HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-01-13; City Council; Minutes*
I.
Meeting of: CITY COUNCIL (Adjourned Regular Meeting)
Time of Meeting: 6:OO P.M. /
Date of Meeting: January 13, 1981
Place of Meeting: Council Chambers
13
COUNCIL
MEMBERS 1
Mayor Packard noted the presence of all Council Members as
follows : Packard
Casler
Anear
Lewis
Kul chin
.(77) I 1* LOCAL COASTAL PLAN DISCUSSION.
-. I The Planning Director gave the staff report detailing the
contents of the staff analysis of the Coastal Planning Issues
as contained in the material distributed to Council in the
packets. With aid of a transparency, he explained the '
different coastal planning areas with the Coastal Zone in the
City of Carlsbad.
Council discussed the status of the Mello Bill coastal proper-
ties, and possible courses of action available regarding same.
Also discussed was the current status of the Regional Coastal
Commission and affects on cities when it ceases to exist,
Council Member Casler reiterated the comments of the Coastal
-Commission during the hearing on the Mello Bill properties,
and their indication that amendments could be made to that
plan when the City had-completed its Local Coastal Plan. She
also referenced the Plan for the City prepared by PRC Toups,
and indicated while the majority would probably be acceptable,
there were some areas of the Plan wkkh which:.the City would
not agree.
The City Manager referenced the dis.cussion summary contained
in the Council packet, and outlined the contents of same,
referencing the areas of concern identified within the Toups
recommended Plan.
Council recognized Mr. Arthur Valdez, Madison Street, who
stated he had an interest in the Pannonia property, He ques-
tioned whether the Agua Hedionda Coastal Plan contains a
condition for inclusionary housing. Further, if such a requir
ment exists, he questioned whether a project would be- accepted
if he could work out an' agreement with the Coastal Commission
for 15% low-cost housing.
.I
e-
The Planning Director stated the low-cost housing issue was not
the only consideration when reviewing a project. He further
noted previous discussions with Mr. Valdez noting the avail-
ability for Mr. Valdez to proceed through City processing via
a PUD.
Council discussed the problems which developers could face by
and. indicated that the State requirements would probably be
more restrictive. Therefore, if a developer proceeded with a
development which meets the State requirements, mbst likely
it would also comply with City requirements.
i
the need to process through two agencies with different plans,
Council took no action, and expressed appreciation for the
report .
PRESENTATION:
Mayor Packard stated that Mr. Chick Mensching was the recipient
of the "Citizen of the Year Award", and presented a plaque to
Mr. Mensching in recognition of his dedication arid efforts on.^.
behalf; oL:the. community.
f
I I I
0
14 A
COUNCIL January 13, 1981 Page 2 MEMBERS
\
(25) 2. DISCUSSION OF ANNEXATION POLICY. I The City Manager gave a report outlining the contents of his
Memorandum to Council dated January 13, 1981. He referenced
wall exhibits displaying a map of the City boundaries showing
the existing County is'lands within the City's Sphere of
Influence, and a chart comparing the different methods of
apportioning property tax revenues as contained in the materia
distributed to Council . I I He concluded his report by. noting the following alternatives
for Council consideration: I
1. No Annexation without Taxation.
2. Annex all areas in the Sphere of Influence. I 3. Annex only those ares outside the Coastal Zone.
4. Annex only non-agricultural lands.
f
Council Member Anear suggested Council consider annexing only
agricultural lands, or only those which would develop a form o
improvement district to relieve the burden on the remainder of
the City due to the tax money lost.
Mayor Packard explained the considerations used in formulating
the proposed tax split by the Mayor's Committee which had been
formed by SANDAG.
@
I
f
Council discussed the various alternatives and problems, and
possible ways to resolve the issue. It was noted the matter
would possibly be returned to Council for action at a later
date following a response from the Board of Supervisors on the
proposal of the Mayor's Committee.
Council recognized Mr. Chip Harris, 601 Lido'Park Drive,
Newport Beach, representing Carlton Browne & Company. Mr.
Harris questioned the effect of the proposed tax split on the
Koll annexation. He suggested the tax split issue should be
considered on the basis of future effects on the City,
Mayor Packard stated he would be in favor of annexing all the
County islands if a tax split. issue is settled, Council Membe
Anear indicated he would need additional information before
agreeing to a mass annexation. 1 I No action was taken. &) - 3 , AGENDA BILL NO. 6480 - CIVIC CENTER EXPANSION.
The Assistant City Manager/Operations, Mr. Bill Baldwin, gave
a staff report on the matter with the aid of wall exhibits
displaying the different areas considered for utilization in
the short-termexpansion, and costs associated with each. In
response to Council query, he indicated if Council approved th
staff recommendation, completion might possibly occur in six
months.
As a point of clarification, the City Manager stated that this
action would not preclude the attempt to purchase land from
the County for,a permanent solution to our space problems. It
was also noted that the exhibit displaying the expanded.
complex was only a sample, and other possibilities would be
considered and presented to Council at a later date for
consideration.
I .I
A
4
January 13, 1981 Page 3
Council instructed staff to purchase the Sachtleben/Charnholm
parcels of land', the modular units, and to proceed as outlined
by Mr. Baldwin in the presentation.
:50) 4. AGENDA BILL #6047 - Supplement #3 - SELECTION OF A COMPUTE e SYSTEM .
Assistant City Manager/Administration, Mr. Frank Mannen, gave
a brief introduction of the matter and introduced Mr. Jeff
Poppe and Jim McNally on behalf of the consultant, Price
Waterhouse & Co.
The Finance Director, Mr. Jim Elliott, continued with the staff
report with the aid of a flip chart. He explained the history
of the matter and previous Council actions. He summarized the
proposals received in response to the RFP, and explained the
evaluation criteria utilized in making a final recommendation.
In response to Council questions, Mr. Elliott stated PADS has
been in existence for approximately 10 years, and should PADS
cease to exist, the City would be entitled to all the software
they have. He also stated that if a problem would arise with
the installed system, the City would be able to utilize
another system installed elsewhere in the County to run an
emergency program.
Council adopt6d the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 6405, ACCEPTING THE PROPOSAL OF THE PUBLIC
.... I .* . .,
AGENCIES DATA SYSTEIG FOR 'THE PURCHASE OF A COMPUTER SYSTEM:
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE
OF THE SYSTEM AND TRANSFERRING FUNDS.
110) 5. REPORT ON CMWD SUBSIDIARY DISTRICT PROPOSAL.
The City's consultant, Mr. Glenn McComas, distributed a
Memorandum to Council dated January 14, 1981, and detailed
the contents of same.
The report was accepted by Council.
Mr. rMcComas stated upon completion of the negotiations, at the
end of January, he desired to terminate his status as the
City's consultant on the matter.
