The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1981-03-10; City Council; Minutes. d' ,r" 72 / COUNCIL March 10, 1981 Page 2 MEMBERS - 1 Council directed that the letter addressed to Mr. Paul Zucker, contained in the agenda packet, be forwarded to Mr. Zucker; and Council requested they be furnished with further.informa- tion relative to possible costs. /[77] 3. CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PLAN. a The City Manager gave a brief introduction to the matter stating the first hearing before the Regional Commission would be held on Friday, March 13, 1981. He suggested that Council consider appointing a committee of two Council Members and two Planning Commissioners to meet and assist staff in the next few months as the hearings and procedures progress. Packard Casler Lewis Anear Kulchin The Planning Director began the staff report with the aid of a.flip chart giving a brief history of the beginnings of the Coastal Act and additional legislation which created four areas requiring four separate Coastal Plans within the City. Tom Hageman, Planning Department, continued with the staff report explaining the three major issues of the Plan which would be discussed: Land Use Map, Land Use Text, and Implemen- tation. He referenced wall maps displaying the City's coastal area on a General Plan Land Use map, Toups LCP Land Use map, Toups Agricultural Program map, and a soils map. 1 Land Use Map I 4- 1 Pat Tessier, Planning Department, continued with the staff report referencing page 6 of the Staff Summary previously distributed to Council. With the aid of a transparency, he identified the six issues and staff recommendations with regard to the Land Use Map. Council recognized Mr. Bob , Native Sun Investment, developers of the proposed Point San Malo project, who request- ed that Council not allow downzoning. Council questioned whether the staff proposed "open space" designation for Macario Canyon would preclude the City from placing any form of tourist-type development in that area should it be found desirable in the future. Tom Hageman responded that the City would be requesting contro of the implementation of the Plan. Therefore, if approved, the "open space" designation would not preclude Council from allowing a form of tourist oriented development in the Macario Park area. Council Xember Casler referenced Recommendation/Issue 1, and 0 'requested that the word "regional" be deleted since it had not i been determined that the Macario Canyon Park would be a regional park. Council concurred with the request. Council approved the six Land Use Map Recommendation/Issues as submitted by staff, and contained on pages 6 and 7 of the Staf Summary, to include the deletion of the word "regional" in Recommendation/Issue 1. I 1 Land Use Text - Coastal Element 1: Agriculture Pat Tessier referenced page 8 of the Staff Summary, and with the aid of a transparency, gave a brief report on the Agricul- tural Subsidy Program and explained same. 1 I .. ' 1 f Packard Cas 1 er Lewis Anear Kulchin r ____7. ~ _.","". "..,"" . . . .."" .. . .. . .. . . " .- .. 73 \ COUl\ICIL MEMBERS \ March 10, 1981 Page 3 I Council recognized Mr. Peter Mackauf, Chairman of the Agricultural Advisory Committee. Mr. Mackauf briefly explain ed the contents of the Committee's recommendation to Council as detailed in Attachment J in their material. He also referenced the soils map showing Class I11 soils, and stated those should be encouraged for agricultural use, not those areas shown on the Toups map which are unsuitable for agricul tural use. i 1 e s Council recognized Mignon Bowen, representing the League of I Women Voters, who referenced a letter previously sent to Council.. She reiterated the League of Women Voters opinion regarding agricultural contained therein. Council Member Casler referred to previous'Counci1 discussion and expressed concern about a subsidy program. I I Tom Hageman indicated that the Toups proposal proposes sellin development rights, and changes discussed by Coastal staff would provide for an agricultural subsidy program on a short- term period. Council approved 'the four Land Use Text, Coastal Element 1- Agriculture Recommendation/Issues as submitted by staff, and contained on pages 8 and 9, with the deletion of Recommenda- tion/Issue 3, and replacing same with the wording contained in Recommendation/Issue 1. 0 g Packard Casler Lewis Anear Kulchin I I: Land Use Text - Coastal Element 2: Environmental Resources Pat Tessier explained the issues with the aid of a transparenc and as contained on page 9 of the Staff Summary. I Council recognized Mignon Bowen, representing the League of Women Voters, who refer.enced page 4 of their letter, and read same as it relates to protection of environmental resources. Council approved the three Land Use Text, Coastal Element 2- - Packard Environmental Resources Recommendation/Issues as submitted by ' Casler staff, and contained on page 9 of the Staff Summary. Lewis Anear Kulchin ..! , . Land Use Text - Coastal Element 3: Geologic Hazards Pat Tessier explained the issues as contained on page 10 of the Staff Summary. Council approved the three Land Use Text, Coastal Element. 3- Geologic Hazards Recommendation/Issues as submitted by staff, and as contained on page 10 of the Staff Summary. RECESS: Mayor Packard called a recess at 8:37 P.M. and Counc reconvened at 8:53 P.M. with all Council Members present. Council recognized Mr. William C. Savage, Box 773, Rancho Santa Fe. Mr. Savage indicated the Toups proposal would reduce the land use of his property by 50 to 60%. He therefo requested that Council consider an additional recommendation on the issue of the Land Use Map. He briefly explained his proposed development, and requested that Council retain the previous density of 10-20 as opposed to the Toups proposed density of 4-10 units per acre on his property. He agreed to maintain,55% open space, and offered to sodden the top of the , I parking structures. I i.- r Packard Cas 1 er Lewis Anear Kulchin * c . - __= _" _"_ _".._"" ...- ., """" . .- .. 7.c / COUNCIL March 10, 1981 . Page 4 ., MEMBERS 7 1 Council agreed to modify Recommendation/Issue 6 of the Land Use Map, as contained on page 7 of the Staff Summary, to Packard Lewis include the property on Batiquitos Lagoon. Casler Anear Kulchin Land Use Text - Coastal Element 4: Public Works Pat Tessier, with the aid of a transparency, outlined the issues as contained on pages 10 and 11 of the Staff Summary. i. I Council discussed the time period for the construction of Cannon Road. Council recognized Mr. Bob Ladwig, Rick Engineering, 3088 Pi0 Pico, Carlsbad. Mr. Ladwig suggested that Cannon Road be built when the City determines the need, but that a Coastal Permit be required to obtain access rights to the road. He indicated this would address the Coastal Commission's concern about the road encouraging the development of the agriculture lands in the area. S Council recognized Mr. W. Allan Kelly, who suggested that an alternative would be to build the road from El Camino Real across his property, and out to Palomar Airport Road. Tom Hageman stated that the recently received comments from Coastal contained a recommendation that the Cannon Road issue ' ' be addressed in the Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Plan, and not in the Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan. Council approved the two Land Use Text, Coastal Element 4- Packard Public Works Recommendation/Issues as submitted by staff, and Casler as contained on pages 10 and 11 of the Staff Summary. Lewis Anear Kulchin Council recognized Mr. Glenn McComas, 1255 Cynthia Lane, Carlsbad. Mr. McComas suggested that Council consider Mr. Kelly's suggestion. I 1 ~ Land Use Text .. - Coastal Element 5: Recreational and Visitor Serving Facilities Staff indicated .no issues of concern were found, and Council took no action on this portion. Land Use Text - Coastal Element 6: Shoreline Access Pat Tessier outlined the issue as contained on page 11 of the Staff Summary. Council approved the one Land Use Text, Coastal Element 6- Packard Shoreline Access Recommendation/Issue as submitted by staff, Casler and as contained on page 11 of the Staff Summary. Lewis Anear Kulchin I Land,Use Text - Coastal Element 7: Visual Resources Pat Tessier read the issue as contained on page 11 of the Staff Summary. r Following brief discussion, Council approved the one Land Use Text, Coastal Element 7-Visual Resources Recommendation/Issue as submitted by staff, and as contained on page 11 of the Staff Summary. Packard Casler Lewis Anea r Kulchin ?< u COlN c I L MEMBERS March 10, 1981 Page 5 "I Land Use Text - Coastal Element 8: Housing Pat Tessier identified the three issues as contained'on pages 11 and 12 of the Staff Summary, and briefly explained same. i Council discussion related to the requirement of one-for-one replacement when deteriorated buildings are demolished, and considered to be affordable housing. Council also expressed the feeling that if developments are required to provide low- cost units as replacement, the remainder of the units in the development would sell at higher costs in order to recoup that loss. Council recognized Mignon Bowen of the League of Women Voters. Mrs. Bowen expressed support of the housing recommendations contained in the Toups LCP, and read from the League's letter furnished to Council earlier. Council recognized Mr. Douglas S. Draper, 3325 Wilshire, #700, attorney representing Joseph Sherman, who purchased property and intended to build a mobilehome park. He stated that Coastal denied the request, and the Toups proposal designates the property as agricultural. He urged that Council consider that such housing would assist in furnishing low-cost housing in- the City. I i I Council agreed that Land Use Text, Coastal Element 8-Housing Recommendation/Issues 1, 2, and 3 be deleted (on pages 11 and 12 of the Staff Summary) and the City retain the position that The City regards the Carlsbad Housing Element as the primary document guiding the provision of affordable housing throughou the City, including the Coastal Zone. 11 Implementation Pat Tessier briefly explained the matter as contained on page 13 of the Staff Summary. Council approved the Implementation Recommendation as submitte by staff, and as contained on page 13 of the Staff Summary. i I Council made the finding that neither the Toups report in its original format, or as modified by coastal staff, is acceptabl to the City, and the City recommends revising the Toups.report incorporating the comments adopted by the Council. ' r) i[Z!j] 4. AGENDA BILL NO* 6532 - PROPOSED ANNEXATION POLICY FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. Council Member Anear expressed opposition to the City paying the fees required for land owners to annex, and Council con- curred. Council discussion related to the procedures required to proce annexation and the possibility of adjoining property owners combining their applications and sharing the cost of required reports. Also discussed was the possibility of mailing a questionnaire to all owne,rs in unincorporated areas inquiring as to their desire to apply for annexation. 1 1 I 1 t Packard CAsler Lewis Anear Kulchin I C €i C Packard Casler Lewis Anear Kulchin Packard Casler Lewis Anear Kulchin S C : I "_c_ ."-, :__"__ _" ..""_" .. ." . . ."".. --- - - - . .- . .. 76 \4 COUNCIL. \I March 10, 1981 Page 6 MEKBERS P 1 0 1 f 1 I I Council recognized Mr. A. J. Skotnicki, 3535 Bedford Circle, Carlsbad. Mr. Skotnicki indicated that a Growth Management Program is being developed for the City, and questioned the ability of the City to furnish additional facilities to all properties if they annex. He suggested that the Growth Management Consultant be consulted regarding the City's ability to furnish services. Council recognized Mr. Bob Ladwig, Rick Engineering, 3088 Pi0 Pico, Carlsbad. Mr. Ladwig expressed the opinion that the City should encourage annexations throughout the City. Council. recognized Mr. Dale Schreiber, 1457 Crest, Encinitas. Mr. Schreiber referenced his land location on the map and expressed the desire to annex into the City, and requested that Council encourage annexations. Council directed staff to send a letter of inquiry to all property owners in the City's Sphere of Influence to determine their interest in annexing into the City. Council also agreed that a response from staff on the matter be forthcoming in approximately two months. I Packard Casler Lewis Anear Kulchin Council agreed that all expenses of annexation should be Lewis considered on a city-wide basis. Casler borne by the property owners, and that annexations should 6e Packard Ahear Kulchin I. [110] 5. AGENDA BILL NO. 6533 - SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY AGREEMENT - NOTICE OF TERMINATION. The City Manager gave a brief staff report on the matter as contained in the Statement of the Matter on the agenda bill face. Council discussion related to whether any action on the agree- ment would have any affects on the forthcoming LAFCO hearings regarding the merger of the water district. 1 Council adopted the following Resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 6456, DECLARING THE INTENT TO TERMINATE THE RETAIL SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY AGREEMENT WITH THE COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT. CITY COUNCIL ADDITIONAL BUSINESS : Disaster Council Meeting Council Member Anear reported on the recent meeting. Housing & Redevelopment Advisory Committee Council Member Anear reported on a recent meeting and the apparent.confusion by developers who receive approval of the Planning Commission and are denied by the Redevelopment Advisory Committee. A report was requested from the Planning Department on the matter. I . ,. . ... , .. . .._.I. '. I Packard Casler Lewis Anear Kulchin * ? 77 \J CO1;N c I L t D 7 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 6, 1981 TO: Frank Aleshire, City Manager FROM: James Hagaman, Director of Planning SUBJECT: CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PLAN This memorandum transmits staff information relative to the discussion of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan, scheduled for the City Council Workshop session of March 10, 1981. Included in this packet are the following: (1) Discussion Outline: Provides major topical headings for staff presentation. (2) Staff Summary: Contains specific items to be presented at City Council Workshop session, focusing on major coastal issues. (3) Staff Analysis: Provides extensive background material and discussion of issues contained in staff summary, and an in-depth staff analysis and detailed consideration of coastal proposals, issues and recommendations. (4) Attachments Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Attachment G: Attachment H: Attachment I: Attachment J: Map of Carlsbad Coastal Zone Planning Areas Letter from Mayor Packard re: Mello Bill State Regional Coastal staff comments, including C-l: Agricultural Component C-2: Resource Management Guidelines C-3: Kelly Point Area Development Criteria PRC Toups Land Use Map Toups Agricultural Preservation Map Soils Map Toups proposed Cannon Road Alignment Visitor Commercial Rezone Program (Toups) Visual Resources Overlay Zone (Toups) Carlsbad Agricultural Advisory Committee Report. PWT:ar Council Action: 3-10-81 See Council Minutes for action taken by Council. CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PLAN CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP, MARCH 10, 1981 DISCUSSION OUTLINE The following provides an outline of discussion items and presentation format for the March 10th City Council workshop on the Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan. A more in-depth analysis is contained in the attached staff analysis and staff summary. I. Introduction A. Background 1. Coastal Legislation 2. Segmentation of Carlsbad Coastal Zone 3. Agua Hedionda Update 4. Mello Bill Update 5. San Dieguito LCP Update 6. PRC Toups: consultant contract B. Format 1. Brief overview of presentation format; status of Toups report and coastal staff comments. II. Land Use Map III. Land Use Text Element 1: Agriculture Element 2: Environmental Element 3: Geologic Hazards Element 4: Public Works Element 5: Recreation/visitor serving Element 6: Shoreline Access Element 7: Visual Resources Element 8: Housing IV. Implementation V. General Summary VI. Procedural Recommendations CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PLAN STAFF SUMMARY The following contains a summary of discussion items to be considered at the March 10 City Council workshop relative to the Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan. The attached staff analysis contains a more detailed and extensive discussion of the issues presented in this summary. The staff summary will be utilized for the workshop presentation, and will act to focus discussion on major coastal issues. I. Introduction A. Background 1. Coastal Planning Legislation - major legislation relating to the Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan is as follows: 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. AB 462 (Mello Bill) - requires that three properties in Carlsbad Coastal Zone ("Mello 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. 