of the proposed ordinance, second full sentence to read as follows: "This enforceable commitment shall require prior to the issuance of a final subdivision map, parcel map, or building permit whichever is earlier, the permanent transfer or dedication of interest in the prime agricultural land to a grantee that is a local or state agency, or a tax exempt organization qualifying under section 501(c)(3) of the U. S. Internal Revenue Code." In addition, that section should be modified in subsection b.3. to read as follows: "Prior to issuance of a final subdivision map, parcel map, or building permit whichever is earlier, the property owner shall present to the final decision making body of the City proof of dedication by grantor and acceptance by grantee of an appropriate interest in prime agricultural land pursuant to subsection b.2." Finally, subsection c.1. of that section should be amended by amending the last sentence to read, "(3) an individual study for the Hunt Property may be submitted as part of the master plan for development of the property." Section 21. .010 should be amended by amending the second from the last sentence in the paragraph to read: "The Local Coastal Plan recognizes that long term agriculture may not be feasible." In addition, the following sentence should be added at the end of the section, "The Coastal Agriculture Zone is an overlay zone. No use shall be allowed on any property zoned coastal agriculture unless such use complies with the provisions of this chapter and with the provisions of any other chapter of this title which are applicable to the property." Section 21. .090 of the proposed chapter should be deleted and Section 21. .100 should be redesignated to be 21. ^.090. Finally, Map X should be amended to delete Site I and to -3- designate the approximately 200 acres of agricultural property on the Hunt holding. In addition, Map Y should be amended by the deletion of Site I. Thank you very much for your prompt review of this matter and for bringing these technical corrections to my attention so quickly. If I can be of any further assistance please don't hesitate to let me know. Very truly y< Assistant City Attorney rmh Mayor Casler Council Member Chick City Manager Gary Wayne 3 -2— CIT OF CARLSBAD - AGEND BILL AB# MTG. 2/19/85 TITLE: APPROVAL OF THE EXISTING CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM WITH TWO AMENDMENTS O UJ Ocza.a. o oz3 Oo RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Approve the attached resolution to accept the existing Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (Mello Bill I and II properties) with recommended amendments. 2. Direct staff to forward Council's action to the Coastal Commission with a communication indicating the City's wish to assume land use authority pursuant to the resolution of approval and requesting proces- sing as soon as possible. ITEM EXPLANATION: Over the last ten months the City has been exploring the possibility of accepting Local Coastal Program authority for a major portion of Carls- bad's Coastal Zone. In April of 1984 the City Council directed the City Manager to analyze the LCP in light of existing City policy. This effort was to determine possible areas of agreement in preparation for future negotiations. In June of 1984 the City Council appointed a Local Coastal Program Com- mittee to formulate a position on the LCP and return with a course of action. The LCP Committee members are Mayor Casler and Councilman Chick. At the June Council discussion on the LCP an analysis of LCP policy was distributed. The analysis points out the many regulations established by the LCP in the City's Coastal Zone. However, the majority of these regulations are compatible with City policy. One problem area has been a major obstacle since the LCP was adopted by the Coastal Commission. The problem is that of agricultural "protection." The City has never opposed agricultural protection, but has opposed "permanent" agricultural zoning. In September 1984 the Governor signed Assembly Bill 3744 which elimina- ted a controversial "agricultural subsidy program" imposed on portions of Carlsbad's Coastal Zone. At a City Council meeting in Seotember the Council expressed its general intent to implement the LCP and directed the City Manager to pursue that end, if AB 3744 was approved. The LCP Committee has determined only two major policy changes necessary to the existing LCP in order to recommend acceptance to the Council. 1. A revised policy on agricultural protection. 2. A revised policy on regulation of slope areas P The elimination of the agricultural subsidy program by AB 3744 emphasises a need to address agriculture in the Coastal Zone. Since AB 3744 was signed, the Coastal Commission has on numerous occasions requested the City to suggest new policies. 