HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-03-15; Parks & Recreation Commission; 393-4; Coastal Accessway time lock gatesPARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - AGENDA BILL
AB*TITLE:
DEPT.
COASTAL ACCESSWAY TIME LOCK
GATES/COASTAL COMMISSION
RECONSIDERATION (INFO)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept and file staff update.
ITEM EXPLANATION;
On February 18, 1993 staff addressed the Coastal Commission during a reconsideration of
an earlier denial for the installation of time lock gates at three (3) coastal accessways along
Ocean Street; by an 11-0 vote the Coastal Commission upheld their original denial for
installation. Staff will provide a verbal update regarding this issue.
EXHIBITS;
1. Memo to Assistant City Manager - February 19, 1993
2. Letter from Sally Vigil - March 1, 1993
3. Blade Citizen Newspaper Article - February 19, 1993
4. Coastal Commission Staff Report
024
February 19, 1993
TO: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
VIA: Parks and Recreation Director
FROM: Parks and Recreation, Senior Management Analyst
COASTAL COMMISSION HEARING/TIMELOCK GATES
On February 18, 1993 I attended the Coastal Commission meeting at which the request for
reconsideration of any earlier Commission denial for a development permit to install
timelock gates for three (3) coastal accessways was heard.
The request for reconsideration was allowed by the Coastal Commission because errors of
fact and/or law were acknowledged in the initial staff report which was presented to and
denied by the Commission on July 8, 1992. The timelock gates were specifically requested
to be installed at the coastal accessways at the Grand Avenue, Beech Avenue and the
northern terminus of Ocean Street.
As the representative of the City speaking in favor of the reconsideration, the main focus
of my presentation was related to the violation of the rights of private property owners as
a result of the coastal accessways. More specifically, the City's inability to manage and
regulate those accessways in a manner compatible with the rights of private property owners
and the vast majority of beach users. A prepared statement was presented during the public
hearing portion of the agenda item, a copy of which is attached for your reference.
By an 11-0 vote, the Commission upheld their staffs recommendation to deny a development
permit for the installation of timelock gates. Among the reasons cited for their denial were:
1. Upholding a fundamental purpose of the California Coastal Act in protecting
a citizens ability to gain access to coastal waters.
2. The request is being perpetrated as a result of and is perceived to be a law
enforcement issue dealing with a behavior problem.
3. There is no error of law with respect to the rights of private property owners
as it relates to providing public access as outlined in the California Coastal
Act.
Notwithstanding the Commission's denial, I believe the City of Carlsbad and its position
regarding this issue was well represented throughout the entire process. Furthermore, this
issue has concluded' absent an endeavor to litigate.
KEITH BEVE
c: City Attorney r-vi IT n T T
Department File EXHIBIT 1
Good morning ladies and gentlemen of the Commission. My name is
Keith Beverly, and I would like to take this opportunity and thank you for allowing
me to speak to this Request for Reconsideration for a development permit for three
time-lock gates on three separate beach access ways located in the City of
Carlsbad. The City of Carlsbad is the applicant for these development permits. The
request is being pursued on behalf of adjacent property owners who in essence are
seeking relief from vandalism and unruly behavior which typically occurs in the
access ways and on the beach during the late night and early morning hours.
As a representative of the applicant, I would also like to extend our
appreciation to the Coastal Commission's staff for their assistance and professional
courtesy in assisting us with this issue.
In the interest of brevity, I have a prepared statement, and I will not
address or take issue with previous errors of fact which appear to have been
adequately addressed in this month's staff report. Those of course deal with a
statement that these access ways provide access to a city-owned public beach.
However, on behalf of the City, adjacent property owners, and other property
owners who are affected by these access ways, I would request that reconsideration
focus primarily upon the rights of private property owners. Specifically:
1. Section 30210 of the California Coastal Act states (in part), "In carrying out the
requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution, maximum
access and recreation opportunities shall be provided consistent with . . .
Rights of private property owners".
026
The entire premise for the City's request to install time-lock access
ways is based upon our City Council's acknowledgement and concern
that the rights of private property owners are being abused. Their
acknowledgement comes as a result of public testimony received
during public hearings in which several property owners protested
against unruly and unsavory behavior occurring within the access ways
and on their property during late night and early morning hours. It
appears obvious that the current trespassing upon, destruction, and
abuse of private property is indeed a violation of the rights of private
property owners. These violations are occurring as a direct result of
providing "maximum access" as identified in Section 4 of Article X of
the California Constitution, without regard for the rights of private
property owners.