2. Planning - Area Segmentation: The Carlsbad Local Coastal Planning Area has been segmented into four distinct planning areas. These are as follows (see attachment A). - Agua Hedionda Specific Plan Area - (1104 Acres) - Mello Bill Local Coastal Plan Area - (1000 Acres) - San Dieguito LCP (County of San Diego)- (1191 Acres) - City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan - (5387 Acres) Each of these areas will have a separate land use plan and imple- menting ordinances. Staff concerns regarding this situation are primarily directed towards problems of consistency between differ- ent land use plans and the city overall general plan, and problems that could arise if four different sets of implementing ordinances are developed. 3. Agua Hedionda Update The Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Plan was certified by the Califor- nia State Coastal Commission in May, 1978. At that time, the Commission put 32 conditions of approval on the Agua Hedionda Plan. C DVw ^«*r 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 Commis- sion following the negotiating committee meeting, which occurred on November 20, 1980. The major unresolved task concerning the Agua Hedionda Specific Plan is the completion of the wetlands mapping for the entire lagoon area. The city has received a partial wetlands mapping of certain portions of the South Shore, and staff has forwarded concerns regarding the status and specificity of this mapping effort to the State Department of Fish and Game. A meeting has been scheduled for March 12, 1981, between city representatives and staff members of the State Department of Fish and Game to discuss and clarify the wetlands mapping effort. Following the resolution of the wetlands mapping, and the receipt by the city of a complete mapping determination from Fish and Game, the city will resubmit the revised Agua Hedionda Specific Plan to the State Coastal Commission following local public hearings and a six week public review of the revised submittal document. 4. Mello Bill Update 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 pre- pare the LCP documents. In August, 1980, the State Coastal Commission adopted a Local Coastal Plan and Implementing Ordi- nances for the Mello Bill properties over the numerous objec- tions of property owners, farming inerests and city officials 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 attachment B, letter from Mayor Packard to Coastal Commission). The State/Regional Commission staff comments on the Toups proposed Local Coastal Plan for Carlsbad, include revised land use recommendations for the Mello Bill properties. These recommen- dations generally provide for the development of the Occidental properties, previously designated for agricultural uses, at densities exceeding the city's general plan designations for the property. The increased development allowed on the Occidental property is based on the inclusion of these lands in an agricultural subsidy program. Page 2, Staff Summary 5. San Dieguito LCP: Update 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 the area immediately north of Batiquitos Lagoon 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 approved by the Regional Coastal Commission and forwarded to the State Commission. The San Dieguito LCP will be processed along approximately the same time frame as the Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan, with final certification to occur by July 1, 1981. Staff will be actively nomitoring the progress of this document, and keeping the Council informed on this matter. 6. PRC Toups: Consultant Contract The city of Carlsbad elected to have the State Coastal Commission retain the services of a private consulting firm to prepare a draft Local Coastal Plan in consultation with the city, and to provide state funding for the preparation of the LCP documents. 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. B. Format 1. PRC Toups Plan The PRC Toups document provides the base document, or point of reference, upon which city staff and coastal staff comments are generally based. The Toups Plan contains the three primary Coastal Plan componants, as required by the California Coastal Act. These are as follows: (1) Land Use Map (2) Land Use Text, including the following: Element 1: Agriculture Element 2: Environmental Element 3: Geologic Hazards Element 4: Public Works Page 3, Staff Summary Element 5: Recreation/Visitor Serving Element 6: Shoreline Access Element 7: Visual Resources Element 8: Housing (3) Implementing Ordinances City staff will utilize this format in analyzing and refer- encing comments relative to the Carlsbad LCP. 2. State/Regional Staff Comments The city received, on February 2, 1981, the coastal staff "preliminary discussion" comments on certain portions of the Toups Plan, (attachment C) Coastal staff comments/discussion were made on four elements of the Toups Plan. These include Agriculture, Environmentally Sensitive Habitats, Geologic Hazards and Housing. While the Commission staff may have concerns regarding other aspects of the Toups proposal, they were viewed by the Commission as "less substantial." Although the city has not received a Land use Map from the Coastal Commission staff, certain land use determinations con- tained in the Commission staff comments received by the city, will be discussed in this report. It is anticipated that the city will receive a more detailed Commission staff report on the Toups Plan immediately prior to the first Regional Commission public hearing on the matter, scheduled for March 13, 1981. 3. Carlsbad City Staff Review City staff presentation of the Toups Plan and Coastal staff draft comments will consist of identifying major issues of primary concern to the city, and making specific recommendations for each major issue area. The attached staff analysis contains a more thorough and detailed discussion of the Toups proposal and coastal staff comments, and discusses issue areas and recommendations at a greater level of specificity than those contained in the staff summary. In general, the staff summary identifies overall policy issues for City Council consideration while the staff analysis focuses on the details and technicalities of the Coastal Plan. Page 4, Staff Summary City staff will request Council discussion and direction at the end of each major element of the Coastal Plan. It is anticipated that the city will formulate a position on the identified LCP issues, adopt specific comments, and forward these to the State and Regional Coastal Commission. Page 5, Staff Summary II. Land Use Map 1. Discussion: The LCP Land Use Map graphically depicts the major land use activities allowed in the Carlsbad coastal zone. Once a land use map is adopted, appropriate zoning consistency will be required. Although technically the land use map could be revised in a manner similar to the process utilized in general plan amend- ments (3 cumulative amendments allowed each year), it is unclear at this time the impact that State Coastal Commission review would have on amendment proposals. 2. Issues/Recommendations: The following provides the city staff analysis of major issues, and corresponding recommendations, regarding the Toups Land Use proposal and coastal staff comments. Issue 1. Proposed reclassification of Macario Canyon Area from non-residential reserve to low-medium density residential (0-4 du/acre). Recommendation/Issue 1. The city requests that the Macario Canyon Area be redesignated as "open space", specifically indicating a regional park use. Issue 2. Inclusion of proposed location and extent of agricultural buffers on the Land Use Map. Recommendation/I s sue 2. The determination of agricultural buffers should be made on a project-by-project basis; they should not be included in the land use map. Issue 3. Creation of agricultural designations not currently included in general plan (Agricultural Preserve and Agricultural/ Residential). Recommendation/Issue 5. Agricultural use should be protected with an "Agricultural Resource Overlay Zone" recognizing that agricultural production may not continue indefinitely. Issue 4. Proposed "sliding scale" slope density formula for Kelly Hill Area. Recommendat ion/1s sue 4. Existing low-density residential General Plan designation (0-1% du/acre) is adequate to protect the environmental resources of the Kelly Hill Area. Issue 5. Inclusion of revised land use determinations for Occidental properties, allowing density in excess of existing general plan, based on inclusion of Occidental lands in Agricultural Subsidy Program. Recommendation/1s sue 5. Inclusion of revised land use density for Occidental Property is not appropriate for inclusion in the Carlsbad LCP; land use intensity proposed does not respect general plan designation or concept of residential density ranges; proposed changes were formulated without consulting the city. Page 6, Staff Summary Issue 6. Proposed downzoning of undeveloped lots in Buena Vista Lagoon to low/medium density residential (0-4 du/acre). Recommendation/Issue 6. Downzoning Buena Vista Lagoon infill lots in unequitable; environmental resources would best be protected through application of design criteria/mitigation measures and utilization of planned unit development standards as a means to protect the lagoon ecosystem and provide for potential public access/view points on the lagoon bluffs. Page 7, Staff Summary III. Land Use Text The land use text of the Local Coastal Plan provides a discussion of coastal act policies, findings and specific policy recommendations. The staff presentation regarding this portion of the Land Use Plan focuses on policy statements contained in the Toups LCP proposal and Coastal staff comments. City staff utilizes the eight Coastal Elements contained in the Toups report. These are as follows: Coastal Element 1: Agriculture Coastal Element 2: Environmental Resources Coastal Element 3: Geologic Hazards Coastal Element 4: Public Works Coastal Element 5: Recreation/Visitor Serving Facilities Coastal Element 6: Shoreline Access Coastal Element 7: Visual Resources Coastal Element 8: Housing 1. Coastal Element 1: Agriculture Issue 1. Toups proposed Transfer of Subsidy Credit Program. Recommendation/Issue 1. The city has reservations regarding the feasibility and legality of the Toups Transfer of Agricultural Subsidy Credits proposal, and finds this program unacceptable. Issue 2. Requirement of 100' minimum agricultural buffer zone. Recommendation/Issue 2. The city finds the requirements for agricultural buffers (Toups Policy 2.6) unacceptable. The need for agricultural buffers should be made on an individual basis; should be the responsibility of encroaching development; and should be "adequate" to mitigate potential land use conflicts. Issue 3. Coastal staff proposed Agricultural Subsidy Program. Recommendation/1ssue 3. The Agricultural Subsidy Program may be appropriate to encourage continued agriculture, if the following concerns are noted: Lands generally indicated in Toups Proposal for inclusion in preservation ion program appear appropriate for subsidy program (attachment E). Non-prime lands, and lands with soils Class V to VIII shall not be considered for preservation (attachment F - soils map). Required offer of agricultural easement should be made for a specified period of time; easements should include withdrawal clause, with appropriate penalties Fees collected from "conversion" properties should be administered by Coastal Conservancy; utilized to purchase voluntary limited- term easements (5 to 10 years), construct roadway improvements, irrigation projects, and loan/credit program for farming operations Lands proposed for conversion should emphasize preservation of lands containing best soils, and highest agricultural suitability. Page 8, Staff Summary Issue 4. Staff recommends that the city make the following general findings regarding the encouragement of continued agricultural production. Recommendation/Issue 4. The city recognizes the need to protect and encourage agriculture on a city-wide basis, specifically noting the following: The city has formed an Agricultural Advisory Committee to formu- late recommendations regarding the preservation/protection of agriculture on a city-wide basis The city supports the enhancement of agricultural production through incentive programs including: adopting a Right to Farm Ordinance; preferred water rates for agricultural lands; develop- ment of a reclaimed water program, giving preference to agricul- tural lands; encouraging agricultural leasing on Master Plan areas slated for phased development; support tax. incentives for agriculturally designated properties There are no known prime soils (Class I § II) in the Carlsbad Coastal Zone. 2. Coastal Element 2: Environmental Resources Issue 1. Prohibition of development and vegatation removal on slopes in excess of 25%. Recommendation/Issue 1. The city does not support an arbitrary prohibition of development on all slopes in excess of 25%. The city does however recognize that in areas of significant resource/habitat value or highly errodable soils, development of steep slope areas may not be appropriate, and appropriate mitigation measures/design criteria directed towards minimizing disturbance of steep slope areas, shall be considered. Issue 2. Density credit of 1 du/acre for each acre of steep slope area preserved. Recommendation/1ssue 2. Density credit for steep slope areas should be the same as that afforded the entire property as a means of encouraging the preservation of steep slopes. Issue 5. Inadequate discussion of Lagoon Management issues and program to protect and enhance lagoon resources. Recommendation/Issue 4. The city supports inclusion of a lagoon management program in the Carlsbad LCP. At a minimum, such a program should address the following: Structuring a joint-powers committee to develop a maintenance/ enhancement program Recommendations regarding specific trails, viewpoints and access improvements; discussing of potential funding sources Structuring program to periodically review and monitor the lagoon ecosystem Specific designation of local, regional and state responsibilities and duties regarding lagoon management. Page 9, Staff Summary 3. Coastal Element 5: Geologic Hazards Issue 1. Inadequate discussion of beach erosion problem, solu- tions and funding sources. Recommendation/Issue 1. Neither the Toups Report nor the coastal staff discussion adequately addresses what the city views as perhaps the most important aspect of the LCP effort: the protection and enhancement of Carlsbad's sandy beaches as a recreational and environmental resource. At a minimum, the LCP should incorporate recommendations regarding the establishment of a regionally-based beach erosion control regulatory mechanism, proposed mitigation measures, and a discussion of possible funding sources to reestablish and protect the sandy beaches. Issue_2. Prohibition of development on 25% slopes; coastal staff requirement regarding soils erosion of Kelly Point Criteria for all^ steep slope areas north of Palomar Airport Road, utilizing Mello Bill LCP as precedence. Recommendation/Issue 2. While the city recognizes that certain steep slope areas may not be appropriate for development, the arbitrary prohibition of development in all such areas is unacceptable. Coastal staff reference to the Mello Bill LCP as "precedence" is not acceptable to the city, since the city has clearly refused to approve the Mello Bill LCP. Application of the density/slope formula and grading restrictions contained in coastal staff references to Kelly Point are unreasonable, overly restrictive and unacceptable to the city (see attachment C-l). Issue 3. Amend Municipal Grading Ordinance. Recommendation/Issue 3. The city finds that the existing Municipal Grading Ordinance, incorporating the policies of the Model Erosion Control Ordinance and the requirements the Master Drainage Plan are generally adequate to control soil erosion. In areas of identified highly erodable soils conditions, additional hydrology/soils studies shall be required, and appropriate mitigation measures shall be applied. 4. Coastal Element 4: Public Works Issue 1. Alignment Alternative 1-B for Cannon Road, to be constructed hear the end of 20 years (attachment E). Recommendation/Issue 1. The city supports the Cannon Road alignment as proposed in the PRC Toups proposal, and feels that road construc- tion may be necessary at an earlier date than indicated in the Toups Plan. Page 10, Staff Summary Issue 2. Carlsbad General Plan arterial improvements. Recommendation/1ssue 2. The city recognizes the Coastal Act require- ments regarding accessibility to coastal resources, and supports the arterial improvements indicated in the Carlsbad General Plan as neces- sary for accessibility of inland residents to coastal recreational resources. 5. Coastal Element 5: Recreational and Visitor Serving Facilities City staff finds no issues of substantial concern in this portion of the Toups report. 