Mayor Packard suggested that Mr. McComas may be of.assistance
till that time in reviewing the existing agreements with the
District and possible effects of altering those agreements.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS:
Mayor Packard stated he had received a letter from the Health
Systems Agency requesting two nominations from the City for
members, with special attention being given to minorities.
Mayor Packard explained briefly the operations of the Agency
and requested that if Council has recommendations, that they
so notify the Mayor at their earliest convenience.
15 k
COUNCIL MEMBERS
\
Packard
Casler
Anear
Lewis
Kulchin
~ I
~ i
Packard
Casler
Anear
Lewis
Kulchin
Packard
Casler
Ane ar
Lewis
Kulchin
~ I I
#
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 7, 1981
TO: Frank Aleshire, City Manager
FROM: James Hagaman, Planning Directo
SUBJECT: Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan Issues
This memorandum transmits staff information relative to the discussion
of Local Coastal Planning issues, scheduled for the City Council study
session of January 13, 1981.
Included in this transmittal are the following items:
(1) Discussion summary for Local Coastal Planning Issues.
(2) Staff analysis of items outlined in Discussion Summary.
(3) Attachments
A. Carlsbad Coastal Zone Map
B. Agua Hedionda Conditions of Approval (11-21-80)
C. Letter from Mayor Packard, re: Mello Bill
D. PRC Toups Land Use Map
E. PRC Toups recommended Local Coastal Plan:
(1) Land Use Text; (2) Implementation Procedures
Staff comments on these items are brief, and meant to provide a general
review. Specific recommendations are not included in this packet, and
it is anticipated that more detailed staff analysis/recommendations will
be provided at subsequent City Council hearings to consider these matters,
Council Action:
1-13-81 No action was taken.
Carlsbad Local Coastal Planning Issues
Discussion Summary
The following provides an outline of discussion items for Local Coastal
Planning issues to be considered at the January 13, City Council Study
Session. Each item includes a brief summary of problem areas; a more
detailed review is provided in the attached staff analysis.
I. INTRODUCTION
. Discussion of segmentation of Carlsbad Coastal Zone into 4 separate
planning areas. Review of legislation relating to Coastal Planning.
II. AGUA HEDIONDA LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
. Unresolved issues include mapping of wetlands; inclusionary zoning;
slope restrictions; land use for Snug Harbor area. A City Council
public hearing to review the Agua Hedionda LCP will be scheduled
sometime in March (depending upon completion of wetlands mapping).
III. MELLO BILL LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
. Mello Bill LCP has been certified by the state; the city has refused
to implement the state - approved plan.
IV. COUNTY LOCAL COASTAL PLAN: North of Batiquitos Lagoon
. Land uses proposed for areas north of Batiquitos Lagoon are pri-
marily agriculture; inconsistent with Carlsbad General Plan. City
has received request to change LCP planning boundary to include
lands currently in County LCP. Draft Document is currently under-
going Coastal Commission staff review.
V. TOUPS LOCAL COASTAL PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS
. PRC Toups has submitted a draft LCP document to the Coastal Com-
mission. State and Regional Commission Staff comments on Toups
proposal have not been formulated; it is anticipated that the City
will receive Commission Staff comments in 2-3 weeks. Areas of
concern with the Toups proposal are as follows:
1. Land Use Map: Significant changes to existing General Plan
Land Use south of Agua Hedionda Lagoon; inconsistent with
current General Plan designations.
2. Land Use Plan: Problems noted in following plan elements:
(pp 23-37) a. Agriculture: proposed density transfer scheme; exten-
sive buffer requirements; some rezoning. (Note: City
Agricultural Advisory Committee is currently reviewing
Toups Plan; will make specific recommendations to City
Council).
(pp 51-54) b. Environmental: prohibit development on steep slopes
(25% +); makes no provisions for lagoon management.
(pp 69-73) c. Geologic Hazards: proposes implementation of new zone
code for coastal bluff erosion; does not adequately add-
ress beach erosion.
(pp 94-95) d. Public Works: proposes changes in existing general plan
circulation.
(pp 102-103) e. Recreation/Visitor Serving: proposes rezoning program.
(pp 115-118) f. Shoreline Access: proposes additional lateral and verti-
cal access; use' of condemnation by city.
(p 128) g. Visual Resources: proposes extensive application of citys
scenic preservation overlay zone.
(pp 138-140) h. Housing: Requires mandatory inclusionary zoning; gener-
ally prohibits condominium conversions.
3. Implementation: proposes extensive revisions to existing city
codes and ordinances; inclusive of new city ordinances.
IV. SUMMARY
A. City will not regain full development permit issuing authority
until an LCP Land Use Plan and Implementation measures have been
certified by the state, and accepted by the city. Staff is
actively pursuing certification of the Carlsbad Local Coastal
Plan, and Agua Hedionda LCP.
B. Until LCP certification is complete, all Coastal Zone development
proposals will continue to require dual permit processing
(permit issuance by City and Coastal Commission). Current
city policy regarding projects in Coastal Zone is "business as
usual;" applicant is responsible for satisfying requirements
of the City and the Commission.
C. Following receipt and city staff review of Coastal Staff comments
on Toups LCP, Carlsbad LCP will require public hearings and
certification at the Regional and State Commission level by
July 1, 1981. Staff recommends that a City Council public
hearing to consider the Toups proposal be tentatively scheduled
for the February 24, 1981, City Council meeting. (This meeting
may be subject to change, depending on when State/Regional
Commission staff comments are received by the city).
Coastal 'Planning Issues: Staff Analysis
The following contains a more extensive discussion of coastal planning
issues summarized in the "Discussion Summary" included in this packet.
Specific references to attached documents are included, where applicable.
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Planning - area segmentation: The Carlsbad Local Coastal Planning Area
has been segmented into four distinct planning areas. These are as
follows (see attachment A).
1. Agua Hedionda Specific Plan Area - (1104 Acres)
2. Mello Bill Local Coastal Plan Area - (1000 Acres)
3. San Dieguito LCP (County of San Diego - 1191 Acres)
4. City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan - (5387 Acres)
Each of these areas will have a separate land use plan and implementing
ordinances. Staff concerns regarding this situation are primarily di-
rected towards problems of consistency between different land use plans
and the city overall general plan, and problems that could arise if four
different sets of implementing ordinances are developed.
B. Coastal Planning legislation: Major legislation relating to the Carlsbad
Local Coastal Plan is as follows:
1. California Coastal Zone Conservation Act - originally passed on
November 7,1972, and subsequently renewed as the California Coastal
Act of 1976 (August 1976). Provided primary legislation requiring
15 coastal counties and 53 cities to prepare an LCP.
2. AB 462 (Mello Bill) - requires that three properties in Carlsbad
Coastal Zone ('TVlello Bill properties") have a certified Local
Coastal Plan by October 1, 1980.
^' AB 1171 - passed in June 1980, allows for the adoption of a Local
Coastal Plan for Carlsbad to be accomplished by the State Coastal
Commission without the approval of the city.