2. Section 30214 (A) of the act states (in part): "The public access
policies of this Article shall be implemented in a manner that takes into
account the need to regulate the time, place and manner of public
access depending on the facts and circumstances in each case
including, but not limited to, the following":
"(3) The appropriateness of limiting public access to the right to pass
and repass depending on such factors as .... the proximity of the
access area to adjacent residential uses", and
"(4) The need to provide for the management of access areas so as to
protect the privacy of adjacent property owners ..."
027
Due to the proximity of the access areas to adjacent
residential uses and the need to protect the privacy and
property of adjacent property owners, the City has
requested, through this development permit, to provide
effective management of the access ways. The
implementation of time-lock gates, controlled between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m., would eliminate the
abuse of private property owners' rights currently being
experienced during late night and early morning hours.
However, the gates would remain open daily from 5:00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and maintain adequate access during
the peak use periods of visitation. It is the City's
contention that access would not be restricted, rather,
access would be regulated to create a compatible
situation between private property owners' rights and the
vast majority of beach users.
Lastly, the City believes that complete access to the beach
area will not be impeded as ample access to the beach
can be gained to the north and south of the subject
access ways.
I thank the Commission and its staff for your time and consideration.
028
- /, 17 r 3
-RECEIVED MAR 0 I
^^- ft WJ**^
C<^UCx /UT^\
0
029 EXHIBIT 2
fe/L^ i-^- fco
J^--*
JL.JL^^
&-cu^St ^ «,^-^"-^>-
:i^i'-^-^l ^L
•/^ t
A'.<:,, \t-r\di «'
/
i.
p
°
a, .« /" a "_5, f
V
7.
7.
fc-«*- <- «•
C U v X
U^ V>
P
\
S c ...
C ^ «
I
* '
.r -c «
Vx ^
031
//. J,c
13 ,
u • ^
17.
4
V5^«S
NCo VsVx«- V -"I
•e v-
l v
^•^^> \*S^-
\)-C^'^x (
^S,c\^ ^'V
s .
J «S
CL
7 / L
032
v —
\V\ 6' l
o
-A -\
<- C
d- t-'
*.)<-li-I,
Beach
gates
nixed
By Tom Bradley Jr.
Staff Writer
SAN DIEGO — The California
Coastal Commission on Thursday
unanimously upheld its opposition
to a city of Carlsbad request to
install time-lock gates at three
beaches.
Carlsbad had hoped to appeal a
July 8 commission denial of per-
mits for gates on Ocean Street at
Christiansen Way, Beech Avenue
and Rue des Chateaux. City offi-
cials claimed the gates were need-
ed to curtail noise, pollution and
vandalism on the beach.
"The California Coastal Com-
mission is very firm in supporting
citizens' rights to access to coastal
waters," Senior City Management
Analyst Keith Beverly said after
the vote.
The commission based its deci-
sion on the failure of gate propo-
nents to prove that the gates, which
would automatically lock at 10 p.m.
and reopen at 5 a.m., would protect
property owners from rowdy
behavior on the beach.
"This is not a nuisance in the
legal sense," said commission legal
counsel Ralph Faust Jr. "These are
what might be called social or per-
ceived nuisances. Really, it's a law
enforcement problem."
Some residents have accused
late-night beachgoers of vandal-
ism, dumping trash on their prop-
erty and building bonfires on the
beach in violation of a city ordi-
nance.
But one Ocean Street resident
said the situation was not as bad as
Beverly and Sanchez wanted com-
missioners to believe.
"This is Carlsbad, California,
not South-Central Los Angeles,"
Nick Nixon said. "There are occa-
sional nuisances, but they're not
unique, and they're especially true
for the beach."
Nixon, who both lives and owns
a rental property on Ocean Street,
chided gate supporters for attempt-
ing to "privatize" the beach.
Beverly said the city filed the
appeal based on faulty information
in a commission staff report. The
report originally said that the
beaches were owned by the city,
when in fact they are owned by the
state and private residents.
He also said the report violated
the California Coastal Act by sug-
n u> 73i sr reB: o v>ET. C "§ £=>
S= 5" =
o
2 a cr ;:-po
o
Q)
0)
.3- =!.