6. Coastal Element 6: Shoreline Access Issue 1. Inadequate discussion of funding sources, jurisdictional responsibility, maintenance and timing of construction for proposed access improvements (stairways, parking and support facilities, trails). Recommendation/Is sue 1. While the city fully supports the access improvements proposed in the Toups Report (primarily additional vertical beach access and parking facilities), Toups fails to ade- quately address funding, maintenance, jurisdictional responsibility or timing of construction for proposed improvements. 7. Coastal Element 7: Visual Resources. Issue 1. Application of Carlsbad Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone to protect coastal views and panoramas. Recommendation/Issue 1. The city supports the application of Carlsbad Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone, as outlined in the Toups Report (attachment I). 8. Coastal Element 8: Housing Issue 1. General prohibition of demolition of existing affordable units. Recommendation/Issue 1. The city does not support the general pro- hibition of demolition of existing affordable units. The city does, however, support the requirement of one-for-one replacement housing, or the offer of such units for relocation at a nominal cost, as currently required by the San Diego Regional Commission. Issue 2. Mandatory inclusionary zoning requirements. Recommendat ion/1s sue 2. The city regards the Carlsbad Housing Ele- ment as the primary document guiding the provision of affordable housing throughout the city, including the coastal zone. The city considers the incentive provision of the Housing Element as adequate to provide for and encourage affordable housing, and finds the man- datory inclusionary requirements of the Toups Report (15%) and coastal staff comments (251) to be unacceptable. Page 11, Staff Summary Issue 5. Method of computing unmet housing meeds o£ low/moderate income households. Recommendat ion/Is sue 5. The city requests that the Regional Commis- sion staff consider all existing mobilehome units in the coastal zone when computing the unmet needs of low and moderate income households. Page 12, Staff Summary IV. Implementation 1. Discussion Implementation measures are the third principle component required for Local Coastal Plans. This portion of the LCP contains specific inplementing actions for the land use determinations and regulatory policies contained in the land use text, and indicated on the land use map. The implementation component of the LCP must also include proposed amendments to existing codes and ordinances, proposed new zone desig- nations and other regulatory measures, and consideration of post- certificate procedures. Issues Issue 1. Implementation measures should be clearly based on existing city codes, ordinances, plans and regulations. Issue 2. Implementation proposes creation of new zone designations and regulatory measures not acceptable to city. Issue 3. Implementation proposals fail to adequately address funding, timing and maintenance of proposed access, parking, and trail improve- ments . Recommendat ion City staff recommends that the city defer formulating specific recom- mendations regarding implementation of the Carlsbad LCP until substan- tial issues regarding the land use plan text and map have been resolved. Page 13, Staff Summary ***< V. Summary The following generalizes the major issue areas identified by city staff regarding the Toups proposal and coastal staff comments on the Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan. 1. Land Use Map PRC Toups land use map contains errors and ommissions which should be corrected, deletes some existing general plan land use designations, and proposes the creation of new land use categories and overlay zones. The city has not received a land use map from the Coastal Commission staff, but has received land use discussion indicating a staff position in this area. Areas of substantial concern with Commission staff comments include the requirements of permanent agricultural easements on certain properties, revised land use determinations for the Occidental property, and the application of a sliding development intensity scale, based on slope, for the Kelly Point Area. 2. Land Use Text Staff has identified numerous issues of substantial concern regarding the Toups Land Use Text proposal, and the Coastal staff comments on certain elements of the Toups report. It should be noted here that Coastal staff commented on four of the eight Toups coastal elements, and the city has not received a comprehensive discussion of Coastal staff comments on the Toups proposal. Major generalized issue areas identified by city staff are summarized as follows: . Plan proposes creation of land use categories and regulatory mechanisms generally unacceptable to the city. . Plan fails to adequately address critical environmental problems facing the city including the beach erosion problem and the management of lagoon resources. Page 14, Staff Summary c Plan proposes access, parking and beach support improvements without adequate discussion of funding, maintenance, timing of construction and jurisdictional responsibilities. . Coastal staff comments generally disregard existing city codes and ordinances, concept of general plan density ranges, and proposes regulatory concepts which the city has previously found unacceptable (Mello Bill LCP). 3. Implementation Recognizing the inherent relationship between the formulation of a land use map and text acceptable to the city, and the resulting implementing ordinances, city staff has recommended that the City Council defer comprehensively addressing the implementation aspect of the Local Coastal Plan until substantial issues regarding the land use map and text have been resolved. Page 15, Staff Summary VI. Procedural Recommendation In outlining staff recommendation alternatives, staff directs the Council's attention to the following general issues: (1) The city will not regain full development permit issuing authority until an LCP Land Use Plan and Implementation program have been certified by the state, and accepted by the city. (2) Until LCP certification is complete all coastal zone develop- ment proposals will continue to require dual permit processing. (3) The State Coastal Commission is allowed by State Law to certify an LCP for Carlsbad by July 1, 1981, without the direct participation of the city. (4) Regional Coastal Commission will hold 2 public hearings to review the Carlsbad LCP, make recommendations to the State Commission which will in turn hold public hearings and certify the Carlsbad LCP by July 1, 1981. Procedural Recommendation Alternatives Staff has identified the following possible alternative actions. Alternative 1. The Toups report is adequate as presented, and should be recommended to the Coastal Commission for approval. Alternative 2. The Toups report, incorporating coastal staff comments should be recommended for approval. Alternative 5. The Toups report and coastal staff comments, incorporating the comments of the Carlsbad City Council, should be recommended for certification. Alternative 4. Neither the Toups report in its original format, or as modified by coastal staff, is acceptable to the city. The city recommends revising the Toups report, incoporating the comments adopted by the Carlsbad City Council. Page 16, Staff Summary /***> Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Alternative 4, and direct city staff to transmit the City Council's comments on the Toups proposal/coastal staff comments to the Regional and State Coastal Commissions. Page 17, Staff Summary CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PLAN: STAFF ANALYSIS The following contains a detailed staff analysis of the topics outlined in the attached Discussion Summary. Specific references to attached documents/maps are included, where applicable. I. Introduction A. Background 1. Coastal Planning Legislation: Major legislation relating to the Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan is as follows: California Coastal Zone Conservation Act - originally passed on November 7, 1972, and subsequently renewed as the Cali- fornia Coastal Act of 1976 (August 1976). Provided primary legislation requiring 15 coastal counties and 53 cities to prepare an LCP. AB 462 (Mello Bill) - requires that three properties in Carls- bad Coastal Zone ("Mello 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. This legislation requires that the State Commission certify a Land Use Plan and Implementing Ordinances for the city by July 1, 1981, or the Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan Area will be removed from Coastal Commission jurisdiction. 2. Planning - Area Segmentation: The Carlsbad Local Coastal Planning Area has been segmented into four distinct planning areas. These are as follows (see attachment A). Agua Hedionda Specific Plan Area - (1104 Acres) Mello Bill Local Coastal Plan Area - (1000 Acres) San Dieguito LCP County of San Diego - (1191 Acres) 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 situ- ation are primarily directed 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. 3. Agua Hedionda Specific Plan: Update 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 ver- sion of the negotiated conditions were received from Coastal Commission following the negotiating committee meeting, which occurred on November 20, 1980. Page 1, Staff Analysis The major unresolved task concerning the Agua Hedionda Speci- fic Plan is the completion of the wetlands mapping for the entire lagoon area. The city has received a partial wetlands mapping of certain portions of the South Shore, and staff has forwarded concerns regarding the status and specificity of this mapping effort to the State Department of Fish and Game. A meeting has been scheduled for March 12, 1981, between city representatives and staff members of the State Department of Fish and Game to discuss and clarify the wetlands mapping effort. Following the resolution of the wetlands mapping, and the receipt by the city of a complete mapping determination from Fish and Game, the city will resubmit the revised Agua Hedi- onda Specific Plan to the State Coastal Commission following local public hearings and a six week public review of the revised submittal document. Mello Bill Local Coastal Plan: Update 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 pre- pare 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 certi- fied plan (see attachment B, letter from Mayor Packard to Coastal Commission). The State/Regional Commission staff comments on the Toups proposed Local Coastal Plan for Carlsbad, include revised land use recommendations for the Mello Bill properties. These recom- mendations generally provide for the development of the Occi- dental properties, previously designated for agricultural uses, at densities exceeding the city's general plan designations for the property. The increased development allowed on the Occidental property is based on the inclusion of these lands in an agricultural subsidy program. City staff does not find the inclusion of the Occidental properties in the Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan appropriate, nor do we support the unilateral increase of density on these properties as the commission staff has recommended. Page 2, Staff Analysis 5. San Dieguito LCP: Update 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 approved by the Regional Coastal Commission and forwarded to the State Com- mission. The San Dieguito LCP will be processed along approximatly 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 progress of this document, and keeping the Council informed on this matter. 6. PRC Toups: Consultant Contract The city of Carlsbad elected to have the State Coastal Com- mission retain the services of a private consulting firm to prepare a draft Local Coastal Plan in consultation with the city, and to provide state funding for the preparation of the LCP documents. The PRC Toups firm was selected by the State Coastal Com- mission in January 1980, to prepare a Local Coastal Plan for the city of Carlsbad. The Toups firm held three public work- shops at the city to receive public input regarding the pro- posed Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan, and generated eight "techni- cal papers" outlining the major topical headings to be con- tained 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 City and Coastal Commission staff for review and comment. Although the Toups Plan may not be totally acceptable to either the city or the commission, the Toups Plan provides the base document upon which comments of adequacy will be based. B. Format The following provides a brief overview of the presentation format utilized in reviewing and analizing the Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan. 1. PRC Toups Plan The PRC Toups document provides the base document, or point of reference, upon which city staff and coastal staff comments are generally based. The Toups Plan contains the three pri- mary Coastal Plan componants, as required by the California Coastal Act. These are as follows: (1) Land Use Map (2) Land Use Text, including the following: Element 1: Agriculture Element 2: Environmental Page 3, Staff Analysis Element 3: Geologic Hazards Element 4: Public Works Element 5: Recreation/Visitor Serving Element 6: Shoreline Access Element 7: Visual Resources Element 8: Housing (3) Implementing Ordinances City staff will utilize this format in analizing and referencing comments relative to the Carlsbad LCP. 2. State/Regional Staff Comments The city received, on February 2, 1981, the coastal staff "preliminary discussion" comments on certain portions of the Toups Plan. (Attachment C). Coastal staff comments/discussion were made on four elements of the Toups Plan. These include Agriculture, Environmentally Sensitive Habitats, Geologic Hazards and Housing. While the Commission staff may have concerns regarding other aspects of the Toups proposal, they were viewed by the Commission as "less substantial." Although the city has not received a Land Use Map from the Coastal Commission staff, certain land use determinations contained in the Commission staff comments received by the city, will be discussed in this report. It is anticipated that the city will receive a more detailed Commission staff report on the Toups Plan immediately prior to the first Regional Commission public hearing on the matter, scheduled for March 13, 1981. 3. Carlsbad City Staff Comments City staff review of the Toups Plan and Coastal staff draft comments will consist of comparing and analizing the Toups proposal, Coastal staff comments (where applicable) and relevant city policies, identifying areas of substantial issue, and making specific recommendations for each issue area. It is anticipated that the city will formulate a position on the LCP issue, adopt specific comments on the Toups Plan and Coastal staff position, and forward these to the State and Regional Coastal Commission. Page 4, Staff Analysis c II. LAND USE MAP 1. Discussion. The LCP Land Use Map graphically depicts the major land use activities allowed in the Carlsbad coastal zone. Once a land use map is adopted, appropriate zoning consistency will be required. Although technically the land use map could be revised in a manner similar to the process utilized in general plan amend- ments (3 cumulative amendments allowed each year), it is unclear at this time the impact that State Coastal Commission review would have on amendment proposals. A. PRC Toups. The Toups Land Use Map (attachment D ) is clearly based on the existing Carlsbad General Plan. Toups generally proposes land uses consistent with the existing general plan designations, categories and the concept of residential density ranges. B. Coastal Commission. Although the city has not received a land use map from the Coastal staff, language contained in the Coastal staff comments indicate a land use position for certain portions of the community. These include: revised land use designations for the Occidental property (Mello Bill LCP); specific land use requirements for the Kelly Point Area (attachment C-o ), and specific refer- ences to downzoning vacant parcels along Buena Vista Lagoon. 