II. AGUA HEDIONDA LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
The Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Plan was certified by the California
State Coastal Commission in May, 1978. At that time, the Commission
put 32 conditions of approval on the Agua Hedionda Plan.
The city has been in negotiation with the Commission over the approval
conditions since May of 1978. The most recent version of the negotiated
conditions were received from Coastal Commission following the negotiat-
ing committee meeting, which occurred on November 20, 1980.
There are now 25 conditions of approval (see attachment B for specific
condition wording). Major unresolved issues include the following:
Condition 1 (Kelly Property): final land use determination cannot be
made until wetlands mapping by Fish and Game is completed.
Condition 6 (Grading): commission prohibition of development on 251 +
slopes and method of density calculation is unacceptable to city.
Condition 10 (Snug Harbor): commission requirement of Recreation
commercial for area between Snug Harbor and Hoover Street in inconsis-
tent with existing General Plan Land Use.
1.
Condition 16 (Cannon Road): condition language acceptable; final Cannon
Road alignment cannot be determined until wetlands mapping is completed.
Condition 24 (Affordable Housing): condition generally unacceptable;
inconsistent with Housing Element; requires mandatory inclusionary
zoning.
Following completion of wetlands mapping by the State Department of
Fish and Game, an initial public hearing to consider the matter and
receive public input should be scheduled sometime in March. The city
will have to follow Coastal Commission resubmittal procedures in pro-
cessing the revised Agua Hedionda Plan. Under this arrangement, the city
submits the revised plan directly to the Regional or State Commission
following a public hearing and six week public review period.
III. MELLO BILL LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
The Mello Bill legislation (AB 462) required that the Coastal Commission
have a certified Local Coastal Plan adopted by October 1, 1980, for the
three Mello Bill properties totaling about 1,000 acres.
The State Coastal Commission retained the Toups firm to prepare the LCP
documents. In August, 1980, the State Coastal Commission adopted a
Local Coastal Plan and Implementing Ordinances for the Mello Bill properties
over the numerous objections of property owners, farming interests and city
officals who attended the State Commission public hearings on the matter.
In general, the Mello Bill LCP has been unacceptable to the city, and
the city has refused to implement the state certified plan (see attach-
ment C, letter from Mayor Packard to Coastal Commission). Major objec-
tions to the plan are as follows:
(1) inconsistency with General Plan land use
(2) unintelligible language
(3) unreasonable implementing ordinances which require extensive
revision of existing city codes and ordinances, and the creation
of site - specific zoning designantions.
(4) conditions unacceptable to the city (i.e. inclusionary zoning;
grading restrictions; unreasonable land use restrictions).
IV. COUNTY LOCAL COASTAL PLAN: North of Batiquitos Lagoon
The San Diego County Board of Supervisors recently approved the San
Dieguito Local Coastal Plan, including the Carlsbad general plan area
immediately north of Batiquitos Lagoon. Land Uses proposed for this
area are primarily agricultural, and conflict with Carlsbad general
plan designations, but are consistent with existing county zoning.
The San Diequito Local Coastal Plan has been submitted to the Regional
Coastal Commission for review, and will be processed along the same
time frame as the Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan, with final certification
to occur by July 1, 1981. Staff will be actively monitoring the pro-
gress of this document, and keeping the Council informed on this matter.
The City has received a copy of a written request from property owners
of land currently in the county LCP to be included in the Carlsbad LCP.
2.
This request- ha$; been turned down by the Regional Commission on the basis
of a standing agreement between the city and the county allowing these
lands to be included in the county LCP, the county has been planning for
this area for over 2 years, and public hearing requirements of the Coastal
Act may be violated by changing Local Coastal boundaries at this late
date.
V. TOUPS LOCAL COASTAL PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS
The PRC Toups firm was selected by the State Coastal Commission in January
1980, to prepare a Local Coastal Plan for the city of Carlsbad. The
Toups firm held three public workshops at the city to receive public
input regarding the proposed Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan, and generated
eight "technical papers" outlining the major topical headings to be
contained in the LCP. These included; (1) Agriculture; (2) Environmental
Habitats/Resources; (3) Geologic Hazards; (4) Public Works; (5) Recreation
and Visitor Serving Facilities; (6) Shoreline Access; (7) Visual Resources;
and (8) Housing.
The Toups LCP recommendations have been submitted to both the Coastal
Commission and city of Carlsbad for review and comment. Although the
city had been assured receipt of draft Regional/State Commission staff
comments immediately following the first of the year, these have not
been received and staff has been informed to expect these in mid to
late January.
The Toups Local Coastal Plan contains three primary components: (1)
Land Use Map; (2) Land Use Plan (text); (3) Implementing Ordinances
and Post Certification Procedures.
Major areas of concern with the Toups proposal are as follows:
1. Land Use Map (attachment D)
. major land use changes in some areas south of Agua Hedionda
lagoon, inland of Paseo Del Norte.
. plan shows only one (1) school site south of Agua Hedionda.
plan indicates location and extent of steep slopes and agri-
cultural buffer areas; these may not be appropriate for a
Land Use Map.
. plan consolidates all Carlsbad general plan commercial design-
ations into (2) two categories: General Commercial and Visitor
Commercial.
. plan does not indicate land use designation for lagoon water -
surface areas.
Plan does not specifically indicate intended uses within land
use categories.
2. Land Use Plan (text: Attachment E-l)
Staff recommends that in reviewing this portion of the Toups docu-
ment, the Council focus on policy statements contained in each ele-
ment of the text. These contain the action programs and specific
recommendations/requirements of the plan.
Concerns regarding the Toups LCP are as follows:
a. Agriculture:
., Transfer of Development Rights Proposal (Policy 2-2; pages 23 to 34)
. Buffer area requirements (Policy 2-6; page 37)
. Rezone Agriculture preservation areas to city's EA zone (Imple-
mentation text)
3.
b. Environmental;
. prohibit yegatation removal and development on 25% + slopes
(Policy 3-1; page 51)
« Plan makes no provisions for lagoon managment, maintenance or
sedimentation removal.
c. Geologic Hazards:
. Establish new Coastal Erosion Hazard Zone (Policy 4-1; page 69)
. Plan does not adequately address beach erosion problem.
d. Public Works:
. Plan proposes changes to existing general plan circulation,
specifically in area south of Palomar Airport Road, west of
El Camino Real (refer to Land Use Map, attachment D)
e. Recreatidri/yistpr Serving:
. Proposes rezoning program to increase visitor serving areas
by approximately 40 acres (Policy 6-5, 6-8, Page 103)
f. Shoreline Access:
. Plan proposes additional lateral beach access on private
lands using prescriptive rights (Policy 7-3, Page 116)
. Plan proposes use of eminent domain condemnation of private
lands by city, to establish nature trail along south shore of
Buena Vista Lagoon (Policy 7-6, Page 116)
. Plan makes no specific provisions for funding and maintenance
of proposed access improvements
&* Visual Resources:
. Plan proposes extensive application of citys scenic pre-
servation overlay zone to protect coastal views, vistas
and "visual quality". (Policy 8-1, Page 128 and following map,
figure 21)
h. Housing:
. Generally prohibits demolition of existing low and moderate
income housing units (Policy 9-2, Page 138)
. Restrictions on Condominium Conversions (Policy 9-2, Page 138)
. Mandatory inclusionary zoning (Policy 9-9, Page 140)
Imp!ementat ion (attachment E-2)
Toups recommendations regarding implementing aspects of the Carlsbad
Local Coastal Plan, generally attempt to respect the citys existing
codes, ordinances, and general plan policies. Toups does, however,
propose revisions to existing municipal codes to incorporate speci-
fic coastal zone references, and proposes inclusion of some new
ordinances and implementation programs.