3 N
tn ju
u; r>' • e
C (B O 3"
; D-_ (B
if 113 C S' 52. 3. o• c'"- 3
O -i '• 3 =2--^ e-'^later coownerisavoo er rreg = a 2. s- 2
5? " S.' (B T1 O •
n o 73 =ro 3 p EJ
O o -S r;(D '
O co w c;3-sgE^ •—• fB
on <f>.
ff- 3-
-I S> 3" S r» ° M
Ioa|» 53
3 fB re -3 C- C «'
^ « | g. 3 3-2
r- 3 n' £ pi' r»o tro (B ^ en o
033 EXHIBIT 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA— THE RESOURCES AGENCY _ PETE WIISON, Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION Request Filed: August 6, 1992
s* IEGO COAST AREA Staff: PBW-SD3i,. OAMINO oei RIO NORTH, sum 300 staf f Report: September 1 , 1992
Hearin9 Date: November 17-20, 1992
STAFF REPORT: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION «MTU
APPLICATION NO.: 6-92-1 32-R
APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad Department of AGENT: Keith Beverly
Parks and Recreation
Site: Coastal accessways at ends of Ocean Street, Grand Avenue and
Beech Avenue, Carlsbad, San Diego County.
Description: Installation of time-lock gates at three existing public
accessways to allow closure from 10:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. daily.
Commission Action and Date: Denial, on July 8, 1992
PROCEDURAL NOTE.
The Commission's regulations provide that at any time within thirty (30) days
following a final vote upon an application for a coastal development permit,
the applicant of record may request that the Commission grant a
reconsideration of the denial of an application, or of any term or condition
of a coastal development permit which has been granted. 14 Cal. Admin. Code
13109.2.
The regulations state further that the grounds for reconsideration of a permit
action shall be as provided in Coastal Act Section 30627 which states:
The basis of the request for reconsideration shall be either that there is
relevant new evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence,
could not have been presented at the hearing on the matter or that an
error of fact or law has occurred which has the potential of altering the
Commission's Initial decision.
APPLICANT'S CONTENTION; In the attached letter dated August 5, 1992, the
applicant contends that the following errors of fact or law have occurred: 1)
that the area referred to as a City-owned beach is actually in either private
ownership or below the mean high tide line; 2) based upon this error, the
Commission has continued to allow access without regard to the rights of
private property owners; 3) the absence of gates does not protect the privacy
of adjacent property owners as required by Section 30214(a) of the Coastal
Act; 4) the staff recommendation falls to acknowledge the existence of three
alternate public access locations that would provide access to this area; and
5) the staff recommendation cites campfires as an appropriate evening use of
beach areas while existing City ordinances prohibit fires in all areas except
Carlsbad State Beach.
034 EXHIBIT 4
6-92-132-R
Page 3
While the originally issued staff recommendation did mis-identify the
ownership of the sandy beach area, the subsequent addendum correctly
identified the area as being subject to public use but not in City ownership.
The applicant's contentions do not include any objection to the
characterization of the beach area as subject to public use. Therefore, the
Commission finds that there are no grounds for reconsideration based upon the
applicant's first contention.
The applicant's second contention involves the requirements of Section 30210
of the Act. Section 30210 states:
In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the
California Constitution, maximum access, which shall be conspicuously
posted, and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the
people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public
rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from
overuse.
In addition, the applicant's third contention is that the Commission's failure
to allow gates on the public access paths is inconsistent with Section
30214(a) of the Act. Section 30214(a) of the Act states, in part:
(a) The public access policies of this article shall be implemented
N, in a manner that takes into account the need to regulate the time, place,
— and manner of public access depending on the facts and circumstances in
each case including, but not limited to, the following:
(3) The appropriateness of limiting public access to the right to
pass and repass depending on such factors as the fragility of the
natural resources in the area and the proximity of the access area to
adjacent residential uses.
(4) The need to provide for the management of access areas so as to
protect the privacy of adjacent property owners and to protect the
aesthetic values of the area by providing for the collection of
litter.
In its initial action on COP #6-92-132, the Commission based its action, 1n
part, upon the sections of the Coastal Act cited by the City in its
reconsideration request. The City's revocation request raises the issue of
whether the Commission made an error of law in its determination that the
proposed action was consistent with Sections 30210 and 30214 of the Act.