2. Issues. City staff has identified the following substantial issues in regards to the LCP land use map proposal. PRC Toups Issue 1: Deletion of residential low density general plan designation (0-1 du/acre). Issue 2: Change in non-residential reserve designation in Macario Canyon area to low/medium density residential (0-4 du/acre) Issue 3: Failure to designate Buena Vista Lagoon surface as "Open Space". Issue 4: Indication of location and extent of agricultural buffers on land use map. Issue 5: Creation of agricultural designations not currently included in General Plan (Agricultural Preserve and Agricultural/ Residential). Issue 6: Land use indicated for Mello Bill properties does not reflect current Coastal Commission determinations. Issue 7: Proposed visitor commercial zoning pro gram. I ATTACHMENT HI Page 5, Staff Analysis Issue 8: Technical errors and ommissions. Coastal Staff Issue 9: Concept of requiring agricultural easements "in perpetuity" Issue 10: Proposed "sliding scale" slope/density formula for Kelly Hill Issue 11: Inclusion of revised land use density for Occi- dental Property is not appropriate for inclusion in the Carlsbad LCP; land use intensity proposed does not respect general plan designation or concept of residential density ranges; proposed changes were formulated without consulting the city. Issue 12: Proposed down zoning of undeveloped lots on Buena Vista Lagoon to low/medium density (0-4 du/acre) Recommendat ions City staff recommends that the following comments, relative to the identified land use issues, be forwarded to the Coastal Commission: Recommendat ion/1s sue 1: Existing low density residential land use designation is appropriate for the protection of environ- mentally sensitive areas, and should be retained on LCP land use map. Recommendat ion/1s sue 2: The city requests that the Macario Canyon area be redesignated as "Open Space", specifically indicating a regional park use. Recommendation/Issue 3: An open space designation should be applied to Buena Vista Lagoon and is necessary to protect lagoon resources. Recommendation/Issue 4: The determination of agricultural buffers should be made on a project by project basis; they should not be included in the land use map. Recommendation/Issue 5: Agricultural uses should be protected with an "Agricultural Resource Overlay Zone", recognizing that agricultural production may not continue in perpetuity; maintain underlying general plan designations and consider application of Planned Community Zone to protect and enhance continued agricultural production, where feasible. Recommendat ion/1ssue 6: Plan should delete mention of Mello Bill Properties. Recommendation/Issue 7: City supports visitor-commercial rezone program as proposed by PRC Toups. Page 6, Staff Analysis '*••***' Recommendation/ Is sue 8 : City staff will forward comments regarding technical errors/ inconsistencies on Toup's Land Use Map to commission. Recommendation/ Is sue 9: Concept of land use "in perpetuity" is unacceptable to the city. Recommendat ion/ 1 s sue 10 : Sliding density scale based on slope is not acceptable to the city; does not provide for "location, type and intensity" of development as required by Coastal Act; existing low density residential designation is appropriate to protect the environmental resources of the Kelly Point Area. Recommendation/ Is sue 11: Plan should delete reference to Mello Bill Properties. Recommendat ion/ Is sue 12 : Down zoning Buena Vista Lagoon infill lots is unequitable; environmental resources would best be protected through application of design criteria/mitigation measures and utilization of planned unit development standards as a means to protect the lagoon ecosystem and provide for potential public access/view points on the lagoon bluffs. Page 7, Staff Analysis II. Land Use Text The land use text of the Local Coastal Plan provides a discussion of coastal act policies, findings and specific policy recommenda- tions. The staff presentation regarding this portion of the Land Use Plan focuses on policy statements contained in the Toups LCP proposal and Coastal staff comments. City staff utilizes the eight Coastal Elements contained in the Toups report. These are as follows: Coastal Element 1: Agriculture Coastal Element 2: Environmental Resources Coastal Element 3: Geologic Hazards Coastal Element 4: Public Works Coastal Element 5: Recreation/Visitor Serving Facilities Coastal Element 6: Shoreline Access Coastal Element 7: Visual Resources Coastal Element 8: Housing The presentation format for each of the above referenced Coastal Elements will be as follows: 1. Coastal Act Policies: Statement of Coastal Act policies applicable to relevant coastal element. 2. Discussion/Analysis: A general discussion of each element, and the policy recommendations of PRC Toups and the Coastal staff comments, where applicable. This section will include a specific listing of the Toups policy recommendations and Coastal staff comments. 3. Issue Identification: An itemized listing of issues identi- fied by city staff as "substantial concerns." Items contained in the Toups proposal/Coastal staff comments not specifically addressed in the issue identification section, are generally acceptable to the city. 4. Recommendations: Contains specific staff recommendations for each identified issue area. This section contains the speci- fic comments that city staff recommends the City Council forward to the Regional Coastal Commission regarding the city's position on the PRC Toups Report and Coastal staff comments/discuss ion. Staff will request City Council discussion at the completion of each set of Coastal Element recommendations. Page 8, Staff Analysis COASTAL ELEMENT 1: AGRICULTURE 1. Coastal Act Policies: The following quotes the sections of the Coastal Act applicable to coastal agriculture: 50241. The maximum amount of prime agricultural land shall be maintained in agricultural production to assure the protection of the areas' agricultural economy, and conflicts shall be minimized between agricultural and urban land through all of the following: (a) By establishing stable boundaries separating urban and rural areas, including, where necessary, clearly defined buffer areas to minimize conflicts between agricultural and urban land uses. (b) By limiting conversions of agricultural lands around the periphery of urban areas to the lands where the viability of existing agricultural use is already severely limited by conflicts with urban uses and where the conversion of the lands would complete a logical and viable neighborhood and contribute to the establishment of a stable limit to urban development. (c) By developing available lands not suited for agriculture prior to the conversion of agricultural lands. (d) By assuring that public service and facility expansions and non-agricultural development do not impair agricultural via- bility, either through increased assessment costs or degraded air and water quality. (e) By assuring that all divisions of prime agricultural lands, except those conversions approved pursuant to subdivision (b) of this section, and all development adjacent to prime agri- cultural lands shall not diminish the productivity of such prime agricultural lands. 50242. All other lands suitable for agricultural use shall not be converted to non-agricultural uses unless (1) continued or renewed agricultural use is not feasible, or (2) such conversion would preserve prime agricultural land or concentrate development con- sistent with Section 50250. Any such permitted conversion shall be compatible with continued agricultural use on surrounding lands. 2. Discussion: The city has received three distinct proposals regarding the regulation of coastal agricultural lands: the PRC Toups proposal; coastal staff comments, and the Carlsbad Agricultural Advisory Committee Report. These are summarized as follows: A. PRC Toups: The Toups proposal calls for the permanant pre- servation of approximately 1550 acres of "prime lands (as defined by Coastal Act), utilizing a transfer of subsidy credits program. The Toups transfer credit program generally requires that 197 acres of agricultural land along 1-5 be allowed to convert to urban uses through the purchase/transfer of development credits from preservation lands. The Toups proposal considers only Class I-IV soils on contiguous parcels for preservation. Page 9, Staff Analysis c B. Coastal Staff: In general, the Coastal staff has chosen to disregard the Toups proposal and policy format, and has dev- eloped a new Agricultural Componant (attachment C-1 ). Coastal staff proposes an Agricultural Subsidy program which provides for the conversion of certain "prime" lands along 1-5 subject to the payment of a conversion fee of approximately $24,000 per acre. The fee program, which may be administered by the Coastal Conservancy, would be used to purchase permanant agricultural easements, fund agricultural access and irrigation improve- ments, and allow for administrative costs. The Coastal staff proposal considers all agricultural lands (Class I to VIII soils), and adds significant preservation areas to the Toups proposal. C. Carlsbad Agricultural Advisory Committee: The Agricultural Committee has been meeting on a weekly basis to review the Toups proposal and Coastal staff comments, and to formulate recommendations regarding agricultural activities in Carlsbad. Staff has incorporated the Advisory Committee Report into the specific staff recommendations regarding Coastal Agriculture, and a member of the committee will present their report to the City Council (attachment J ). D. Analysis: The following presents the Toups recommendations and Coastal staff proposal regarding Coastal Agriculture. PRC TOUPS COASTAL STAFF 2-1: Site I (Ecke/Caltras: 490 acres; prime) . Ecke Preserve remain under Williamson Act; when not renewed, assign subsidy credits . 15 acres between 1-5 and Paseo convert . Remainder to be ag/2 du subsidy credits 2-2: Site 2 and 3 (575 acres; prime) . Preserve lands, transfer of Development ; Rights 2-3: Site 4 (265 acres including Rancho La Costa; prime) '. . Lands in total production - subsidy credit program . Partial production - agricultural pre- served. Transfer 2 du/acre for each acre of agricultural preserved. <• . 1 du/acre for each acre of 25% + slope (if city prohibits 25% slope development). 2-4: Non-prime lands - should not be retained for agricultural use. "Reconversion not feasible due to extremely high property I. Agricultural Subsidy Program 1. Basic Policy: The city finds that large lot or agricultural zoning is not ade- quate by itself to promote agriculture -- the city of Carlsbad shall institute an agricultural Subsidy Program. 2. City shall adopt a Planned Agricultural Zone (PAZ) as part of the Agricultural Subsidy Program. 3. Agricultural lands definition: (a) Williamson Act (b) Soils Class I through IV (c) History of crop production 4. Agricultural Lands are further designated as follows: (1) Subsidized lands - eligible to receive agricultural subsidies. (2) Developable lands - eligible for con- version subject to payment of con- version fee. Page 10, Staff Analysis values"; needed to implement subsidy program. 2-5: Feasible (recently farmed) non-prime lands 20 acres Palomar Airport Road/Carlsbad Boulevard - parking facilities . 50 acres, Burrough's, 6 acres, Ecke - industrial . 27 acres, Banks Trust - TDK, Residential . 33 acres, Lusk - TDR, Residential 2-6: Buffers. "Adequate; at least 100 ft. where possible; shall be 300 ft. if aerial spraying used; utilize slopes, natural barriers where possible. 2-7: City shall adopt specific policy for future agricultural conversion, including temporary agricultural use. 2-8: 100 acres of scattered agricultural par- cels along El Camino Real - small size, non-contiguous should be converted - residential. 5. Agricultural Subsidy Program . To protect small fragmented ownerships . Allow development of parcels adjacent to 1-5 subject to conversion fee . City, county or coastal conservancy shall administer 6. Permitted uses for lands not participating in Subsidy Program A. Class I to IV: grazing; crop production; greenhouses (less than 2000 sq. ft); flori- culture; horses; nursery crop; roadside produce stands; tree farms; truck farms; (1) one single-family dwelling per existing legal parcel. B. Class V to VIII: All uses above, plus com- mercial recreation; hay and feed stores; nurseries; packing sheds; greenhouses (greater than 2000 sq. ft.). 7. Conditional uses in absence of subsidy program: 1. Developable lands: maximum residential development of 1 du/10 acres; clustered, not to exceed 1 acre lot; remainder to be pre- served through agricultural easements; restricted land divisions. 2. Subsidized lands: No additional uses other than those noted in policy 6; restricted land divisions (contingent on agricultural easement, not less than 10 acres (greenhouses) or 20 acres (farming). 8.§9. Additional development (subject to payment of development fee) . Occidental; 53 acres: 12 du/acre (east of Paseo del Norte)/82 acres; 12 du/acre (along 1-5). . Lusk; 93 acres, 12 du/acre . Shell Oil; 35 acres 12 du/acre . Bankers Life; 26 acres 12 du/acre 10. to 13: Subsidy Program . Fee to pay for administration; 1/3 for agricultural improvements; remainder for subsidies. . Fee: shall be $24,050 per gross acre . Subsidy fund: totaling $4,352,647 payed upon offer of irrevocable easement running 21 years. • . Improvement fund: $3,147,353 for roads, irrigation, loans, determined in consult- ation with subsidized owners. Page 11, Staff Analysis II. Planned Agricultural Areas 1. Development of 500 acres "generally site I' . Designated for planned commercial/agri- culture . Commercial use for 40 acre on Paseo del Norte . Some residential use . Remaining under offer of easement III. Kelly Point . Developed as planned community (PC) if minimum of 80% of existing farmed area is permanently restricted; residential development on remainder, based on slope. 3. Issues: City staff has identified the following substantial issues with the PRC Toups and coastal staff Agricultural proposals. PRC TOUPS Issue 1.1: proposed transfer of Subsidy Credit program. Issue 1.2: proposed land use designations of Agriculture Preserve and Agricultural/Residential. Issue 1.5: preservation of Class I - IV soils. Issue 1.4: allow preservation of scattered prime parcels for participation in subsidy program. Issue 1.5: requirement of 100' minimum agricultural buffer area. Issue 1.6: city to adopt specific conversion policy for eventual conversion of agricultural lands. COASTAL STAFF Issue 1.7: requirement of adopting Planned Agricultural Zone. Issue 1.8: proposed Agricultural Subsidy Program. Issue 1.9: conversion of prime lands, subject to payment of con- version fee. Issue 1.10: proposed development on portion of Ecke property in exchange for permanant agricultural easement. Issue 1:11: proposed regulation/preservation of agriculture lands with Class V - VIII soils. Issue 1:12: proposals do not adequately address need to enhance and to encourage agriculture. Page 12, Staff Analysis 4. Recommendations: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following comments relative to the identified agricultural issues. These comments incorporate the recommendations of the Agricultural Advisory Committee, and establish the cities position on coastal agriculture. General Findings: The city makes the following general findings regarding agricultural production preservation in the Carlsbad Coastal Zone. . There are no known prime soils (Class I § II) in the Carlsbad Coastal Zone. . The city recognizes the importance of agricultural lands as a unique resource, and supports the conti- nuance and enhancement of agricultural production. The city recognizes the variability and constraints on continued agricultural production, and supports a program directed towards encouraging continued agricultural pro- duction, recognizing the inherent relationship between preservation of agricultural lands and the economics of production. Recommendation/1ssue 1.1; The city has reservations regarding the feasibility and legality of the Toups Transfer of Agricultural Subsidy Credits proposal, and finds this program unacceptable. Recommendat ion/1ssue 1.2: The city proposes the development of an Agricultural Resource Overlay Zone, respecting the underlying General Plan Land Use designations, as sufficient to protect agri- cultural lands. Recommendat ion/1s sue 1.5: The city supports the regulation/pre- servation of agricultural lands with Class I-IV soils, as generally indicated on the Toups Land Use Map, noting that lands containing higher soils classifications are less suited for production, and should be designated for conversion prior to more suitable lands. Recommendation/Issue 1.4: The city supports the conversion of scattered "prime lands" to urban uses, subject to a fee program similiar to that proposed by the Coastal staff, recognizing need to preserve lands with most suitable soils. Recommendation/Issue 1.5: The city finds the requirements for agricultural buffers (Toups Policy 2.6) unacceptable. The need for agricultural buffers should be made on an individual basis; should be the responsibility of encroaching development; and should be "adequate" to mitigate potential land use conflicts. Recommendation Issue 1.6: The city supports the inclusion of development conversion criteria for agricultural lands (Toups Policy 2.7), and includes policy #64 of the San Dieguito LCP, providing for conversion criteria including the following issues: . encroaching development, surrounding densities impacts of conversion of other agricultural lands . diseased soils, poor drainage . occurrance of deteriortiy/depreciating structure . documentation of declining profitibility Page 13, Staff Analysis Recommendation/Issue 1.7: The city does not support the adoption of a Planned Agricultural Zone. Recommenda t ion/1ssue 1.8: The Agricultural Subsidy Program may be appropriate to encourage the continuance coastal agriculture, if the following concerns are noted: . lands generally indicated in Toups Proposal for inclusion in preservation program appear appropriate for subsidy program . non-prime lands, and lands with soils Class V to VIII shall not be considered for preservation . required offer of agricultural easement should be made for a specified period of time; easements should include withdrawal clause, with appropriate penalties fees collected from "conversion" properties should be admini stered by Coastal Conservancy; utilized to purchase voluntary limited-term easements (5 to 10 years), construct roadway im- provements, irrigation projects, and loan/credit program for farming operations Recommendation/Issue 1.9: Conversion of primelands, subject to payment of development fee, may be appropriate, recognizing con- straints of recommendation/issue 1.8. Recommendation/Issue 1.10: The Ecke land on Paseo del Norte (40 acres) should be allowed to convert to urban uses to meet coastal act require- ments of creating stable urban/rural boundaries, and completing logical neighborhood. The Ecke conversion lands may be considered for inclusion in subsidy fee program. Remainder of Ecke property should be protected with appropriate agricultural zoning/overlay designation. Recommendat ion/1s sue 1.11: The city does not support the require- ment of preserving agricultural lands in the Kelly Point Area; agricultural production on this property is isolated and fragmented, and should be allowed to convert as recommended in the Toups report. Recommendat ion/1s sue 1.12: The city recognizes the need to protect and encourage agriculture on a city-wide basis, specifically noting the following: . the city has formed an Agricultural Advisory Committee to formulate recommendations regarding the preservation/protection of agriculture on a city-wide basis. the city supports the enhancement of agricultural production through incentive programs including: adopting a Right to Farm Ordinance; preferred water rates for agricultural lands; development of a reclaimed water program, giving preference to agricultural lands; encouraging agricultural leasing on Master Plan areas slated for phased development; support tax incentives for agriculturally designated properties. Page 14, Staff Analysis c Coastal Element 2: Environmental Sensitive Habitats, Water and Marine Resources. 