VI. SUMMARY
A. City will not regain full development permit issuing authority
until an LCP Land Use Plan and Implementation measures have been
certified by the state, and accepted by the city. Staff is
actively pursuing certification of the Carlsbad Local Coastal
Plan, and Agua Hedionda LCP,
B. Until LCP certification is complete, all Coastal Zone development
proposals will continue to require dual permit processing
(permit issuance by City and Coastal Commission). Current
4.
city policy regarding projects in Coastal Zone is "business as
usual;''1 applicant is responsible for satisfying requirements
of the City and the Commission.
C. Following receipt and city staff review of Coastal Staff comments
of Toups LCP, Carlsbad LCP will require public hearings and
certification at the Regional and State Commission level by
July 1, 1981. Staff recommends that a City Council public
hearing to consider the Toups proposal be tentatively scheduled
for the February 24, 1981, City Council meeting. (This meeting
may be subject to change, depending on when State/Regional
Commission staff comments are received by the city).
D. Following certification of the Carlsbad LCP and Agua Hedionda
LCP, acceptance by the city, and transfer of full permit issuing
authority to the city, the State Coastal Commission will retain the
following responsibilities:
. Approval of amendment to Local Coastal Plans
. Permit jurisdiction over certain kinds of development (i.e. develop-
ments in wetlands)
. Appeals to local findings on development permits
. Review of local Coastal Plan implementation at least every five years.
5.
CARLSBAD COASTAL ZONE MAP
^ATTACHMENT A"
•;•; AGUA HEDIONDALCP
MELLO BILL LCP
SAN DUGUITO LCP
(Co. OF SAN DIEGO)
•c
§
-$t;uc of C?.ii'omic.i, Edmund G,
Cniifoi ."(!?. Coasti'l Con; miss/on
63! How?rd Street, <;.h floor
$,-<ri Franciso, Ca'i.'orriia 9-H05
(4I5J 543-855:3
i-'r., Governor /ATTACHMENT
December 13, I960
Mayer Ronald Packard
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Ayerue
Carlsb/
Dear
E CEIVET\^A .jii-i^ JL f >—J -«*~<
DEC 3 01980
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Department.
Enclosed please find an.updated version of proposed revisions to the Agua Hedionda
Specific Plan, reflecting the discussions of the "negotiating committee1' meeting in
San Diego en November 20. This document reflects the position of ouz- staff, based
upon the background .information available to date,.as to revisions to the Specific
Plan needed to produce a certifiable LGP.
It is my hope that the City Council would now initiate a process of re-sttbmittal of
the laitd. -jse plan tc -the Commission, for formal LCP review. In accordance with
Section 30512(d) of the Coastal Act, the City Council nay. at its discretion, re-
submit the revised plan directly to the State Conimission or submit it for additional
Regional Commission review.
2be steps prc-p^i'a-ociy to resubmittal of the land use plan will be determined in
part by the e;rte..nt of plan revisions which ycur city makes, and by the sxtert of
prior public paiticipabicn in the local planning process. In accorciancs v/it.h
Section 3^503 of the Coaxal Act, ar,y portion c~' an LC?'which has not been subjected
to public hearings within four years of plan subrnittal v.'ould req'.iire a n?v* public
-hearing. Parsv.ai-t to Section 00050 of the Local Coastal Program Segulaticns, review
drafts of LCP materials irast be made available to the public a mirarrrjin of six we-r.,Vo
prior to fins! action on them by a local government. Finally, Section 30510(a) oi'
the Coastal AcL- requires sucrriittal of a land use plan pursuant to a resolution of
the local government- certifying that the LCP is intended to be carried out jji a
manner consistent vrith the Coastal Act.
Baced upon these requirements, j.ntended to assure a maximum opportunity for public
participation in c.he LCP process, I would suggest that the City should use the
following procedure of resubnittal:
1. prepare a revised draft plan, incorporating those parts of the enclosed
document on which agreement, was reached through the "negotiating committee"
process;
2. make the revised plan available to the public fox' at least six weeks prior
to final City Council action;
3« hold at least one public hearing en the revised plan before the City Council,
and adopt the 'resolution required by oection 30;J-10(a) of the Coastal Act; snd.
.^'"'Jytn\C I J^vi i.~.<f «.
i
\LV ^,V
letter to Mayor Packard,
4- submit the revised plan to either the Regional Commission or State Commission-
offices, for LOP review. ••
I believe that the efforts which we have made in resolving our differences through
the "negotiating committee" process can now be culminated with an approval by the
Commission of the Agua Hedionda rlan. While I recognize that some differences of
opinion or approach remain regarding appropriate land use regulations for portions
of the planning area, I think that the enclosed proposed revisions would provide
a reasonable set of policies consistent with the sensitive nature of the lands
around Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
lhank you for your extraordinary efforts and assistan
plan.
.evelopment of this
Michael
Executive Directc
cc: Ibm Crandall, Executive Director, San Biego Coast Regional Commission
Enclosure
.Proposed L^nd Use Plan Revisions - - /yrua Hodipnda Specific Plan
Revised November 21, 1980
\1* Protection of Sensitive Habitr-ts -- 'Ihe IZMH ( 10-20 du/ac) designation on the
portion of the "Kelly" property located within the planning area (as shewn on Exhibit
l) shall be deleted, and the property shall be designated as a "Resource Management
Area" for uses consistent with maintenance of the natural resources values of the
wetlands ;ano_,^Loodplain thereon . Permitted uses within areas of the floodplain not
classified as significant wetlands may include agriculture, outdoor plant nurseries,
fish hatcheries, driving ranges, archery ranges, hiking and equestrian trails, apiaries,
or other non- intensive recreational, scientific, or educational uses compatible with
the maintenance of resource values. Mo permanent structures or^subsiajitial impermeable
•Sttrfacing-shail be permitted within the 100-year. floodplain, nor shall any filling of
the floodplain be permitted. Any development shall be regulated to protect the
significant archeologicai resources which have beer, identified on the site. Any
development of the property shall be subject to regulation by conditional use permit
to assure compliance with the foregoing 'Werrestrictions -and the following specific
development criteria necessary to protect these environment ally sensitive landsV'ia—
-/-scbJltloii t.o~ the-other—general -- ' development, .criteria ...contained in the Specif icJFJsni.^ — *..— -^ „ «„,., «~.™-., .*».*..,., -- • in~ _--•••-««-
a) A buffer strip of at least 100 feet in -width, shall be maintained in a
natural condition around the perimeter of all wetlands or environmentally
sensitive habitat areas;
b) Fencing shall be required to prevent uncontrolled access of persons or domestic
animals into the wetland or environmentally sensitive areas; and
c) No vehicle, pedestrian, or equestrian access shall be permitted within either
the wetland, environmentally sensitive, or buffer areas, except for resource
management .puiposes.