The referenced sections of the Coastal Act require that the Commission
consider both the rights of private property owners and the protection- of the
privacy of property owners adjacent to public access areas. However, the
Coastal Act does not insist that the rights of adjacent property owners take
precedence over the rights of the public to gain access to the shoreline. The
035
6-92-132-R
Page 5
Although the staff report used Carlsbad Village Drive's former name of Elm
Street, this access was specifically discussed in the staff report. The
access adjacent to the Carlsbad Inn is located further to the south, beyond
the area under consideration in this application. While access would continue
to be available at these two sites, they are southerly of the area for which
the gates are proposed, and no access would be provided between Carlsbad
Village Drive and the north end of the St. Male locked gate community. The
staff report recognized and acknowledged that access would still be available
southerly of Grand Avenue, the most southerly site proposed for closure. The
oral testimony at the hearing utilized the correct name for the Carlsbad
Village Drive access location.
The easement northerly of Rue De Chateaux is a public access and open space
easement that covers a portion of the sand plug at the mouth of Buena Vista
Lagoon, while this area would still be available for public access if the
gates were approved, access to this easement is problematic. Currently, the
most convenient access is the Ocean Street access proposed for evening closure
in this application. The next nearest access to the south not proposed for
closure is the Carlsbad Village Drive access discussed above, a distance of
about 2,700 feet. Northerly of the access easement, the nearest access is
northerly of the St. Halo development.
while the staff report does not specifically address this easement, its
presence is irrelevant to the Commission's action on the permit application.
The need for access to sandy beach areas, including this easement area, was
the basis for the Commission's decision. That is, this area not only does not
provide for vertical access from the area's streets to the beach, but the
easement is itself a suitable destination for coastal visitors for which
vertical access is needed.
One of the access locations cited in the reconsideration request, the Carlsbad
Village Drive site, was specifically'discussed in the staff report. The
Carlsbad Inn location is located even farther to the south than the Carlsbad
Village Drive location. The access easement cited in the reconsideration
request does not provide vertical beach access of the type proposed to be
restricted in the subject application and would not provide an adequate
substitutes for the access locations proposed for closure. Therefore, the
Commission finds that no error has occurred that would have the potential to
change the Commission's initial decision.
Finally, the fifth contention is that the staff report is in error concerning
the use of the beach for campfires. At the time of the public hearing, the
Commission was informed by a member of the public that the staff report was in
error and that campfires were, in fact, illegal at this location . Therefore,
the Commission's decision was based upon this information as reflected in the
public record. Therefore, the Commission finds that this error does not have
the potential to change the Commission's initial decision.
In summary, the Commission finds that there have been no errors in the
application of the law which have the potential to change the Commission's
initial decision. The Commission further finds that two of the alleged errors
036
Citv of Carlsbad
Parks & Recreation Department
August 5, 1992 _ _fKNuspOT®
' S ^^ Tfcl IVJSherilyn Sarb, Chief of Permits ^ AUG 61992
California Coastal Commission „ . .„„.,„.
o TN- ^ .. A CALIFORNIASan Diego Coast Area COASTAL COMMISSION
3111 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 200 -AN oisoo COASt Dftfcic
San Diego, California 92108-1725
Application No. 6-92-132 (Carlsbad Time-Lock Access Gates)
The City of Carlsbad is in receipt of a Denial of Permit for trie installation of time-lock gates
at three existing public accessways to allow closure from 10:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. daily
(permit application No. 6-92-132).
The purpose of this correspondence is to respectfully request reconsideration of the Coastal
Commission denial. As outlined in the-notice of public hearing, our request for
reconsideration is based upon inadvertent errors of fact presented within the staff report
which accompanied this particular agenda item. To that end, please consider the following
statements included within the staff report (Attachmentl) and our rebuttal to them.
1. Page Two (2), paragraph five (5): "The three access stairways are located at the
extreme north end of Carlsbad. They provide access to existing City-owned public
beach areas." >•
• This subject beach area is not a city owned public beach. It is owned
by private property owners east of the mean high tide and is under the
jurisdiction of the State Lands Commission to the west of the mean
high tide. The City of Carlsbad in fact owns no public beach along its
coastline. Therefore, these accessways do not provide for access to
existing City owned beach areas.