1. Coastal Act Policies: The following quotes the sections of the California Coastal Act of 1976 relative to the protection of environmental resources: 30230. Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and, where feasible, restored. Special protection shall be given to areas and specifies of special biological or economic significance. Uses of the marine environment shall be carried out in a manner that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy populations of all species of marine organisms adequate for long-term commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational purposes. 30231. The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained, and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of wastewater discharges and entrain- ment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of groundwater supplies and substantial interference with surface water flow, encouraging wastewater reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams. 30236. Channelizations, dams, or other substantial alterations of rivers and streams shall incorporate the best mitigation measures feasible, and be limited to (1) necessary water supply projects (2) flood control projects where no other method for protecting existing structures in the floodplain is feasible and where such protection is necessary for public safety or to protect existing development, or (3) developments where the primary function is the improvement of fish and wildlife habitat. 30240. (a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on such resources shall be allowed within such areas. 2. Discussion/Analysis This portion of the land use text addresses Coastal Act Policies relative to the protection and regulation of environmentally sensitive resources, including; significant coastal resources and habitat areas, lagoon resources and productivity, and the protection of other significant natural features. A- PRC Toups. The PRC Toups plan primarily attempts to utilize existing city development controls relative to grading, drainage and sedimentation regulations. The primary in- adequacy of the Toups report is in the area of lagoon management. Although the Toups report discusses and recognizes many of the problems impacting lagoon resources, Toups fails to provide a program for comprehensively managing lagoon resources, and protecting the environmental productivity of the lagoon eco-systems. Page 15, Staff Analysis 'W B. Coastal Staff. Coastal staff comments are directed towards inclusion of sedimentation and grading controls, coastal staff recommends downzoning vacant parcels along Buena Vista Lagoon as a means of protecting the lagoon environs. Coastal staff discussion of environmental resources also fails to recognize the need for a cohesive/comprehensive Lagoon Management Program. Coastal staff comments include additional land use requirement/controls for the Kelly Point Area, utilizing a slope/density formula similar to that applied to the Rancho La Costa Property. C. Analysis. The following presents the PRC Toups recommendations regarding environmental resources and corresponding coastal staff comments. PRC Toups 3.1 City shall prohibit development /vegetation removal on 25%+ slopes; density credit of 1 du/acre of 25%+ slope allowed. 3.2 Buena Vista Lagoon, recommends stringent erosion/siltation controls. 3.3 Batiquitos Lagoon, recommend increased erosion/siltation controls. 3.4 Agua Hedionda Lagoon, recommends increased erosion/siltation controls. 3.5 Recommends adopting standards similar to Statewide Interpretive Guidelines for Wetlands, including in LCP and applying to site plan reviews in environmentally sensitive areas. 3.6 Recommends site specific review for development in sensitive areas; supplementing requirements of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance with provisions/ policies of Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan. Coastal Staff 3.1 Staff concurs, unless more restrictive provision are applied elsewhere in plan. 3.2 Downzone vacant lagoon front lot to 0-4 du; require additional environmental studies; cluster development; minimum 100' setback from lagoon wetlands; open space easement required for slope areas; density based on developable area only; 1 du/acre credit for each acre of 25%+ slope. 3.3 Recommends drainage/siltation controls contained in Mello Bill LCP. 3.4 No staff comment 3.5 Staff refers to Kelly Point development criteria (attachment C-3 ). 3.6 Staff refers to Kelly Point criteria including sliding slope/ density scale; prohibiting grading on 20%+ slopes or 10%+ slope in areas of highly erodable soils; require improvements of master drainage plan; site specific hydrology report; mitigation measures. Page 16, Staff Analysis Issues The following provides issues considered by city staff to be of substantial concern to the city. A. PRC Toups Issue 2.1 Prohibition of development and vegetation removal from slopes in excess of 25%. Issue 2.2 1 du/acre development credit for each acre of steep slope land preserved. B. Coastal Staff Issue 2.3 Downzone vacant Buena Vista Lagoon front lots to medium/ low density (0-4 du/acre). Issue 2.4 Requiring additional vegetation, topographical soils studies for development of Buena Vista Lagoon properties. Issue 2.5 Density calculation of developable portion of property only; 1 du/acre credit for each acre of steep slope land; no density credit for lagoon surface area. Issue 2.6 Application of Kelly Point development/grading criteria to control sedimentation and degradation of environmentally sensitive areas. Issue 2.7 Lack of comprehensive lagoon management program to protect and enhance lagoon resources. Recommendations The following statements are staff recommendations for each issue area identified above. Recommendation/Issue 2.1. The city does not support an arbitrary prohibition of development on all slopes in excess of 25%. The City does, however, recognize the following: in areas of special resource/habitat value or highly erodable soils, development of steep slope areas may not be appropriate. . the city shall develop criteria relative to disturbance of steep slope areas, including the following: (1) Use of Planned Community Zone and General Plan density ranges to encourage protection of steep slopes in natural state. Minimize alteration of natural land forms. (2) Development of design criteria directed towards minimizing disturbance of steep slope areas, including cluster develop- ment, innovative construction techniques, combination driveways, limiting grading to area necessary for driveway utility and roadway access, encouraging development subordinate to natural land forms. Page 17, Staff Analysis Recommendation/Issue 2.2. The city supports density credit for steep slope preservation area based on density allowed for entire property as means of providing economic incentive for steep slope preservation. Recommendation/1s sue 2.3. The downzoning of the remaining vacant parcels on Buena Vista Lagoon is neither equitable nor appropriate. These properties are primarily infill lots, and should be allowed the same development rights as those afforded adjoining properties, respecting appropriate environmental constraints. Recommendation/Issue 2.4. The city supports the requirement of additional vegetation, hydrology and soil studies in areas of identified environmental value. These issues would most appropriately be addressed as part of the project environmental review process. Recommendat ion/1s sue 2.5. The city supports the finding that density calculation should not be allowed for the lagoon surface. Density credit for steep slope areas should be the same as that afforded the entire property. Recommendation/1s sue 2.6. The city finds the land use recommendations for the Kelly Point area as unnecessarily complex and restrictive. The existing designation of low density development, with appropriate mitigation measures, is adequate to protect the environmental resources of the area. The city supports the Toups position of utilizing the existing Master Drainage Plan, Municipal Grading Ordinance, and policies of the Model Erosion Control Ordinance to control siltation/ erosion control problems. Recommendation/Issue 2.7. The city suggests the inclusion of a Lagoon Management Program in the Carlsbad LCP. At a minimum, such a program should address the following: . structuring a joint-powers committee to develop a maintenance/ enhancement program. . recommendations regarding specific trails, viewpoints and access improvements; discussion of potential funding sources. . structuring program to periodically review and monitor the lagoon ecosystem. specific designation of local regional and state responsibilities and duties regarding lagoon management. Page 18, Staff Analysis Coastal Element 3: Geologic Hazards 1. Coastal Act Policies 30253. New development shall: (1) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. (2) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. 30250(b). New hazardous industrial development shall be located away from existing development areas. 2. Discussion This portion of the land use text deals primarily with geologic hazards, addressing such areas as seismic safety, landslide areas, soil erosion control, slope instability, flood hazards, and coastal bluff erosion. A. PRC Toups. The Toups recommendations identify four basic categories of geologic hazards in the Carlsbad Coastal zone. These are; (1) coastal bluff erosion, (2) landslides, slope stability, (3) flood hazard, and (4) seismic hazards. The Toups recommendations rely heavily on existing municipal controls although Toups does propose the creation of a new zone, and implementing program, to address the problem of coastal bluff erosion. The Toup's report discusses the problems of beach sand erosion, but does not provide an in-depth analysis of possible solutions regarding the beach erosion problem. B. Coastal Staff. The city has received specific written comments from the coastal staff regarding geologic hazards. Coastal comments follow the policy format contained in the Toup's report. Coastal staff discussion generally supports the Toup's findings, although there are substantial differences noted in the treatment of coastal bluff erosion and soil credibility. The coastal staff does not provide a detailed discussion of the beach erosion problem. C. Analysis. The following provides a comparison of Toup's policy recommendations and corresponding coastal staff comments: Page 19, Staff Analysis c o PRC Toups Coastal Erosion 4.1 Establish Coastal Erosion Hazard Overlay Zone (CEH) prohibiting new or replacement construction in area 100 feet landward from top of bluff or 200' landward of mean high water line. 4.2 Establish financial compensation program similar to federal flood insurance to compensate for property loss in CEH. 4.3 City should pursue beach erosion control measures. 4.4 Establish Coastal Erosion Committee to direct CEH compensation program, address problems of beach erosion. 4.5 Limit shoreline protection devices to those necessary to protect coastal dependent uses, existing structures and public beaches. 4.6 Development beyond coastal bluff shall insure that drainage does not contribute to bluff erosion. 4.7 Prohibit development on bluff face except for engineered structures, and public access. Landslides 4.8 Soil studies, currently required by city for subdivisions, is adequate. Soil Erosion 4.9 Adopt policies of Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan into LCP. Coastal Staff Not acceptable. Utilize Commission Guidelines for bluff-top develop- ment. Require certification of 75 year bluff stability; subsurface drainage systems; drought resistant plants. Delete Mitigation measures should be adopted and implemented by the city. Delete Add requirements for sand replen- ishment and assurances for main- tenance provisions. Add policies of Carlsbad Model Erosion Control Ordinance; require mitigation measures (subdrains, etc) as necessary. Delete mention of engineered structures. Expand to require geologic studies for any development in slide prone area; comply with Commission Geologic Stability Bluff Top Guidelines. Replace with erosion control require- ments contained in Mello Bill LCP; require site specific report; use model erosion control policies; construct all improvements on master drainage plan. Page 20, Staff Analysis „*" , 4.10 Prohibit development on 25% + slopes. 4.11 When grading occurs, amount of area disturbed and duration of exposure shall be minimized. 4.12 Adopt soil erosion control practices to control on-site erosion. 4.13 Apply sediment control devices to perimeter of project to prevent off-site drainage. 4.14 Provide improvements for increased volumes of runoff downstream of develop- ment operation. Flood Hazards 4.15 Improve storm drainage facilities in developed areas as provided in Master Drainage Plan. 4.16 Amend municipal grading ordinance and reduce both on and off-site erosion caused by construction activities. 4.17 Form drainage improvement districts to implement master drainage plan in un- developed areas. 4.18 New drainage facilities should be provided for by bond or development fee. 4.19 Continue to restrict development in flood plain areas. 4.20 Adopt provisions of Master Drainage Plan. Seismic Hazards 4.21 City should continue to monitor Uniform Building Code for seismic provision. Delete; use Kelly Point Area development criteria (similar to Rancho La Costa format). No change. No change. No change. Delete. Use Kelly Point criteria. Add "incorporating changes rec- ommended in LCP". Require modification of city grading ordinance. Require upstream developments to provide all downstream drainage improvements. No change. Clarify to state 100 year flood- plain". No change. Require site-specific soil studies in identified liquifaction - prone areas. 