2. ^L & R" _ Property South of ^ Park Drive -- Ihe land use plan shall provide that
development of the parcel shall be regulated as follows:
. a) No development of the property shall occur without prior written authorization
, from the State Lands Commission stating that development as proposed would be
.^ consistent with the public trust doctrine and any public trust claims arising
from the historical condition of the property;
b) If determined consistent with any public trust limitations, the area of the
site designated for residential use shall be not less than three acres. A final
•' determination of the "developable area" for residential purposes shall b-3 made
in consultation with the State Department of Fish and Game, and based upon the
need to protect adjacent wetland areas and provide an adequate buffer between
development and environmentally sensitive areas j
~. c) Hie property shall be designated RMH, for residential development at 10—20
dwelling units per acre. A maximum of 60 residential units shall be permitted
on the developable portion of the cite;
d) Beyond the south and east perimeter of the developable portion of the site, <in
area of at least 100 feet in width shall remain unimproved, for the purpose of
• • providing a buffer between development and environmentally sensitive areas and
to permit access for scientific, educational, or other limited pur-poses consistent
with resource management. An a condition of development of the property, a program
of fencing shall be developed by the applicant in consultation with the- State
Hedionda Revisions/^xj^o _2
Department of Fish and Game. The remainder of the site, beyond the developable
area for residential purposes, shall be subject to a permanent easement for open
space and resource conservation purposes, in favor of the City of Carlsbad, State
- ------ Department of Fish and Game, or other appropriate management agency. Maintenance
of this area shall be the responsibility of a homeowner's association arising
- — from -any residential development, and any landscaping or other minor improvements
within this area "shall be subject to review and approval by the Department of
Fish and Game;
e) On the portion of the property beyond the required buffer zone, the site shall
be retored to the condition in which it existed prior to the importation of
approximately _ cubic yards of fill material in 1972. This shall
be accomplished by the landowner prior to the commencement of any permitted
construction on the developable portion of the site. Hie fill shall be removed
and the site graded in a manner determined, in consultation with the State
Department of Fish and Game, adequate to permit ultimate restoration for habitat
purposes; and
f) All other development standards contained in the Specific Plan shall apply to
this site, including those concerned with the provision of public access and
with protection of visual resources.
3- ."Ferrero" Property -- The land use plan shall provide that development of the parcel
shall be regulated as follows:
a) No development of the property shall occur without prior written authorisation
from the State lands Commission stating that development as proposed would be
^ consistent with the public trust doctrine and any public trust claims arising
from the historical condition of the property;
determined consistent with any public trust limitations, the portion of the
/ --site designated for residential use shall vc the area landward of the existing .'-
'' -lO-foot-elevation topographic contour line. Within this developable area, all "
v structures shall be set back a minimum of 100 feet from the 10-foot contour line,
"..• .to provide an appropriate buffer to the recreational and resource management
uses described below. To delineate the extent of the developable area, fencing V
corresponding to the 10-foot contour line shall be provided as a condition of .'/•
— development of the property;
c) The site shall be designated RMH, for residential development at 10-20
dwelling units per acre; the permitted reidential density shall be calculated
on the basis of the land area landward of the 10-foot contour line;
d) The area below the 10-foot contour line shall be subject to a permanent
'.easement for recreational and resource management purposes, in favor of the City
•of Carlsbad, State Coastal Conservancy, or other appropraite management agency.
•In view of the evidence that public prescriptive rights of access exist over a
substantial portion of the site, and in view of the sensitive nature of adjacent
wetland areas, low-intensity recreational use should be permitted in the area
below the 10-foot contour line, with access controlled where necessary to protect
sensitive habitat areas; and
e) All other development standards contained in the Specific Plan shall apply to
this site, including those concerned with the provision of public access and
with protection of visual resources.
4. Dolineate Wetland Areas -- The land use plan shall include delineation of all
wetland habitat areas, and of degraded wetlands considered capable of restoration, as
determined by the State Department of Fish and Game, (if such mapping is not made
available by DFG, funding for ito preparation should be provided as part of the
Phase III ( implementation) wox-k program.)
Hedionda Revision
Ihe implementation phase of the LCP shall include specific provisions for assuring
protection of wetlands in the deoicn of adjacent new development, including provision
of adequate buffer areas, protective fencing, revegetation, etc. Ihe implementation
phase of the LCP shall also provide for imposition of wetland restoration requirements
as a condition of development approval on parcels containing identified degraded wetlands.
5« Monitor Eel Grass The land use plan shall include a program for monitoring of
the eel grass beds in the Inner Lagoon, for the purpose of determining whether special
protective measures are needed to ensure their protection. Such monitoring shall be
carried out by the State Department of Fish and Game, or by the City of Carlsbad if
funding is available, and the Department of Fish and Game shall review the findings of
this monitoring and make recommendations to the City and Coastal Commission regarding
needed protective measures.
6. Control Grading and Drainage Ihe land use plan shall include specific policies
to minimize grading in order to limit erosion and sediment runoff into the lagoon and
in order to limit alteration of' natural land forms to preserve scenic values. These
policies shall include a requirement that permitted drainage systems limit the rate
of runoff to that which occurs naturally on an existing undeveloped site; means to
accomplish this may include use of on-site catchment basins, desilting basins, and
sub-surface drains with energy dissipators. In addition, the plan shall provide for
revegetation of all graded areas and for a restriction of grading activities during
the rainy season.
The land use plan shall provide that all development shall be regulated as follows:
a) No development, grading or other alteration of natural landforms shall occur !
• -'V1' ' _on slopes of 25% or greater incline, in order to protect, scenic resources, limit '
,'' • removal of co?stal sage vegetation, and minimize potential erosion;
b) The Planned Unit Development (PUD) mechanism or other implementing program
' shall be utilized on all subdividable parcels to require clustering of new
development in a manner which will minimise grading; to the maximum extent feasible,
all new development shall be limited to areas of less than 2Q% slope through use
of the PUD mechanism. The maximum permitted density of development on parcels
* containing slopes of 25% or greater shall be calculated only on the basis of
'the area in less than 25% slope; and
c) Development on existing subdivided lots having all of their area in slopes of
25% or greater shall be permitted, but grading shall be limited to minimal site ['
preparation for pole-type footings. Driveway/parking areas shall be limited in
size and shall be restricted to an area adjacent to the local street. On-site
vegetation shall not be disturbed beyond the minimal area needed to be cleared
for the construction process, which shall be clearly delineated on approved site
plans.