Based upon this error of fact, arguably an error of law has also occurred. Consider the
following:
A. Page Two (2), paragraph six (6): Public Access. Section 30210 of the
California Coastal Act state (in part), "In carrying out the requirement of
section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution, maximum access and
recreation opportunities shall be provided consistent with .... Rights of
private property owners".
037
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO8-1989 • (619) 434-2824 ffi
Sherilyn Sarb
August 4, 1992
Page Three
2. Page four (4), last paragraph: "The Provision of gates at the three subject access
locations would effectively remove all access opportunities to the beaches of this area
in the evening hours."
• If the development permit for the three time-lock gates were approved,
unregulated public access to the subject area would still exit at three
separate locations, they are (Attachment 2):
The public accessway immediately adjacent to the
Carlsbad Inn
The public accessway at the western terminus of
Carlsbad Village Drive
The open space easement for recreational use located at
the northern terminus of Ocean Street, north and
immediately adjacent to the condominium project
located on Rue De Chateaux.
3. Page five (5), paragraph three (3): 'There are recreational opportunities that are
appropriate for evening hours (e.g. campfires at designated locations)."
• There are no designated areas for campfires located within this subject
beach area. Campfires are prohibited by City ordinance except in
designated areas under the jurisdiction of the State Parks and
Recreation system.
Although the following statements within the staff report are not an error of fact, please
consider the following:
4. Page seven (7), paragraph one (1): "Furthermore, the construction of sound
attenuation barriers, provisions of additional police patrols; increased lighting, etc.,
would result in fewer environmental impacts on coastal resources."
• The burden of expense to either the homeowner or the City of
Carlsbad in order to provide these actions and amenities to insure the
rights of the private property owners is undeserving and inappropriate.
These public accessways were in part provided through cooperation
038
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SAN DIEGO COAST AREA
3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH. SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725
.619) 521-8036
STAFF REPORT
.
Filed:
49th Day:
180th Day:
Staff:
Staff Report:
Hearing Date:
REGULAR CALENDAR
£&5/25/92 feaSB
7/13/92 NSggZ7
11/21/92
P8W-SD
6/18/92
7/7-10/92
« • cX% •LJfeaJflk
AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION ~""" " " '
Application No.: 6-92-132
Applicant: City of Carlsbad Agent: Keith Beverly
Description: Installation of time-lock gates at three existing public
accessways to allow closure from 10:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. daily.
Site:Coastal accessways at ends of Ocean Street, Grand Avenue and
Beech Avenue, Carlsbad, San Diego County.
Substantive File Documents: Certified City of Carlsbad Hello II Segment LCP;
COP #6-85-404; CDP #6-85-582; COP #6-88-374.
STAFF NOTES:
Summary of Staff's Preliminary Recommendation:
Staff is recommending denial of the proposed access gates as a result of
their impairment on public beach access.
PRELIMINARY STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends the Commission adopt the following resolution:
I. Denial.
The Commission hereby denies a permit for the proposed development on the
grounds that the development will not be in conformity with the provisions of
Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976 and would prejudice the
ability of the local government having jurisdiction over the area to prepare a
Local Coastal Program conforming to the provisions of the Coastal Act.
II. Standard Conditions.
See attached page.
039 ATTACHMENT 1
6-92-132
Page 3
Section 30211 of the Act states:
Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to
the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization,
including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal
beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.
In addition, Section 30212 of the Act states, in part:
(a) Public access from the nearest public roadway to
the shoreline and along the coast shall be provided in new development
projects except where:
(1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military
security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal
resources,
•^fii • intn r mil > tin m r
(3) agriculture would be adversely affected.
Dedicated accessway shall not be required to be opened to public use
until a public agency or private association agrees to accept
responsibility for maintenance and liability of the accessway.
Section 30214(a) of the Act states:
(a) The public access policies of this article shall be
implemented in a manner that takes into account the need to regulate the
time, place, and manner of public access depending on the facts and
circumstances in each case including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) Topographic and geologic,, site characteristics.
(2) The capacity of the site to sustain use and at what level of
intensity.
(3) The appropriateness of limiting public access to the right to
pass and repass depending on such factors as the fragility of the
natural resources in the area a*&1ti*'i*mevi&*y*tfii&Hi*t***t~*t**^
tf and to protect the
aesthetic values of the area by providing for the collection of
litter.
Finally, Section 30604(c) of the Act requires that a specific access finding
be made in conjunction with any development located between the first public
roadway and the sea, indicating that the development is 1n conformity with the
public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3. In this case such
a finding cannot be made.