3. Issues. The following provides a city staff analysis of substantial issues regarding the above stated Toups/Coastal Staff recommendations. Page 21, Staff Analysis Issue 3.1. Creation o£ Coastal Erosion Hazard Overlay Zone, com- pensation program and committee. Issue 3.2. Inadequate discussion of beach erosion problem. Solutions and funding sources. Issue 3.3. Prohibition of development on coastal bluff face, including engineered structures. Issue 3.4. Coastal staff requirements regarding soil erosion, utilizing requirements of Mello Bill LCP. Issue 3.5. Prohibition of development on 25%+ slopes; coastal staff requirements of Kelly Point development criteria for all steep slope areas north of Palomar Airport Road. Issue 3.6. Amend Municipal Grading Ordinance to control on/off-site drainage. Issue 5.7. Form drainage improvement districts to implement the Master Drainage Plan in undeveloped areas. Issue 3.8. Funding new drainage facilities by bond or development fee. 4. Recommendations: The following provides city staff recommendations relative to each identified issue area. Recommendat ion/1ssue 3.1. The city does not support the Coastal Erosion Hazard overlay zone and compensation program contained in the Toups report. City staff does support the mitigation criteria contained in the coastal staff comments on this concept, with reservation concerning the feasibility of documenting 75 year bluff stability. Recommendation/Issue 5.2. Neither the Toups Report nor the coastal staff discussion adequately addresses what the city views as perhaps the most important aspect of the LCP effort: the protection and enhancement of Carlsbad's sandy beaches as a recreational and environmental resource. At a minimum, the LCP should incorporate recommendations regarding the establishment of a regionally-based beach erosion control regulatory mechanism, proposed mitigation measures, and a discussion of possible funding sources to re- establish and protect the sandy beaches. Recommendation/1s sue 3.4,5. While the city recognizes that certain steep slope areas may not be appropriate for development, the arbitrary prohibition of development in all such areas is unacceptable Coastal staff reference to the Mello Bill LCP as "precedence" is not acceptable to the city, since the city has clearly refused to approve the Mello Bill LCP. Application of the density/slope formula and grading restrictions contained in coastal staff references to Kelly Point are unreasonable, overly restrictive and unacceptable to the city. Page 22, Staff Analysis Recommendation/Issue 5.6. The city finds that the existing Municipal Grading Ordinance, incorporating the policies of the Model Erosion Control Ordinance and the requirements the Master Drainage Plan are generally adequate to control soil erosion. In areas of identified highly erodable soils conditions, additional hydrology/soils studies shall be required, and appropriate mitigation measures shall be applied. Recommendation/Issue 5.7. The city supports the formation of drainage assessment districts to implement the improvements contained in the Master Drainage Plan. Recommendation/Issue 5.8. The city agrees that the construction of drainage facilities shall be accomplished through bonding, assessment fee, or as a requirement of development. Page 25, Staff Analysis ""> Coastal Element 4: Public Works 1. Coastal Act Policies: The following quotes the sections of the Coastal Act relative to public works facilities: 3.5.1 Coastal Act Policy 30254. New or expanded public works facilities shall be designed and limited to accommodate needs generated by development or uses permitted consistent with the provisions of this division; provided, however, that it is the intent of the legislature that State Highway Route 1 in rural areas of the coastal zone remain a scenic two-lane road. Special districts shall not be formed or expanded except where development is inconsistent with this division. Where existing or planned public works facilities can accommodate only a limited amount of new development, services to coastal-dependent land use, essential public services and basic industries vital to the economic health of the region, state, or nation, public recreation, commercial recreation, and visitor -serving land uses shall not be precluded by other develop- ment. 2. Discussion The purpose of this element is to analyze the city's public works infrastructure, including sewer, water, and traffic circulation, evaluating growth and the ultimate capacity requirements of each system. A- PRC Toups: The PRC Toups recommendations in this area generally respect the existing Carlsbad General Plan growth projections, and both local and regional requirements regarding public works infrastructure and facilities. B. Coastal Staff . The city has not received Commission staff comments/ discussion on this portion of the Toups proposal. C- Analysis. The following presents the PRC Toups policy rec- ommendations regarding public works facilities in the Carlsbad Coastal Zone. 5.1 Planned improvements to regional sewerage transportation system should be undertaken and completed. 5.2 Future treatment facility demands can be met by expanding the Encina Plant and implementing Carlsbad Wastewater Reclamation Plan. 5.3 City should participate in Phase IV expansion of the Encina Facility. 5.4 City Sewer Allocation Plan should provide 10% capacity reserve for coastal development uses. Page 24, Staff Analysis 5.5 Pointsettia Lane should be completed as a major arterial as indicated on LCP map by 1995. Access through agricultural lands should be controlled. 5.6 Cannon Road should be considered for extension near the end of 20 years following route alternative IB (see attachment _G ). Access through agricultural lands shall be controlled. 3. Issues City staff has identified the following substantial issues with the Toups public works proposal: Issue 4.1 Alignment Alternative I-B for Cannon Road to be constructed near end of 20 year period. 4. Recommendation City staff recommends the following comments regarding the Cannon Road alignment issue: Recommendation/Issue 4.1. The city supports the Cannon Road alignment as proposed in the PRC Toups proposal, and feels that road construction may be necessary at an earlier date than indicated in the Toups plan. Recommendation/Issue 4.2. The city recognizes the Coastal Act requirements regarding accessibility to coastal resources, and supports the arterial improvements indicated in the Carlsbad General Plan as necessary for accessibility of inland residents to coastal recreational resources. Page 25, Staff Analysis Coastal Element 5: Recreation and Visitor Serving Facilities 1. Coastal Act Policies 30312.5 Wherever appropriate and feasible, public facilities including parking areas or facilities shall be distributed throughout an area so as to mitigate against the impacts, social and otherwise, of overcrowding or over use by the public of any single area. 30213 (in part) Lower cost visitor and recreation facilities ... shall be protected, encouraged, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred. 30220 Coastal areas suited for water-oriented recreational activities that cannot readily be provided at inland water areas shall be protected for such uses. 30221 Oceanfront land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recreational use and development unless present and foreseeable future demand for public or commercial recreational activities that could be accommodated on the property is already adequately provided for in the area. 30222 The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry. 30223 Upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses shall be reserved for such uses, where feasible. 30224 Increased recreational boating use of coastal waters shall be encouraged in accordance with this division, by developing dry storage areas, increasing public launching facilities, providing additional berthing space in existing harbors, limiting non-water- dependent land uses that congest access corridors and preclude boating support facilities, providing harbors or refuge, and by providing for new boating facilities in natural harbors, new protected water areas and in areas designed from dry land. 30250(c) Visitor-serving facilities that cannot feasibly be located in existing developed areas shall be located in existing isolated developments or at selected points of attraction of visitors. 2. Discussion The Recreation and Visitor Serving Element of the land use text deals with existing and projected demand for a range of recreation/ Page 26, Staff Analysis visitor facilities. These include such things as local and regional park facilities, overnight camping facilities, public beaches, hotel/motel facilities, and commercial uses catering primarily to tourist/visitor serving activities. A. PRC Toups The Toups report contains a comprehensive discussion of existing and projected needs relative to recreation/visitor facilities. City staff generally support the findings and policy recommendations contained in the Toups document. B. Coastal Staff The city has not received coastal staff discussion relative to this portion of the Toups Plan. C. Analysis The following presents the PRC Toups Policy recommendations relative to providing recreation/visitor facilities in the Carlsbad Coastal Zone. 6.1 Additional city parks will be necessary as development occurs; these should be a minimum 5 acres, and provide for a variety of uses. 6.2 There is need for a 200 to 300 acre regional park facility; consideration should be given to locating a facility in the Agua Hedionda Specific Plan Area, or on adjacent lands. 6.3 The Encina fishing area should be maintained for public use, with no fees required. 6.4 Additional overnight camping facilities should be developed. 6.5 Visitor commercial rezone program, projected, need for 200 additional hotel rooms should be achieved. 6.6 Additional visitor commercial uses at Elm Avenue/Carlsbad Blvd. 6.7 Development of small boat launching area should be pursued at South Carlsbad State Beach. 6.8 Visitor commercial rezone program utilizing existing Carlsbad Commercial Tourist (CT) zone. 6.9 South Carlsbad State Beach Campground should be considered for conversion to day use, if adequate camping facilities can be developed in upland areas. Page 27, Staff Analysis 4. Issues City staff has identified the following substantial concerns regarding the Toups policy recommendations relative to Recreation/ Visitor serving facilities. Issue 5.1 Need for 200 to 300 acre regional park Issue 5.2 Maintain Encina fishing area Issue 5.3 Additional overnight camping facilities should be developed Issue 5.4 Convert Carlsbad State Beach to day use. 5. Recommendations City staff makes the following recommendation for each issue area identified above. Recpmmendation/1ssue 5.1. The city recognizes the need for a regional park facility in the Carlsbad coastal zone, is actively pursing the development of such a facility, and recommends that the Macario Canyon proposed park site be specifically designated for park development. Recommendation/1ssue 5.2. The city supports the continuance of the Encina fishing area.TKe Encina fishing area is, however, located in the Agua Hedionda Specific Plan and is not appropriately addressed in the Carlsbad LCP. Recommendation/Issue 5.5. The city recognizes the need for additional camping facilities, and feels that the Toups plan in- adequately addresses this issue. The city encourages the State Department of Parks and Recreation to locate and acquire additional camping sites, as necessary. Recommendation/Issue 5.4. The city encourages the development of Carlsbad State Beach for day use, and recommends that such conversion be actively pursued. Page 28, Staff Analysis Coastal Element 6: Shoreline Access 1. Coastal Act Policies 30210. In carrying out the requirement of Section 2 of Article XV 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. 30211. Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through use, or legislative author- ization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rock coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation. 30212. 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, millitary security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources, (2) adequate access exists nearby, or (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. Nothing in this division shall restrict public access nor shall it excuse the performance of duties and responsibilities of public agencies which are required by Sections 66478.1 to 66478.14, inclusive, of the Government Code and by Section 2 of Article XV of the California Constitution. 30212.5 Wherever appropriate and feasible, public facilities including parking areas or facilities shall be distributed throughout an area so as to mitigate against the impacts, social and otherwise, of overcrowding or overuse by the public of any single area. 30251. The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Per- mitted 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 be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New develop- ment in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting. 2. Discussion This section of the land use text deals primarily with public access to coastal recreation facilities, the protection of scenic and visual qualities, and the development of adequate support facilities for public beach/recreation areas. Page 29, Staff Analysis A. PRC Toups. The Toups Report fully and adequately addresses coastal issues regarding access, in most areas. Staff reservations regarding the Toups policy recommendation generally address concerns of requirements for trails and both lateral and vertical accessways with no discussion of potential funding sources, maintenance provisions or jurisdictional responsibility. B. Coastal Staff. The city has not received specific discussion relative to the coastal staff position on this portion of the Toups Plan. C. Analysis. The following presents the PRC Toups policy rec- ommendations regarding coastal access. 7.1 Public access shall be provided when the vacant parcel adjacent to the Army Navy Academy is developed. 7.2 Accessways shall be designated through participation in the Caltrans coastal signing program. 7.3 The city shall adopt a policy finding that prescriptive rights exist along privately owned beaches. 7.4 Additional beach access is necessary at south Carlsbad State Beach and near the intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard/Palomar Airport Road. 7.5 Existing access points a Carlsbad State Beach should be improved. 7.6 A nature trail shall be provided along the south shore of Buena Vista Lagoon. On developed non-public land eminent domain shall be used. 7.7 Shore area owned by SDG§E should be dedicated to State of California. 7.8 Point San Malo: low lying area should be dedicated to the State of California. 7.9 20 acre site at Carlsbad Blvd/Palomar Airport Road, shall be developed for beach parking facilities (approximately 1200 spaces). 7.10 Parking standards of Carlsbad Zone Code are adequate. 7.11 State Department of Parks and Recreation should develop a master plan for all Carlsbad beaches. Page 30, Staff Analysis 7.12 Prohibition o£ development on beach bluff, particularly in northern area (Ocean Avenue). 7.13 No further public improvements which would obstruct visual access to the coast shall be allowed. 7.14 Vertical beach accessways shall be a minimum 10' wide. 7.15 Public access through the Terramar area is not necessary or appropriate. 7.16 South Carlsbad State Beach camping area should be converted to day use. 4. Issues. The following provides the city staff analysis of areas of substantial issue with the Toups policy recommendations. Issue 6.1. A nature trail shall be provided along the south shore of Buena Vista Lagoon utilizing eminent domain on private property. Issue 6.2. The shore area owned by SDG§E should be dedicated to state. Issue 6.5. Prohibition of development on bluff face of vacant parcels in northern area. Issue 6.4. Inadequate discussion of funding sources, jurisdictional responsibility, maintenance and timing of construction for access improvements proposed in the Toups Plan. 4. Recommendations. The following provides city staff recommendations for each identified issue area. Recommendation/1s sue 6.1. While the concept of a nature trail along Buena Vista Lagoon is desirable, the Toups report provides no indication of impacts on the lagoon ecosystem, funding, construction, location and maintenance. The city cannot support this concept without further detailed analysis. Recommendat ion/Issue 6.2. While the city supports eventual public acquisition of the SDG§E shore area, this property is part of the Agua Hedionda Specific Plan, and not appropriately included in the Carlsbad LCP. Recommendat ion/1s sue 6.5. While the city generally supports the prohibition of development on coastal bluffs, when strict application of this requirement precludes reasonable development of vacant infill lots, cantilevered construction techniques, with appropriate mitigation controls, should be considered. Recommendation/Issue 6.4. While the city fully supports the access improvements proposed in the Toups Report (primarily additional vertical beach access and parking facilities), Toups fails to adequately address funding, maintenance, jurisdictional responsibility or timing of construction for proposed improvements. Page 51, Staff Analysis Coastal Element 7: Visual Resources 1. Coastal Act Policies 30244. Where development would adversely impact archaeological or paleotological resources as identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer, reasonable mitigation measures shall be required. 