33, ^_^i PAGE 2 of AGENDA BILL ft "7903 — The Committee recognizes the vital need to reorganize the LCP document, which was hastily prepared by Commission staff. How- ever, the Committee believes the highest priority at this time should be efforts directed at accepting LCP authority. On January 8, 1985 the City Council opened a six-week review period of the LCP Committee recommended actions. On February 11, 1985 the LCP Committee held a workshop to answer questions and receive comments on the LCP process and City efforts up to date. The LCP process provides local governments two options in pursuing plan certification (approval). 1. The first option allows the City to adopt the LCP and at the same time make appropriate General Plan and Zoning changes. The LCP would then be forwarded to the Coastal Commission as a complete-intact document. If the Commission approves the plan with no changes, there is an immediate transfer of land use authority. 2. Option two allows the City to take action on an LCP without formally changing the General Plan and Zoning ordinances. The LCP can then be forwarded to the Coastal Commission to review and potentially certify. If the Commission approves the LCP the City would then formally change the General Plan and Zoning to conform. Once the General Plan and Zoning have been modified (using the city general plan amendment/zone change process) evidence would be forwarded to the Commission. At that time the City would achieve coas- tal zone land use authority. It is the recommendation of the LCP Committee that option two be the course of action for LCP processing. If option one is pur- sued and General Plan/Zoning changes are made up-front even the slightest modification to the LCP by the Coastal Commission through its process would require additional formal changes to City code. The Committee considers option two the most cost- effective method. Most local governments have used this option in LCP processing. Once the City takes action as recommended by this agenda bill and the documents are forwarded to the Coastal Commission it has an initial 10 working day review period. After this 10 day period the LCP must be scheduled for Coastal Commission hearing and action within 60 days. Failure to act by the Commission within 60 days is deemed an action to approve as submitted. 3f. OCEAIMSIOE I EXHIBIT 1. HWY 78 BUENA VISTA LAGOON \ PACIFIC OCEAN CITY OF CARLSBAD COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY SUBJECT AREA PAGE 3 Of AGENDA BILL # EXHIBITS; 1. Map of affected, area, dated 12/84, 2. Resolution # 7. 1 ' RESOLUTION NO. 7913 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE EXISTING 3 CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (MELLO BILL I AND II) WITH AMENDMENTS. 4 5 WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has received the certified 6 Local Coastal Program (LCP) documents for that portion of the 7 Carlsbad Coastal Zone specified in California Public Resources 8 Code Sections 30170(f) and 30171 (Mello Bills I and II) from the 9 California Coastal Commission; and 10 WHEREAS, the City has reviewed these documents and found 11 their provisions to be acceptable for administration aa City 12 policy with two general exceptions regarding development on slopes 13 and on agricultural lands; and 14 WHEREAS, the City has prepared an amendment to the 15 certified Local Coastal Program to address the City's concerns 16 over development on slopes and on agricultural lands and to make 17 other LCP modifications consistent with changes in the state law; 18 and 19 WHEREAS, the City is prepared to adopt necessary 20 resolutions and ordinances to enable the City to receive LCP 21 "effective certification" pursuant to the LCP documents With the 22 amendments referred to in this resolution; and 23 WHEREAS, the City intends and is prepared to issue 24 Coastal Development Permits pursuant to the LCP documents when 25 amended as established herein and implemented by City resolutions 26 and ordinances; and 27 WHEREAS, necessary public review of the LCP documents 28 and proposed amendments has been provided by the City, 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of 2 the City of Carlsbad as follows: 3 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 4 2. That the City of Carlsbad is prepared to adopt by 5 appropriate local resolutions and ordinances the Local Coastal 6 Program for that portion of the Carlsbad Coastal Zone specified 7 in Public Resources Code Sections 30170(f) and 30171 with the 8 amendments attached hereto as exhibits one, two and three, and 9 made a part hereof. 10 3. That subject to the adoption of the appropriate 11 local resolutions and ordinances the City of Carlsbad is prepared 12 to administer and carry out the requirements and provisions of 13 the Local Coastal Program as amended. 