040
6-92-132
Page 5
the St. Malo locked gate community. Tn~TTTTf*ffTT)lir 4iltirsajitiy|ftppim»1«irttlv nrir
mile of beach^*««kbJ*^M9^£aana£tdi. In effect, the beachfront properties-a long
Ocean Street would be allowed to become a locked gate community after 10-p.m. sjj-0
ta
In past actions in other areas, the Commission has agreed to limit access ^
where there have been demonstrable crime problems, particularly in the Mission
Beach/Mission Bay area. These limitations have, however, taken the form of
limitations on the use of public parking lots. Direct pedestrian access to
the beach has not been altered or abridged in those areas, and the fact that
night-time pedesitrian access opportunities remain is seen as a means to
off-set the adverse effect of the parking lot closures.
The State Department of Parks and Recreation uses similar tactics to curb
camping on the beach. Carlsbad State Beach parking lots are closed from 11
p.m. to 6 a.m., but the use of the beach is allowed at all times. No existing
State or local ordinances prohibit the use of the beach at night.
While the use of locked gates represents the simplest means to control noise
and public nuisance problems adjacent to residential development, such gates
represent an inappropriate abridgement of public access opportunities,
arejfecreatlonal opportunities that are appropriate for evening hours (etc,,
campiFfiSitS at designated locations). i$BiH9HBCg|s are a unique recreatfibnaT
opportunity that is only possible during late evening hours. While the the
use of locking gates at this location and in other communities could reduce
noise and nuisance complaints and possibly reduce illegal activity,
nTin rffrftivnily hin .tha pMhlirnfrnffli n >ridniirfinqn*i>faliiq«1 ruwMiUmi 1
activities.*
In addition, it does not appear that any alternatives to the locking gates
have been explored. Given the configuration of the stairways for which the
gates have been proposed, wund attunw<frB»BMftiU!ftuMMlrf rg^wpap^njjtmliitfte
notst^prob^eiMMNtkdblHBMMHMMMy^. It has been the Commission's experience
that the types of problems that have led to the proposal for gates tends to be
seasonal in nature. The use of seasonally'^WfWfWP^»ltM»pt*»«i'S of the
beach would provide a less permanent alternative solution that would not
reduce the public's ability to gain access to public beach resources through
public beach accessways.
In summary, the subject proposal represents a dramatic decrease in the
public's ability to gain access to the shoreline. There are a range of
alternative means to control noise and nuisance problems, some of which were
not appropriate to the Cedar Avenue access. Therefore, the Commission finds
that the subject proposal is not consistent with Sections 30210, 30211, 30212
and 30214 of the Act.
3. Visual Resources. Section 30251 of the Act states, in part:
The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered
and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development
shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and
scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to
041
6-92-132
Page 7
policies. Therefore, the Commission finds that the subject proposal is not
consistent with the certified Hello II LCP.
5. Consistency with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As
previously stated, the proposed development will result in impacts to access
and to public views which will result in unmitigable environmental impacts.
Furthermore, 1;hiL'""*&*-"'**'"'• »•*- "»""*-*++««"***'*«^**»»»**«'»_ provision o*
additional police patrols. Increased lighting, etc., would result in fewer
environmental impacts on coastal resources, the Commission therefore finds
that there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available which
would substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts which the proposed
development may have on the environment of the coastal zone.
(2132)
042
,,;:..: r.>S^
i-.-.-.':": "-'w*.'•^nfffT-j
h
••'- •••.•"v
.v.v'V-iVi,i
•'i'^i^iSvsY^f.K&x:**
tOti
^
?•><•;
EXHIBIT NO.
APPLIQAIION NO.
""'*%&•
/4^g'
044
0
BEACH LIFEGUARD ISSUE
OPEN SPACE EASEMENT
FOR RECREA TIONAL
PURPOSES' ^ us
UUENA VISTA LAGOON
ARMY NAVY (
CYPRESS
STATE LAND-COMMISSION &
PF1IVATE PROPERTY
BEECH (51)
CHR1STENSEN WAY (6']^
GRAND (HO1) \ \
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE (40*
CARLSBAD INN
045
STATE PAMKS
''—"0"""°"r=" ATTACHMENT 2
STATE Of CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Govtmor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SAN DIEGO COAST AREA
3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUfTf 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725
(619) 521-8036
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: Tuesday, November 17, 1992
TIME: 9:00 a.m.