30251. The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Per- mitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural landforms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting. 30253(5) New development shall: Where appropriate, protect special communities and neighborhoods which, because of their unique characteristics, are popular visitor destination points for recreational uses. 2. Discussion This element of the Carlsbad land use text considers the identification and protection of historic resources; the protection of coastal viewpoints, vistas and visual quality; the impact of new development on visual resources and the protection of special or unique neighborhoods and communities. A' PRC Toups. The Toups Report provides a comprehensive discussion of coastal visual resources, adequately addresses the requirements of the Coastal Act, and respects existing city regulations in this area. The Toup's Report contains extensive discussions relative to an inventory of visual amenities; a listing of historical cultural resources; and the protection of identified resources. City staff generally supports the Toups recommendation contained in this coastal element. B. Coastal Staff. The city has not received written comments from Coastal Commission staff regarding this portion of the Toups report. C- Analysis. The following provides an outline of policy rec- ommendations contained in the Toups Report relative to the protection of visual resources. 8.1 The existing Carlsbad Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone should be applied to coastal areas to assure maintenance of coastal views and panoramas (see attachment I ). Page 32, Staff Analysis "*">. 8.2 The city, in conjunction with individual property owners of identified historic structures, should determine which local, state and federal programs are applicable to assist in protecting historic resources . 8.3 City should adopt a policy whereby the unique characteristics of older communities (downtown area) can be protected through redevelopment plans. 8.4 Utilize environmental review process to identify archaeological pateontological resources and require adoption of mitigation measures site specific review, as appropriate. 3. Issues. City staff has identified the following substantial issues relative to the Toups recommendations regarding visual resources: Issue 7.1. Application of Carlsbad Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone to protect coastal views and panoramas, as indicated in attachment 4. Recommendations . City staff recommends the following comment for issue 7.1 Recommendat ion/ 1 s sue 7.1. The city supports the application of the Carlsbad Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone, as outlined in the Toups Report. Page 33, Staff Analysis Coastal Element 8: Housing 1. Coastal Act Policies: 50215 Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities and housing oppor- tunities for persons of low and moderate income shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided... 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 the require- ments of subdivision(c) of Section 65502 of the Government Code. 2. Discussion This portion of the Coastal Act addresses the "encouragement, protection and provision..." of housing opportunities for low and moderate income households. The role of the Coastal Commission in this area has been a focal point of dispute between local jurisdictions and the Commission, and recent legislation has been introduced at the state level to limit the role of the Coastal Commission in requiring affordable housing. A. PRC Toups Policy recommendations contained in the Toups report respect many of the programs and provisions of the Carlsbad Housing Element, and recognize the validity of existing city codes and ordinances. City staff generally supports the recommendations in the Toups report, with primary reservations regarding inclusionary zoning requirements. B. Coastal Staff The city has received specific written comments/discussion regarding the housing component of the Toups Plan. In general, coastal staff supports the Toups policy recommendations in this area, and make comment on only one policy area: inclusionary zoning. C. Analysis The following presents the PRC Toups policy recommendations regarding coastal housing. Coastal staff comments are noted, but are limited to one policy issue. 9.1 Seek funds to finance rehabilitation of 90 units in the coastal zone. 9.2 Demolition of existing affordable units shall generally be prohibited. Demolitions should provide one for one replacement housing. 9.5 Condominium conversions shall not be permitted where . project is primarily low and moderate income households vacancy factor for city rental stock is less than 5% Page 54, Staff Analysis Condominium conversions shall be made to existing city standards, and shall provide for 15% inclusionary units. 9.4 Existing mobilehome parks shall be permanently protected with Mobilehome Overlay Zone. 9.5 Available federal and state funds shall be used to assist housing needs. 9.6 City shall establish Housing Development Fund, as outlined in Carlsbad Housing Element. 9.7 Suitable sites in coastal zone master plans shall be identified for higher density development (20+ du/acre), low/ moderate income housing, mobile/modular homes. 9.8 City shall offer local concessions and incentives to encourage the provision of affordable housing. 9.9 Developers of five or more units in the coastal zone shall provide 15% mandatory inclusion of low/moderate income units. (Note: Coastal staff comments on this issue are as follows: mandatory inclusionary requirements should be raised to 25%; minimum size of project in which mandatory inclusionary requirements are required should be raised.) 3. Issues City staff has identified the following substantial issues in the housing component of the Toups Plan. 8.1 General prohibition of demolition of existing affordable units; requirements of one for one replacement when demolition occurs. 8.2 Condominium conversions prohibited where . primarily low/moderate income households will be displaced rental vacancy factor is less than 5% Requirement of 15% mandatory inclusionary zoning in conversion proj ects. 8.3 Mandatory inclusionary requirements of 15% for projects of 5 or more units. Recommendations City staff proposes the following recommendations relative to the identified coastal housing issues. Page 35, Staff Analysis Recommendation/Issue 8.1. The city does not support the general prohibition of existing affordable units. The city does, however, support the requirement of one for one replacement housing, and the offer of such units for relocation at a nominal cost, as currently required by the San Diego Regional Commission. Recommendation/1ssue 8.2. The city supports the provisions of the Carlsbad Condominium Conversion Ordinance for regulating condominium conversion projects. The city has concerns regarding the 51 vacancy factor requirement, the Toup Plan does not indicate the source of data upon which vacancy rate will be determined. The city does not support a mandatory 15% inclusion requirement for all conversion projects, but will consider the following alternatives: . encouragement of affordable units utilizing the incentives of the Carlsbad Housing Element. consideration of inclusionary requirements for projects which displace primarily low/moderate income households. Recommendation/Issue 8.5. The city regards the Carlsbad Housing Element as the primary document guiding the provision of affordable housing throughout the city, including the coastal zone. The city considers the incentive provisions of the Housing Element as adequate to provide for and encourage affordable housing, and finds the mandatory inclusionary requirements of the Toups report (151) and coastal staff comments (25%) unacceptable. Recommendation/Issue 8.4. The city requests that the Regional Commission staff consider all existing mobile home units in the coastal zone when computing the unmet needs of low and moderate income households. Recommendat ion/1s sue 8.5. The city supports the regional staff findings regarding exclusion of projects containing less than 20 units from consideration of inclusionary housing (reference, Oceanside, San Dieguito LCP). Page 36, Staff Analysis IV. Implementation 1. Discussion Implementation measures are the third principle component required for Local Coastal Plans. This portion of the LCP contains specific implementing actions for the land use deter- minations and regulatory policies contained in the land use text, and indicated on the land use map. The implementation component of the LCP must also include proposed amendments to existing codes and oridnances, proposed new zone designations and other regulatory measures, and consideration of post-certificate procedures. A. PRC Toups The implementation and post certification measures proposed in the Toups report generally respect existing municipal codes and ordinances, and propose amendments primarily directed towards inclusion of specific coastal zone regulations, certification, noticing and public hearing requirements. The Toups recommendations include the implementation of certain new zone designations and programs; these are discussed in the staff recommendations relative to the land use text. B. Coastal Staff Comments The city has not received specific written comments from coastal staff regarding the PRC Toups implementation procedures. Issues City staff has identified the following substantial issues regarding the implementation component of the Local Coastal Plan. 1. Implementation measures should be clearly based on existing city codes, ordinances, plans and regulations. 2. Toups implementation proposes creation of new zone designation (Coastal Erosion Hazard Overlay Zone) not acceptable to city. Page 37, Staff Analysis 3. Toups implementation proposals fail to adequately address funding, timing and maintenance of proposed access, parking, and trail improvements. 3. Recommendations City staff recommends that the city defer formulating specific recommendations regarding implementation of the Carlsbad LCP until substantial issues regarding the land use plan text have been resolved. Page 38, Staff Analysis V. Summary The following generalizes the major issue areas identified by city staff regarding the Toups proposal and coastal staff comments on the Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan. 1. Land Use Map PRC Toups land use map contains errors and ommissions which should be corrected, deletes some existing general plan land use designations, and proposes the creation of new land use categories and overlay zones. The city has not received a land use map from the Coastal Commission staff, but has received land use discussion indicating a staff position in this area. Areas of substantial concern with Commission staff comments include the requirements of permanent agricultural easements on certain properties, revised land use determinations for the Occidental property, and the application of a sliding development intensity scale, based on slope, for the Kelly Point Area. 2. Land Use Text Staff has identified numerous issues of substantial concern regarding the Toups Land Use Text proposal, and the Coastal staff comments on certain elements of the Toups report. It should be noted here that Coastal staff commented on four of the eight Toups coastal elements, and the city has not received a comprehensive discussion of Coastal staff comments on the Toups proposal. Major generalized issue areas identified by city staff are summarized as follows: . Plan proposes creation of land use categories and regulatory mechanisms generally unacceptable to the city. Plan fails to adequately address critical environmental problems facing the city including the beach erosion problem and the management of lagoon resources. Page 39, Staff Analysis Plan proposes access, parking and beach support improvements without adequate discussion of funding, maintenance, timing of construction and jurisdictional responsibilities. . Coastal staff comments generally disregard existing city codes and ordinances, concept of general plan density ranges, and proposes regulatory concepts which the city has previously found unacceptable (Mello Bill LCP). 3. Implementation Recognizing the inherent relationship between the formulation of a land use map and text acceptable to the city, and the resulting implementing ordinances, city staff has recommended that the City Council defer comprehensively addressing the implementation aspect of the Local Coastal Plan until substantial issues regarding the land use map and text have been resolved. Page 40, Staff Analysis /-""V VI. Procedural Recommendation In outlining staff recommendation alternatives, staff directs the Council's attention to the following general issues: (1) The city will not regain full development permit issuing authority until an LCP Land Use Plan and Implementation program have been certified by the state, and accepted by the city. (2) Until LCP certification is complete all coastal zone develop- ment proposals will continue to require dual permit processing. (3) The State Coastal Commission is allowed by State Law to certify an LCP for Carlsbad by July 1, 1981, without the direct participation of the city. (4) Regional Coastal Commission will hold 2 public hearings to review the Carlsbad LCP, make recommendations to the State Commission which will in turn hold public hearings and certify the Carlsbad LCP by July 1, 1981. Procedural Recommendation Alternatives Staff has identified the following possible alternative actions. Alternative 1. The Toups report is adequate as presented, and should be recommended to the Coastal Commission for approval. Alternative 2. The Toups report, incorporating coastal staff comments should be recommended for approval. Alternative 3. The Toups report and coastal staff comments, incorporating the comments of the Carlsbad City Council, should be recommended for certification. Alternative 4. Neither the Toups report in its original format, or as modified by coastal staff, is acceptable to the city. The city recommends revising the Toups report, incoporating the comments adopted by the Carlsbad City Council. Page 41, Staff Analysis Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Alternative 4, and direct city staff to transmit the City Council's comments on the Toups proposal/coastal staff comments to the Regional and State Coastal Commissions. Page 42, Staff Analysis CARLSBAD COASTAL ZONE MAP ^ATTACHMENT A" AGUA HEDSONDALCP MELLO BILL LCP SAN D I ECU LTD (Co. OF SAN DIEGO) t!o 12COCLM AVENUE CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 920CS Office of lha Mayor TELEPKC*!S:_ 438-55o. Clip af C&ris&sfc September 24, 1980 Commissioners • . CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 631 Hov;ard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 • Dear Commissioners: Because of the significant objections which the City continues to have regarding the Local Coastal Program for the "Mello Bill" properties, the City Council has determined that it does not intend to participate in the implementation of the plan. In the City's opinion, the LCP does not meet the mandates of Section 30170(f) or the policies of the Coastal Act and does not reflect the needs of the City or its residents. Many of our expressed concerns have fallen on deaf ears. The Commis- sion's response, that we may seek change through the amend- ment process, is both inadequate and unrealistic. Because the adoption of this program will undoubtedly set a precedent fox* the Local Coastal Program for the remainder of the City of Ccirlsbad, I would again like to renew our concerns. First, the City Council believes that the provisions for mandatory inclusionary zoning for low and moderate income housing within the coastal-zone, without regard to the provisions of the City's Housing Element, is contrary to the express language of Section 30213 of the Resources Code which states: "New housing in the coastal zone shall be developed in conformity with the standards, policies and goals of local housing elements adopted in accordance with requirements of Subdivision(c) of Section 65302 of the Government Code." The City Council of the.City of Carlsbad has accepted the responsibility to provide housing opportunities within the entire City of Carlsbad for all economic sectors of the community. The Commission's mandate 'for inclusionary zoning within the coastal zone disrupts overall City policies and Commissioners . —2- September 24t 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 Comm'ission's mandatory inclusionary zoning for low and moderate income housing cannot be justified under the goal of obtaining access to Carlsbad's coastal resources. The second major area of concern to the City of Carlsbad is the permanent agricultural zoning which the Commission has imposed* The City believes that permanent agricultural restrictions for the properties involved are not supported by the economic data, The City Council recognizes agriculture as. an important industry and resource in the City of Carlsbad and has begun to adopt, pro- grams which will protect the economic feasibility of agriculture in the City for as long as possible. However, the City Council realistically recognizes that there comes a time when-no economic return can be made through agriculture. Permanent agricultural, protection prohibits the conversion of the land to a different '' use. If government demands that the property be maintained•in a' use which is not economically productive, inverse 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 over the grading restrictions imposed by the Local Coastal Program fox" 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. 