7. Proposed"Kelly Drive" Extension Ihe extension of Kelly Drive proposed in the
.Specific Plan shall be deleted. If it is determined that a second entrance to the
adjacent existing subdivision is needed to facilitate emergency access and for traffic
safety purposes, a street connecting to El Carnino Real may be permitted to connect with
the existing cul-de-sac, provided that such construction will
involve no fill of wetlands and will have no significant adverse impact on adjacent
wetlands or other environmentally sensitive habitat areas through introduction of
polluted runoff, sedimentation, or human intrusion.
8. Proposed "Wcblinn Drive" Extension The project has a substantial potential for
exacerbating the current problems of runoff, erosion and sedimentation which adversely
••~i-l.fc.CW*
^Agua Hedionda Revisions; lPgp;e 4 '
effect -the.Lagoon. Based on the present lack of adequate evaluation of this potential
impact, the road extension shall be deleted from the land use plan at this time. If,
on the basis of specific project design and evaluation, it can be demonstrated that
construction of the project could proceed without short- or long-term adverse impact
on the.resources of the area, the land use plan should be' amended to permit the project.
9. .Maintenance Dredging and Alteration of Navigable Channels - - To ensure that the
Waters and habitat resources of Agua Hedionda are protected, the section of the Specific
Plan regarding alteration of navigable channels ( p. 19) shall be revised to indicate
that any such alteration must be performed in a manner consistent with Section 30233
of the Coastal Act. With respect tc maintenance dredging of the Inner Lagoon, such
^dredging shall not be permitted within arj2aj5_jDf__sj^xiaJ^±^^
.by the State Department of Fish and Game, and jahall wjiere jpermitted be mitigated^so^.s.
to maintain or enhance the functional capacity~~of t.he~~lagoon for habitat ..purposes; any
"<ffrR'HiHm>"lippi"icjfc^ Department -of-Fish and /Jamo f m- i¥."^'
recornmendatiqns_ pripr^jD^he_isju§^c^o^^y permit allowing the work.
^ . ^ .Wru-Hl.-T-1« •«•!. | •••*,, „ lllmf ,,J
-10. Snug Harbor Expansion To enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation, -
the residential "RM" designation on the area between the eucalyptus grove and Hoover
--Street shall be deleted, and the area shall be designated for commercial recreation
usep such as restaurants, motels, gift shops, bait-and-tackle shops, or similar uses.
.Given the existing and planned,facilities supporting recreational boating provided
else'-jhere within the plan area, boating support uses need not be included within this
particular commercial area. -,~.
** -immiiii i -iji iimmiiinj nil.
,11. Hedionda jPoint The area between the Hoover Street extension and Whitey's Landing
'shall be designated RIM, for residential development at 0-4 dwelling units per acre.
All development regulations of the Specific Plan, including those concerned with the
provision of public access and with protection of visual resources, shall apply to this
area.
12.. Agricultural Conversion - T- The 45-acre area owned by SDG&E north of the Cannon
Rd. stub, between the tree-line and Interstate 5? shall be permitted, to convert from
agricultural to urban uses and shall be designated for commercial recreation uses. To
meet the requirements of the Coastal Act regarding agricultural conversions, the
.following conditions shall at a minimum be applied to any permit_allowing urban
development on this site in"~or3er~To^assure the protectT6~n~l3T'Tfhe remainder of the
ownership:
-. a) Prior to the commencement of urban development, the landowner shall record
,.a permanent use covenant or easement over the area beyond the 45-acre site, in
'favor of the State Coastal Conservancy or City of Carlsbad, limiting use in
. perpetuity to agriculture and utility right-of-way purposes and to recreational
traiIs""Enat do not interfere with agricultural uses; '_-."-_-.-=' \. \ ": - . v i^ :' ^"'" ''-
b) Prior to issuance of a use permit for the 45-acre area, SDG&E shall conclude
an agreement with the City of Carlsbad to make a portion of the site available
for development as a public recreational use area, if the City finds that current
'or future recreational needs require the development of such uses in the south
Shore portion of.the Specific Plan area; and
c) The utility shall present written confirmation from the State Energy Commission
^or its successor that the 45-acre site need not be kept available as a site for
utility expansion in light of regional energy needs and alternatives.
Consistent with the intended agricultural use, the SDG&E lands beyond the 45-acre area
shall be designated in the land use plan for Exclusive Agriculture use, with an overlay
_A#ua He_dionda Revisions,_
permitting utility right-of-way uses. Recreational trails uses not conflicting with
agriculture should be a permitted use, within the Exclusive Agriculture designation.
13- "JPannonia'' Property To achieve consistency with Sections 30221 and 30252(b) of
the Coastal Act, design of a residential subdivision on the Pannonia property shall
preserve the bluff face and provide for a landscaped recreational accessway around
the perimeter of the bluff top. Such a trail shall be of adequate width and designed
to facilitate public use for bicycling, strolling and other passive recreational purposes.
14. Agricultural Conversions Criteria '-— To be consistent with the objective of the
Coastal Act that agricultural lands be protected, the agricultural lands conversion
criteria in the Specific Plan (p. 12) shall be revised to include the language of
Sections 30241 and 30242 of the Coastal Act. The land use designation of the south
shore agricultural areas shall be revised in the land use plan from Open Space to
Exclusive Agriculture, permitting agricultural uses and support facilities.
15. Community Park Consistent with conditions 12 and 14, the "community park"
. designation shall be deleted from the south shore agricultural lands; a public park
area may be designated within the 45-acre SDG&E agricultural conversion area. Passive
and transient recreational activities on non-agricultural lands in the vicinity of
the area which was designated "Hub Park" may be permitted, provided that they would
not conflict with agricultural uses.
16. Proposed "Cannon Road" Extension •— The conceptual alignment of Cannon Road as
.shown on the draft land use map for the Carlsbad LCP, prepared by PRC Toups Corporation,
v-/is acceptable. In the development of a final specific design for the roadway, the
following design criteria and environmental protection measures shall apply:
a) No portion of the road construction shall involve filling or dredging of
• a wetland area, as defined in Section 30121 of the Coastal Act;
b) To the extent that any portion of the road construction would occur in or
• adjacent to an environmentally sensitive habitat area other than a wetland,
• the road shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly
degrade such areas, shall avoid significant disruption of habitat values, and
"shall'be sited and designed to be compatible with the continuance of habitat values;
c) To the extent that there are no feasible less environmentally damaging
alternatives and the road as designed would nonetheless result in adverse impacts
to environmentally sensitive habitat areas, such impacts shall be fully mitigated
in accordance with the recommendations of the State Department of Fish and Game;
and
d) To protect agricultural lands from the growth-inducing potential of the project,
no agricultural lands shall be assessed for construction of the road, and the
road shall be designed so as to avoid uncontrolled access into adjacent agricul-
tural areas.