PLACE: Holiday Inn - Bay View Plaza
530 Pico Blvd.
Santa Monica, CA
The proposed development described on Page 2 of this notice is scheduled for
a public hearing before the California Coastal Commission at the time and date
indicated above.
This item has been tentatively scheduled as follows:
Administrative Permit
Consent Calendar
Extension Request
Adoption of Findings
X Request for Reconsideration 6-92-132/PBW
Material Amendment
Hearing and Voting on Regular Calendar
Continued Hearing and Voting on Regular Calendar
Public Hearing on Regular Calendar
>
Substantial Issue Determination and Hearing and Voting on
Appeals from Local Government Decisions
Continued Hearing and Voting on Appeals from Local
Government Decisions
Other: •
Information on Coastal Commission meeting procedures is enclosed on Pages 3
and 4. If, after reading this information and the project description on
Page 2, you have questions, please contact the Commission's San Diego
District Office at (619) 521-8036. The file on this project is available
for public review at the District Office during regular business hours. The
staff report will be mailed to you upon request.
-Over-046
Coastal Commission Procedures for Permits and Appeals
Because the State Coastal Commission now issues all coastal permits for areas without
LCPs, it has developed new, streamlined procedures for considering these permits. Appli-
c"~t:s should submit their permit applications at the appropriate office. Because
r^^xonal commissions no longer exist, the state commission's workload has increased
tremendously. The following procedures are intended to speed up the process without
neglecting important coastal issues..
IF YOU ARE AN APPLICANT; In most cases, your application will be reviewed by the district
staff and placed on the state commission agenda for the earliest possible meeting. Staff
will determine if the application can be put on either the consent or administrative
calendar or whether it must receive a full public hearing.
ADMINISTRATIVE CALENDAR; Administrative permits may be granted by the executive director
for projects which are minor new developments, additions to existing structures (not exceed-
ing $100,000. in cost), single family residences, or multi-family projects of four
units or less. The Coastal Act requires that all administrative permits be reported to
the Commission at its next meeting before they take effect. Administrative permits will
be reported on the administrative calendar. If four or more commissioners request that
an item be held for public hearing, the project will be removed from the administrative
calendar and scheduled for a public hearing and possible vote at the next regular com-
mission meeting. Conditions may be attached to an administrative permit. Applicants
and other interested parties may speak in opposition to the project or its conditions.
Testimony is limited to 3 minutes for each side.
CONSENT CALENDAR; Projects considered by staff to be consistent with the Coastal Act
but which do not qualify for the administrative calendar may be placed on the consent
calendar. Projects on the consent calendar will be approved by the commission with a
s^gle vote for the entire calendar. If three or more commissioners wish to pull an item
c consent, that item will normally be rescheduled for a regular public hearing and
possible vote at the next regular commission meeting. Conditions may be attached to
consent calendar permits. Applicants who accept these conditions need not speak.
Opponents should tell the commission why the project is inconsistent with the Coastal Act.
Three minutes will be allowed for each side to speak to the commission. If there are
several persons wishing to address an item, efforts should be made to consolidate pre-
sentations in order to stay within the time-limits. Interested persons should check with
the commission staff regarding subsequent hearings.
REGULAR CALENDAR PERMIT APPLICATIONS; Projects potentially inconsistent with the Coastal
Act or which can be approved only with conditions for which there are no clear precedents
will be placed on the regular calendar and will be considered after a full public hearing.
Persons supporting or opposing the project should tell the commission why they think the
project is or is not consistent with the Act. Testimony must address coastal act
policies and environmental impacts of the project and should not be redundant. Each
side is allotted 10 minutes/ with the applicant speaking first and then the opposition.
Spoken rebuttal is not allowed, but written rebuttal or other pertinent material may be
submitted to the staff following the hearing. Projects on the regular calendar will
normally be rescheduled for continued hearing and voting at the next regular commission
meeting.
On some projects, the staff may have enough information to make a preliminary recommen-
dation for approval after the public hearing has been held. In that case, the commission
may vote that day and not postpone the decision.
\ .1 a staff recommendation is presented to the commission, both the applicant and
opponents have five minutes each to comment on the recommendations. After the' hearing
is closed, the commission will discuss the matter and vote.
.. 047