14 4. That the City Council directs the City Manager to 15 forward this resolution along with any other necessary documents 16 as an application pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 30514 17 and 2 California Administrative Code Section 13551(b)(2) for an 18 amendment to the Local Coastal Program for that portion of the 19 Carlsbad Coastal Zone specified in this resolution, and further, 20 that the California Coastal Commission be requested to authorize 21 certification pursuant to 2 California Administrative Code 22 Section 1344, of the Local Coastal Program as amended after the 23 City has adopted the necessary implementing ordinances and 24 resolutions. 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8,. MARY H. p&SLER, Mayor PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council, of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the 19th day Of February f 1985 t,y t^e following vote to wit: AYES: Council Members Casler, Lewis, Kulchin, Chick and Pettine NOES: ABSENT: None a^/ Citfy 9 1Q || ATTEST: 11 12.. ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, Cit'y Clerk13 r 14 I' (SEAL)II 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Mello Bill I - Zoning Ordinances/cont'd... Page Section Action 19 #7 Map and Deed Notice Delete 19 #8 Housing Delete 20 #10 Findings Delete 23-24 Conditional Uses sec. 21.42.010 Permitted Uses (A)(B) Delete 41 Permit Procedures #2. Definitions "Conditional Use" Delete -2- t Page 1 - Modifications - MELLO BILL II - LAND USE Section "Exhibit A" I. #1 Occidental (C) Affordable Housing D, addition to Kelly/Macario Affordable Housing II Revisions to Findings, I. Staff Recommendation Action Delete Delete Delete: "on the basis of the Findings and Dec- larations con- tained in Part II of this report below." 3-4 5-6 7-8 II Findings and Declaration B,C,D 8. Housing 9. Alternatives to the Land Use Plan Policies (end "Exhibit A") Delete Delete Delete 2-4 4 5 6-10 10-14 16 20 31 Policy 2-1 Conservation of Agricultural Lands, B. Basic Agricultural Use Regu- lation: Planned Agriculture C. Designated Agricultural Lands E. Agricultural Subsidy Program F. Permitted Uses on all Agricultural Land G,H,I,J,K,L,M re. Agricultural Subsidy Policy 2-2 "Mixed Use Development" Policy 3-1 Slopes and Preservation of Vegetation Policy 4-7 Accelerated Soil Erosion a) Policy 9-1 through 9-9, Housing Substitute DAg zone ref. for PAZ Delete, replace with DAg map and description Delete Delete, replace with DAg wording Delete Delete Delete last para- graph, replace with new slope language Add new slope language Delete Mello Bill IT •->- Land Use/cont'd. .. Page Section Action 1 1 1 2 4 1-8 10, 11 12 13 13 29-32 33 33 Begin "Attachment A" Kelly Point/Macario Canyon A. Maximum Density of Development #1 B. Agriculture/Planned Development C. Drainage, Erosion Control, #1 C. Drainage, Erosion Control, #5 D. Housing MELLO BILL II - ZONING ORDINANCES Planned Agricultural Zone VII Mixed Use Program applicable to the Ecke Property A,B,C VIII Requirements for a Master Plan; A, B , C, D, E, F, G X Findings Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone #3 Development Standards (a) Preservation of Steep Slopes and Vegetation #1, 2 Low and Moderate Income Housing Zone Addition to P-C Zone Kelly Point/ Macario Canyon #1 Permits Required #2 Maximum Density of Development #1 Delete Delete Delete, replace with new slope language Delete Delete Delete, replace with DAg zone Delete Delete Delete Delete ref. to conditional use permit Delete, replace with new slope language Delete Delete ref. to conditional uses Delete -2- Mello Bill IT - Zoning Ordinances/cont'd... Page Section Action 34 #3 Erosion, Drainage, Sedimentation Delete, replace (b) with new slope language 34, 35 #3 Erosion, Drainage, Sedimentation (f) Delete 36 #4 Buffers/Open Space Delete 36 #5 Agriculture Delete 37 #6 Agricultural Land Open Space Management Plan Delete 37 #7 Map and Deed Notice Delete 37 #8 Housing Delete 38 #10 Findings Delete 41 Amendments to Condo Conversion Ordinance 21.47 Delete 43 Conditonal Uses sec. 21.42.010 Permitted Uses (A)(B) Delete -3- EXHIBIT 2. CHAPTER 21. Developable Agriculture Zone 21. .010 Purpose and Intent. The Developable Agriculture (DAg) Zone is established to implement Sections 30170(f), 30171, 30241, and 30242 of the California Coastal Act and the Local Coas- tal Land Use Plan certified on . This zone recognizes agriculture as a priority use under the Coastal Act and protects that use by establishing mechanisms to assure the continued and renewed agricultural use of agricultural lands while allowing dev- elopment to proceed in compliance with the zone. This zone provides necessary incentives to accomplish the goal of protecting and pro- moting agriculture in the coastal