1?« Continou3 Access — Access to and along the north shore of the lagoon shall be
made continous, to the maximum extent feasible, and shall be provided as a condition
of development approval for all shorefront properties. All accessways shall be
designed in such a manner as to allow for reasonable use by any member of the general
public, and shall be designed to accomodate bicycle as well as pedestrian use.
Accescways under the railroad and Interstate 5 bridcea may be designed for pedestrian
use only, if bicycles could not feasibly be accomodatcd; if the City of Carlsbad cannot
provide access under the two bridges through its best efforts, such access shall be
required only if funding assistance is forthcoming from the Coastal Conservancy or other
public or private source. Access from Park Drive to the "Pannonia" site should be
provided by a hiking trail in order to facilitate use of the area by the public.
Hedionda Revisions?—,»,-,., ~ - ,
_ : _.___-.. - - -\^ - •
18« Design of Access Easements, Buffer; Areas, and Adjacent Development - - All accessways
should, be designed t,o enhance recreational use, and should include adequate open spaces
for light and air, adequate signing, inviting design, and provision of adequate buffer
areas and buffer landscaping to minimize conflicts with adjacent private property. All
.public access easements shall be at least 25 feet in width landward of the mean high
-tide line, unless infeasible due to extreme topographic limitation. The portion of
-the easement which is actually developed for access purposes may be less than the
complete 25-foot width, provided that the developed area is sufficient to reasonably
accomodate anticipated access demand. To meet these objectives, the following design
criteria shall apply to all structures proposed to be located within 100 feet of any
access easement or other public recreational use area:
a) All portions of such structures shall be set back from the point nearest any
public use area a distance equivalent to twice the height of the structure above
finished grade; and
b) New development shall provide landscaping adequate to minimize visual intrusion
upon public use areas.
19- Access Signing All public use areas shall be clearly identified through a
uniform signing program, to be carried out by the City of Carlsbad or as & condition
-of individual private developments. Signs or other devices on public or private
property which might deter use of public access areas shall be prohibited within the
-Specific Plan area. '
-20.-.-Phasing Public Access Improvements The land use plan shall include a program for
specific, phased development of public access improvements. The program shall include,
-at a minimum, the following: .
a) Dedication requirements for those portions of the proposed accessway system
which are not currently in public ownership or under public control;
b) Provisions for funding and constructing the improvements for those areas of
the accessway already in public ownership or control;
. . c) Provisions for bonding completion of accessway improvements as
each shoreline property obtains development approval; and ' -
,, d) Reasonable contingency provisions for assuring that the accessways can be
-made continuous within 20 years.
21. Protection of Visual Resources The land use plan shall include the following
design criteria for application to all new development proposals which would be
visible from major public roads:
a) Where a significant elevation difference (e.g. 35 feet) exists between the
shoreline and the first parallel public road, as in the case of Hedionda Point
and Snug Harbor, no portion of a structure in the intervening area shall be
permitted to exceed the elevation of the roadway;
"b) Where no significant elevation difference exists between the shoreline and
the first parallel public road, permitted development in the intervening area
shall provide a view corridor, of a width equivalent to at least one-third of
the road frontage of the parcel, which shall be kept free of all structures and
/ free of landscaping which at maturity would rise above a reasonable viewline from
vehicles passing on the public road;
c) On all property adjoining the shoreline, permitted development shall be
designed to "step down" in height, to avoid casting shadows on shoreline areas
and to produce a perceived transition from open space areas to developed areas;
and
Aj^aTHe'ctiorida Revisions',
[• - ~ d) Any development proposed to be located on or near a significant landform
(e.g. Hedionda Point) shall be designed so as to minimize disturbance of natural
landfonus, and shall be developed in a manner that assures its compatibility
and harmony witn the natural landforn through use of such architectural techniques
;as terraced or pole foundations and variation of roof lines to complement the
; topography. * ^- •" ' • _
??• "Ecke" Property The land use plan shall provide that development of the parcel
shall be regulated as follows:
a) In consideration of the locational advantages which this site has for
aquaculture uses, including suitable water quality, protection from ocean currents
and wave action, and proximity to the thermal effluent of the Encina Power Plant,
the site shall be designated for Aquaculture use;
b) As secondary uses, in the interim period while aquaculture alternatives are
i being studied, other uses may be permitted which would necessitate minimal site
disturbance or capital investment, including active recreation (fishing, tent
-• camping, etc), beach access parking, short-term recreational vehicle parking,
and temporary accessory commercial facilities (e.g. bait-and-tackle shop, food
concession, etc.);
- ' - - c) Any use other than aquaculture shall be permitted by conditional use permit
only, and no such permit shall "be issued for a term of more than five years;
d) No conditional use permit shall be issued for a use other than aquaculture
: unless the finding is made that aquaculture use is not presently feasible on
the site, and no conditional use permit shall be renewed or extended unless the
same finding is again made; and
e) Prior to issuance of any use permit for the site, the applicant shalJ present
a written determination from the State Lands Commission stating that development
as proposed would be consistent with the public trust doctrine and any public
Wtrust claims arising from the historical condition of the property.
23. Bristol Cove To minimize potential conflicts with recreational access traffic,
developnent in Bristol Cove should discourage parking facility design which would
necessitate backing out into the street. A single driveway with adequate on-site
turning area would contribute to traffic' 'safety, and would also permit enhancement of
-the -jyisual aesthetics of the area by providing room for buffer landscaping.
"24- Affordable Housing Consistent with the city-wide need for affordable housing
opportunities, as described in the Carlsbad Housing Element and in the CPO Regional
Housing Needs Allocation, housing opportunities for persons and families of low and
moderate income, as defined by Section 50093 of the State Health and Safety Code, shall
be protected, encouraged, and, in significant new residential development projects,
provided. When the balance of the Carlsbad LCP is certified, policies regarding
affordable houoing contained in that document shnll apply as well to the Specific
Plan area. Until that occurs, the following policies shall guide new development:
"a) In projects of 10 or more units for sale, at least 25$ of the total units
shall be made available for sale to qualified low and moderate income households,
."at affordable sales prices. "Affordable for-sale housing" shall mean housing
selling for a price no greater that 2% times gross annual household income;
' b) To protect the community's stock of rental housing, condominium converfdons
.shall bo regulated to protect the righty of existing tenants. When rental
vacancy rates within the coastal zone are less than 5 per cent, condominium
conversions may be denied if the finding is made that such conversions would
individually or cumulatively reduce the supply of affordable rental housing.