zone, in order to conform with Sections 30241 and 30242 of the California Coastal Act of 1976. The DAg zone adopts permitted uses for all agricultural lands located in the zone. The DAg conversion program is voluntary, and allows agricultural parcels to convert to more intense urban uses. To mitigate the adverse impact of conversion on the area's currently existing agricultural economy, landowners of developable agricultural lands must contribute monetary fees to a fund which will encourage continued agriculture on lands retained in agricultural use. 21. .020 Definitions. For the purposes of this zone, terms used herein are defined as follows: A. "Developable Agricultural Lands" means those agricultural lands identified on Map X attached to the Land Use Plan certified on . The following are the lands identified on Map X: Site I 500 approximate acres Site II 377 " " Site III 275 Site IV 109 Hunt 200 Lusk 93 Bankers 27 Total: 1,581 B. "Class I-IV Agricultural Land" means all land which qualifies for rating as Class I through Class IV in the U.S. Department of Agri- culture Soil Conservation Service Land Use Compatibility Classification. C. "Class V-VIII Agricultural Land" means all land which qualifies for rating as Class V through Class VT.II in the U.S. Department of Agri- culture Soil Conservation Service Land Use Compatibility Classification. D. "Land Division" means the creation of any new property line whether by subdivision or other means. E. "Urban Uses" means any use other than a use permitted by Section 21. .050 including any use necessary or convenient to urban use. 21. 030 Development of developable agricultural land. Developable agricultural land may be converted from agricultural use and developed for urban use in compliance with the procedures of this chapter. 21. 040 Permits required. No development, including but not limited to land divisions, as defined in Section 21.04.108 of this code shall occur without a Coastal Development Permit having first been issued pursuant to Chapter 21.65 of this Code. A master plan or a planned development permit processed according to Section 21. . 050 shall be considered a coastal permit if also processed in compliance with Chapter 21.65. 21. .050 Permitted uses on agricultural lands. The provisions of this section shall apply to any developable agricultural land which has not been approved for development pursuant to this chapter. a. On any Class I through Class IV Agricultural Land the follow- ing uses only are permitted: 1. Cattle, sheep, goats and swine production, provided that the number of any one or combina- tion of said animals shall not exceed one animal per half acre of lot area. Structures for con- taining animals shall not be located within fifty feet of any habitable structure on the same parcel, nor within three hundred feet of an adjoining parcel zoned for residential uses. 2. Crop production. 3. Floriculture. 4. Horses, private use. 5. Nursery crop production. 6. Poultry, rabbits, chinchillas, hamsters and other small animals, provided not more than twenty-five of any one or combination thereof shall be kept within fifty feet of any habitable structure, nor within three hundred feet of an adjoining parcel zoned for residential uses. 7. Roadside stands for display and sale of pro- ducts produced on the same premises, with a floor area not exceeding two hundred square feet, and located not nearer than twenty feet to any street or highway. 8. Tree farms. 9. Truck farms. 10. Wildlife refuges and game preserves. -2- 11. Other uses or enterprises similar to the above customarily carried on in the field of general agriculture including accessory uses such as silos, tank houses, shops, barns, offices, coops, stables, corrals, and similar uses required for the conduct of the uses above. 12. One single family dwelling per existing legal building parcel. b. On any Class V through VIII Agricultural Land the follow- ing uses only are permitted: 1. All of the permitted uses listed above. 2. Hay and feed stores. 3. Nurseries, retail and wholesale. 4. Packing sheds, processing plants and commercial outlets for farm crops, provided that such activities are not located within 100 feet of any lot line. 5. Greenhouses, provided all requirements for yard setbacks and height as specified in Chapter 21.07 of this Code are met. 21. .055 Lot and yard standards - agricultural lands. The provisions of this section shall apply to any developable agricultural land which has not been approved for development pursuant to this chapter. 1. The minimum required lot area of any newly created lot shall not be less than 10 acres. 2. Every newly created lot shall have a minimum width of the rearline of the required front yard of not less than three hundred feet. 3. Every lot shall have a required front yard of forty feet. Except as otherwise provided in Section 21. .050 no building or structure shall be located on the required front yard. 4. Every lot and building site shall have a side yard on each side of the lot or building site not less than fifteen feet in width unless otherwise permitted by Section 21.; .050. 5. Every lot and building site shall have a rear yeard of not less than twenty five feet unless otherwise permitted by Section 21. .050. 6. No building or structure shall exceed thirty five feet in height. -3- 7. Buildings and structures shall not cover more than forty percent of a lot. 8. All residential structures shall conform to the provisions of Section 21.07.120 of this Code. 21. .060 Development of developable agricultural land. Developable agricultural lands may be converted from agricultural to urban uses pursuant to the following procedures: 1. For property over 100 acres in area a master plan shall be submitted and processed according to the provisions of Chapter 21.38 of this Code. The uses permitted pursuant to the master plan shall be those permitted by the provisions of the certified local coastal plan in effect at the time the application is submitted. A concur- rent application to amend the local coastal plan may be submitted with the master plan but in no event shall the master plan be finally appro- ved unless the amendment to the local coastal plan is certified by the Coastal Commission. 2. For property less than 100 acres in area a planned develop- ment permit shall be submitted and processed pursuant to Chapter 21.45 or 21.47 of this Code, whichever is applicable. The uses permitted pursuant to the planned development permit and the development stan- dards shall be as follows: Land Designation On Permitted Uses and Local Coastal Plan Development Standards Residential 0-1.5 R-l 40,000 Residential 0-4 R-l 10,000 Residential 4-10 R-DM Residential 10-20 R-DM Planned Industrial P-M (Map Y shows existing permitted land use categories) A concurrent application to amend the local coastal plan may be submitted with the planned development permit, but in no event shall the planned development permit be finally approved unless the amend- ment to the local coastal plan is certified by the Coastal Commission. 3. As a condition of approval of a master plan or planned devel- opment permit an agricultural mitigation fee of $6,500 per acre of land converted shall be paid to mitigate the adverse impact caused by the loss of the agricultural land. 21. .070 Agricultural loss mitigation fund. a. Fees collected through the developable agricultural land conversion shall be deposited in a fund which shall be administered by the City Council or any agency designated by the City Council. The funds shall be spent according to the following priorities: 1. Purchase of agricultural lands for continued agri- cultural production within the Carlsbad Coastal Zone. If the City of Carlsbad determines that the size and/ or location of possible acquisitions are not satis- factory, option two may be used. 2. Agricultural improvements which will aid in the continuation of remaining agricultural production within the Carlsbad Coastal Zone. If the City of Carlsbad determines that expenditure of mitigation funds for this purpose would not result in prolonga- tion of agricultural production in a cost effective way, option three may be used. 3. Restoration/enhancement or studies leading to the restoration/enhancement of lagoons, beaches or other coastal resources in the Carlsbad Coastal Zone. b. Mitigation Program. Within six months of the certification of this chapter by the California Coastal Commission, the City Council shall prepare operating directives and procedures for administration of the mitigation program. A reasonable portion of the transmitted conversion fees may be used by the City to cover the actual costs of administration, up to a maximum of 1% of any conversion fees. Costs of administration will be greatest at the beginning of the program, so a proportion greater than 1% of the fees may be reserved at the initiation of the program for the purpose. Five years after the adoption of the mitigation program, the program shall be reviewed for effectiveness and fulfillment of applic- able coastal act policies. If the City Council finds the program not adequate to meet the purposes of the local coastal program, modifica- tion may be requested as a Local Coastal Program amendment. /r MAP Y Residential/Density Low (0-1.5 du/ac) Low-Medium (0-4 du/ac) Medium (4-10 du/ac) JH Medium-High (10-20 du/ac) Planned Industrial Open Space Non-Residential Reserve EXHIBIT 3, ADDITIONAL/REPLACEMENT WORDING FOR MELLO BILL I AND II LCP SLOPE RESTRICTIONS. Those slope areas which are completely restricted from disturbance may on a case by case basis be reviewed to allow exceptions. To allow exceptions to the disturbance restriction the City Council must make findings of fact, regarding slope disturbance as a part of the issuance of a coastal permit. The following are mandatory findings to allow exceptions. 