Where condominium conversions of 6 units or more are approved, at least one
third of the total number of units shall be made available for sale to qualified
low and moderate, incone households, at affordable sales prices;
c) To encourage production of affordable housing, consistent with the intent of
AB1151| new projects subject to the requirement of providing affordable units
shall be granted additional unit density amounting to an increase of at least
25 per cent above the otherwise permitted density. In addition, or as an
alternative, the City may grant other incentives to affordable development,
including a reduction in otherwise applicable development standards (e.g. parking
requirements, processing fees, fees or payments for park or utility purposes,
physical off-site improvements, etc.). No reduction shall be granted under
this policy from '"public shoreline access requirements, or in required setbacks
for -protection of habitat areas, however;
d) Affordable units provided in new projects or condominium conversions shall
be made available at a range of prices, generally making one half available to
low-income households and one half available to moderate-income households.
Affordable units should be made available to families with children, as well as
.to adult and elderly households;
e) In order that affordable units provided pursuant to these policies will make
a long-term contribution to the community's stock of affordable housing
opportunities, such units shall be subject to controls en resale prices to assure
continued sffordability to persons of low and moderate income; and
f) Reflecting the intent of the Coastal Act, affordable housing units are
encouraged within the coastal zone as a means of broadening and enhancing
opportunities for access to coastal resources. Where projects make extraordinary
contributions to public access through other means, such as through dedication
of substantial shorefront areas for public use, through extraordinary contributions
to improved transit services, or through construction of public parking lots and
other recreational support facilities, for instance, the requirement, to provide
affordable housing opportunities may be reduced or waived altogether; the City
of Carlsbad will seek in this manner to provide for the best overall "access
package" in any specific project.
25. Corn-pens at ion for Rej^ulatory Practices -- ^e following statement shall be deleted
.from the land use plan:
"In instances where there is a clear and measurable loss of value to the owner
and a definite gain in value to the public, some form of compensation should
be considered."
c ATTACHMENT.C
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 920CS
Office of tlic Mayor
TELEPHONE-.438-5561
! Carfebab
September 24, 1980
Commissioners
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
631 Howard Street .
San Francisco, CA 94105
Dear Commissioners: - •
Because of the significant objections which the City cont5.nues
to have regarding the Local Coastal Program for the "Mello
Bill" properties, the City Council has determined that it does
not intend to participate in the implementation of the plan.
In the City's opirion, the LCP does not meet the mandates of
Section 30170(f) or the policies of the Coastal Act and does
not reflect the needs of the City or its residents. Many of
our expressed concerns have fallen on deaf ears. The Commis-
sion's response, that we may seek change through the amend-
ment process, is both inadequate and unrealistic. Because the
adoption of this program will undoubtedly set a precedent for
the Local Coastal Program for the remainder of the City of Carlsbad,
I would again like to renew our concerns.
\
First, the City Council believes that the provisions for mandatory
inclusionary zoning for low and moderate income housing within
the coastal zone, without regard to the. provisions of the City's
Housing Element, is contrary to the express language of Section
30213 of the Resources Code which states:
"New housing in the coastal zone shall be developed
in conformity with the standards, policies and goals
of local housing elements adopted in accordance with
requirements of Subdivision(c) of Section-65302 of
the Government Code."
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad has accepted the
responsibility to provide housing opportunities within the
entire City of Carlsbad for all economic sectors of the
community. The Commission1s mandate for inclusionary zoning
within the coastal zone disrupts overall City policies and
Commissioners -2- September 24, 1980
Ignores the demographic, economic and social realities of the
City of .Carlsbad. Because the standards, goals, and policies
,of local housing elements apply to -the entire City, including
the coastal zone, the Council believes it is%more appropriate
to deal with the housing crisis on a city-wide basis. Because
most of the residential areas of the City of Carlsbad are with-
in five miles of the coast, and readily accessible through . '
convenient public and private transportation, the Commission's
mandatory inclusionary zoning for low and moderate income
housing cannot be justified under the goal of obtaining access
to Carlsbad's coastal resources. .
The second major area of concern to the City of Carlsbad is the
permanent agricultural zoning which the Commission has imposed.
The City believes that permanent agricultural restrictions for
the properties involved are not supported by the economic data.
The City Council recognizes agriculture as an important industry
and resource in the City of Carlsbad and has begun to adopt pro-
grams which will protect the economic feasibility of agriculture
in the City for as long as possible. However, the City Council
realistically recognizes that there comes a time when no economic
return can be made through agriculture. Permanent agricultural
protection prohibits the conversion of the land to a different
. use. If government demands that che property be maintained in
a' use which is not economically productive, inverse condemnation
may result. The City of Carlsbad does not wish to be placed in
that position at this time. The City recognizes that protection
of coastal agricultural lands, particularly given the mandates of
Sections 30241 and 30242, is-an important policy of the Coastal
.Commission. However, the City believes that this protection can
be better achieved through methods other than permanent agricultural
use restrictions. The evidence presented at the Commission's own
public hearing supports the City's proposition.
Finally, the City has significant concerns ovar the grading
restrictions imposed by the Local Coastal Program for the Mello
Bill properties. The development restrictions based on slope,
particularly those applied to the Rancho La Costa properties,
clearly indicate that the Commission is not concerned with the
protection of the environment but is rather imposing severe
developmental restrictions based on an arbitrary standard. The
City desires to protect its significant coastal resources',
including the lagoons, but believes that goal can be accomplished
through the use of strict grading standards, mitigation techniques
.and other requirements rather than simply resorting to a ban on
development.
W - •. . V* •• • • .
Commissioners -3- ' September 24, 1980
Many of the resources sought to be protected by the Coastal Act
exist in the City of Carlsbad. These resources are among the
assets which make Carlsbad unique among California coastal cities.
The City Council desires to protect these resources according to
the policies of the Coastal Act, but in many respects has been
given a "Hobson's" choice in the LCP for the Mello Bill properties.
To accept the plan and ordinances as adopted by the Commission
would be to subject our City to liability, necessitate programs'
for which we -lack legal authority and require that we act contrary
to what we believe is best for the City of Carlsbad. If we fail
to adopt them, it appears the requirements will be imposed upon
us by a continuation of the permit process. At this time we choose
the latter course and advise the Commis.sion that the City does not
intend to implement the provisions of the Local Coastal Program or
the zoning ordinances as presently proposed for the Mello Bill
properties. If the Commission persists in this exercise of State
land'use control, you should do so with the knowledge that you will
be responsible for the implementation and administration of the
plan. . .,.
Very 'truly yours,
RONALD C. PACKARD
Mayor
.RCP/DSH/mla .
cc: Assemblyman Robert C. Frazee
carlsbad local coastal program
COASTAL ZONEBOUNDARY
MELLG BRL ™..
PROPERTIES *••
CARLSBAD CITY LIMITS
AQUA HEDIONDA SPECIF!PLAN BOUNDARY
California coastal commission
631 Howard street, 4th floor ]
sail $rancisco, California 94105
(41