1. A soils investigation conducted by a licensed soils engineer has determined the subject slope area to be stable and grading and development impacts mitigatable for at least 75 years, or life of structure. 2. Grading of the slope is essential to the develop- ment intent and design. 3. Slope disturbance will not result in substantial damage or alteration to major wildlife habitat or native vegetation areas. 4. If the area proposed to be disturbed is predomin- ated by steep slopes and is in excess of 10 acres, no more than one third of the total steep slope area shall be subject to major grade changes. 5. If the area proposed to be disturbed is predomin- ated by steep slopes and is less than 10 acres, complete grading may tae allowed only if no inter- ruption of significant wildlife corridors occurs. 6. Because north-facing slopes are generally more prone to stability problems and in many cases contain more extensive natural vegetation, no grading or removal of vegetation from these areas will be permitted unless all environmental impacts have been mitigated. Overriding circumstances are not considered adequate mitigation. August 13, 1985 TO: LCP Committee FROM: City Attorney EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I have revised the Executive Summary which Gary Wayne sent out on August 2, 1985. Any comments are welcome. We should mail this on Monday or Tuesday of next week. HENTSCHKE Assistant City Attorney rmh attachment CITY OF CARLSBAD LCP AMENDMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Carlsbad's proposed amendment resolves the issues of urban development on.agricultural lands and grading on hillsides in a manner which is consistent with the goals and policies of the Coastal Act, the City Council and the Coastal Commission. The amendment achieves a proper balance between local and state-wide concerns. Important provisions of the amendment include: SLOPES; Before any development proposal affecting steep slopes (25% inclination or greater) is approved the applicant shall prepare a slope map and analysis for the affected slopes. The affected slopes would be preserved in their natural state if the analysis identifies a steep slope area as possessing endangered species, other sensitive coastal resources, highly erodible soils, or geologic hazards. Limited grading would be permitted if the application of this policy precludes any reasonable use of the property. This amendment is consistent with the local coastal plans of the City and the County of San Diego. AGRICULTURE; Agriculture is recognized as a priority use under the Coastal Act. The amendment protects that use by establishing agriculture as the principal, but interim, use of all LCP lands previously designated as being suitable for agriculture. The Carlsbad LCP area does not contain prime agricultural land and previous agricultural feasibility studies for the LCP area indicate that continued or renewed agriculture is questionable. Because preservation of prime agriculture lands is a Coastal Act priority the amendment proposes a program that would contribute to the preservation of a maximum amount of prime land throughout the Coastal Zone while permitting urban development of nonprime agricultural land. Consistent with the express provisions of the Coastal Act orderly conversion of nonprime agricultural land to urban uses is allowed if either prime agricultural land is preserved elsewhere in the California Coastal Zone or a study is performed which proves that agricultural uses are not feasible on the property. The details of this program are spelled out in the proposed Coastal Agricultural Zone which is part of the proposed amendment. Under this overlay zone, property would be restricted to agricultural uses until urban development has been approved. Consistent with Section 30242 of the Coastal Act urban development would be permitted only if prime agricultural land is preserved or agricultural uses are not feasible. The feasibility analysis would be done for logical combinations of property as specified in the ordinance. For property which would be developed pursuant to a master plan, the master plan would address development of the agricultural lands. The land use designations of the Carlsbad General Plan and the underlying zoning would control urban development. -2- The proposed amendment is the culmination of many years of work by the City, the Commission and the affected property owners. The City believes it fairly addresses the concerns of all parties and meets the goals and policies of the Coastal Act.