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 liabilityt 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. 7\t 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 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-CALIFORNIA CO<^"«V\L COMMISSION xn^ EDMUND G. BROWN JR SAN DIEGO COAST REGIONAL CO 6154 MISSION GO.\01 HOAD, SU'.Vt 220 SAN DIEGO, CALiFOMNIA 92120 - TEL. !7 1".) Z30-0?C^ January 23, 1931 . . TO T? C E l.V & FEB 21981 oim Hagaman Planning Director City of"Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 CITY Of CARLSBAD Planning Department Subject: Preliminary Joint State and Regional Coastal Commission Staff Response to the Initial Draft of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP) Propped by PRC Toups Corporation . Dear Mr. Hagaman: ." •• In order to provide the City of Carlsbad, as well as other interested parties, insight. " into the direction which the Coastal Commission staff is taking with regard to the critical issues in the Carlsbad LCP, the following preliminary joint State and Regional Coastal Commission staff response to the initial draft of the Carlsbad LCP, as prepared by PRC Toups Corporation, is being transmitted. It should ba clearly understood that that this preliminary staff response is intended to generate comments, and does not constitute the staff recommendation to the San Diego Coast Regional Commission. Neither does it constitute any official position of either the State or Regional Commissions. Hcwevcr, this response is intended to provide the reader with guidance as to. the position of the Coastal Commission staff, at this time, concerning the following four issue/policy groups: agricultural preservation, protection of environmentally sensitive habitats, geologic; hazards, and affordable housing. While staff"may "have some concerns regarding other policy groups in'theTPRC Toups draft of the LCP, these concerns s.^ viewed by us • _as l_ess substantial than those with regard to the specifie~a"gTdupsf~this staff resp'oriss • "vnTl therefore address only the four groups noted. Should the City or other interested parties have comments regarding any or the policies described in the PRC Toups r-eport, or any comments upon the contents of this staff letter, such comments are encouraged to be submitted, as soon as possible, to: San Diego Coast Regional Commission, attention: . Chuck Dairm, £154 Mission Gorge Road, Suite 220, San Diego 92120. The City of Carlsbad LCP is expected to be scheduled for hearings by the San Diego Coast Regional Commission, beginning in late February or early March; at least two hearings by the Regional Commission are expected. State law (AB1071) requires that the State Commission review and approve the Carlsbad LCP by July, 1981, cr the entire area will be excluded from the coastal zone. Tinrmg is thus critical, and we would encourage the City and-other interested parties to submit comments as soon as possible. Staff will- evaluate all comments received, and prepare an initial staff report for subtnittal to the Regional Commission; this report will be released for public review at least one week prior to the initial Regional Commission hearing. Notice of the Rogiovisl Commission. hearing schedule will be made ivailable to all persons and agencies known to have an interest in this matter approximately 8-10 days prior to the first heariiuj. Written conuncnto received from any person on this matter will be transmitted to the members of the Commission. • • letter to Jim Hagaman, Planning Director, City of Carlsbad January 28, 1981 page 2 . • .. . . .... The preliminary staff response to the PRC Toups draft of the LCP is organized according to the "policy group" format (i.e., agriculture, environmentally sensitive habitats, geologic hazards, and affordable housing). Discussion of each policy group includes: an overview of the background, findings, and recommended policies contained in the PRC Toups draft LCP; identification of relevant Coastal Act policies; summary of prior -.Coastal Commission actions on precedential permit and LCP decisions; and staff suggestions for policy modifications, additions, or deletions, to the policies contained in the PRC Toups -draft LCP. Staff appreciates the opportunity to provide you with the following reponse to the initial draft of the Carlsbad LCP. Should you have any questions, or should the City Council or Planning Commission wish to discuss this response with staff, please contact Chuck Damm at the Regional Commission office. Very trul_y__y_purs, I Robert Brown, Chief Planner, California Coastal Commission Tom Crandall, Executive Director, San Diego Coast Regional Commission Jim Hagaman, Planning Director January 20, 1981 Page 3 The following staff response consists of four major sections: Agriculture is discussed on pages 3-16; Wetlands and other Environmentally Sensitive Habitat, pages 17-22; Geologic Hazards, pages 23-28; and Affordable Housings, pages 29- 32. ' ' • ' ' AGRICULTURE A. Overview of Policies Recommended and Findings Regarding Agriculture in the Initial Draft of the Carlsbad LCP - 1. Background and Findings - The PRC Toups draft of the LCP notes that there is approximately 1,550 acres of land within the Carlsbad LCP study area which qualifies as prime agricultural land utilizing the Williamson Act definition (pg. 18 of draft LGP). Another 400 - 500 acres within the Carlsbad LCP has historically been farmed but does not qualify as prime agricultural land under the Williamson Act because the land has not been in production in recent years. Within the PRC Toups draft of the Carlsbad LCP, or in the technical support paper for agriculture prepared by PRC Toups, the following information is provided. . Agricultural crops in the Carlsbad coastal zone consist primarily «> ' of field flowers and a variety of vegetables, particularly tomatoes. 'Relatively few greenhouse operations occur in the Carlsbad coastal zone; the largest is located off Poinsettia Lane within the south- western portion of the study area. Production in the Carlsbad area is unique in that the crops which are grown can be grown in very few other places during the same time of year. This significantly reduces • domestic competition, although the area does compete with Mexican growers for markets for certain vegetables. Pole tomato production is the most significant vegetable crop in the Carlsbad area and in San Diego County, both in terms of revenue and planted acreage. The tomato industry has a high "multiplier-effect". •That is, it generates a substantial amount of direct and indirect •economic activity. Revenues from pole tomato production tend to fluctuate widely from year to year, primarily because of competition from other areas, adverse weather conditions, and disease problems. Disease resistant varieties, however, have increase yields sub-' stantially during recent years. c •w . . Jim Hagaman, Planning Director January 20, 1981 . • • Page 4 Other crops noted in the PRC Toups LCP draft as being cither currently grown or capable of being grown in the area include: cherry tomatoes, strawberries, snap beans, cabbage, cauliflower, celery, cucumbers, chives lettuce and squash. Additionally, field flowers are a significant nursery crop grown in the Carlsbad coastal zone. As stated in the TOUPS LCP draft and technical support document, climate is the major factor which'has determined the success of the areas agriculture. The soils, while not defined as prime by the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, are nevertheless (for the most part) class III and IV soils which are'well suited for growing truck crops, tomatoes, flowers and other crops. This is supported by the following data contained in Appendix 6 of the Toups technical support paper relating to tomato production. PRODUCTION AREA Nationwide California San Diego County Carlsbad Sphere of Influence PRODUCTION IN TONS 1,000,000 333,000 165,000 78,000 % NATIONAL PRODUCTION 100% 33% 16% 8% % STATE PRODUCTION N/A 100% 48% 23% AVERAGE YIELD/ACRE 8 tons 11 tons 30 tons 30 tons HARVESTED ACREAGE 125,000 29,400 5,500 2,600 % NATIONAL ACREAGE 100% 23% 4% 2%" % STATE ACREAGE N/A 100% 18% 8.8% As found in the City of Carlsbad Mello Bill Properties (AB462) Local Coastal Program, informative agricultural statistics can be extrapolated from the chart. The Carlsbad area produces approximately 8% of the nation's fresh tomatoes on only 2% of the national acreage; and, the area produces 23% of California's fresh tomato crop on 8.8% of State's acreage devoted to tomato production. Such statistics clearly indicate the high productivity of the Carlsbad agricultural area. The purpose of the extrapolation is to indicate the real capability of non-prime soils to support agriculture. Soils, in combination with the other unique locational factors, such as the moderating coastal climate, make coastal agriculture unusually productive. As with much of the agriculture in the State of California, the Toups LCP draft finds that there are a number of factors which will influence the agricultural economy of the area. These include availability and cost of water, energy costs, and labor costs. While advisory and supportive policies can be developed in the LCP regarding these issues, the issues are broader in scope and should be resolved at the state and or federal level and not in the LCP. However, the key planning issues which must be addressed in the LCP are identified by PRC Toups as: pressures of urbanization; urban/agricultural conflicts; and, regulation of agricultural lands. These three issues are discussed-in the.following subheadings. a- Pressures of Urbanization - Much of the agricultural land in the Carlsbad area, particularly within the coastal zone, is experiencing extreme development pressure. According to the PRC Toups LCP draft (pages IB and 20), land ownership patterns are not consistent within the Carlsbad coastal zone. Some very large parcels arc owned by large corporations who intend to laanc the land to growers O-Jim Hagaman, Planning DireN«i January 20, 1981 Page 5 -or until development of the land is possible. Other ownerships are extremely small and fragmented. . ' The basic principal underlying much of the land use conflict is that market value of vacant land increases as demand fox- urbanization increases. Agricultural land which is in close proximity to an urban- izing area has a market value in excess of its value as an agricultural resource. As constraints to urbanization decrease, land values in- crease. Any number of factors, such as improved access, increased sewer capacity, residential zoning, 'and increased water availability, can contribute to such increases. This situation has led to land >• speculation in many areas of the Carlsbad coastal zone. Many • . agricultural land owners rely on the future value of their land as the basis for their investment strategies. (pg- 20, PRC Toups LCP . 'draft) . . • Because of this urbanization pressure and land speculation which has occurred in the Carlsbad area, the economic feasibility of agriculture takes on added importance . At the request of PRC Toups, Dr. Alan P. Kleinman at Great Western Research prepared a report entitled The Economic Viability of Agriculture in the Carlsbad Coastal' Zone. That report states : Based on the derivation of the expected costs and returns as derived for the area, profitability of production on the average is in a reasonable range for farm operators of specialty crops in the ccastal zone. Historically there -; l . have been years of very high returns and-years of significant : . losses due to market factors and yield variance. If production ; in the study area was by owner-operators who had not more than . I , $3,500 per acre invested in land, it could be concluded that 1 . . agricultural production would continue into the forseeable future. : '. , ' However, based on the current land tenure, a host of economic : ' pressures are at work which will ultimately result in abandonment i . of agricultural production. The question then becomes one of • ' . the economics of land ownership rather than the economics of agricultural production. ' . • In addition, a report prepared by Copley International Corporation titled Analysis^ of Agriculture on the Spiers Study Parcel Regarding the California Coastal Act concludes that: ' In terms of Section 30242 of the Coastal Act, the study parcel does not represent a case where renewed agricultural use is feasible." From an economic point of view, ownership of the parcel for agricultural activities is -not viable. The value of the parcel assessed at $26,654 per acre does not represent an agricultural land use. As shown in the General Agriculture section above, -the agricultural value of the land is approximately $4,000 (Page 32 of the Copley Report). Jim llagarnan, Planning Director January 20, 1981 • . Page 6 The Spiers Parcel is one of the Occidental Land, Inc. parcels in the Mello Bill Properties (AB462) LCP which the Coastal Corrjtiission has approved. As concluded by Dr. Klcinman and PRC Toups, the quesiton becomes one of the economics of land ownership rather than the economics of agricultural production. Agriculture in the Carlsbad area does provide an adequate long term economic rate of return if the land were purchased at approximately $4,000 an acre. If purchased at a much higher speculative value, the long term economic rate of return for continued agricultural use becomes problematic. In conclusion, the PRC Toups draf,t of the Carlsbad LCP states that what is economically beneficial to the individual landowner is not necessarily beneficial to the regional economic fabric. The following excerpt from the LCP technical document supports the above s;.'.cement by indicating that continued agricultural operations result in a net positive impact on the area as a whole: Planning methodologies have been developed to compare the costs and revenues associated with placing different land uses on individual parcels of land, particularly comparing agricultural and residential uses. In conjunction with preparation of the County's Agriculture Element, County planning staff conducted a computer analysis using the Demographic and Economic Forecasting Model to analyze the . relative importance of agriculture to San Diego County. As part of that study, an analysis of replacing 80 acres .-. of tomato production with low density residential develop- ment was conducted which found that greater long run '. personal income would accrue to the region if this land remained in agricultural production. This analysis assumed that 108 houses built on this land would be a net temporary • addition to the County's housing stock in 1979. In other words, it was assumed that the development would have oc- curred elsewhere in the region over the long run. What the . results indicate is that the building of low density re- sidential homes on agricultural land generates "temporarily" about $2 million in income to the region {direct and indirect). Over the long run, however, the region could effectively lose an annual $303,000 in personal income due to the elimination • . of agricultural production. Hence, at the end of about seven years, the residential "one time" gain in the regional income is offset by the loss in agricultural income (County of San ' Diego, 1979). This example indicates that the eventual long run displacement of certain types of high yield agriculture with low density residential development is likely to result in a net negative economic impact upon the region. (P. 13 City of Carlsbad, Technical Support Paper: Agriculture) Because of the above findings, and the rcqui romcnts of the California Coastal Act of 197G, PRC Toups recommended policies in the-initial draft of the Carlsbad LCP directed towards preserving viable agricultural parcels. These policy re- commendations are discussed under subheading 2. Jim Hagaman, Planning January 20, 1981 Page 7 • ' k- Urban/Agri cultura1 Conf1ic t s - Page 21 of the draft LCP prepared by PRC Toups states the following: Conflicts betv;oen urban and agricultural land uses are strong in the coastal area of Carlsbad because scattered residential develop- ments have been allowed to occur within agricultural areas south of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Agricultural operation in close proximity to an urban area would have to contend with increased vandalism, complaints from residents about noise from machinery, dust and pesticides, and possibly damage to plants from urban pollutants. This type of urban/agricultural border results in lost productivity ' and increased cost to farmers in the Carlsbad area. In order to minimize potential conflicts between adjacent urban and agricultural uses, the concept of "buffer" areas is appropriate. Such areas must be wide enough to effectively separate the two conflicting uses. The Carlsbad area offers many natural and existing buffer areas. Currently, Agua Hedionda Lagoon effectively separates agricultural land to the south from the northern, populated portion of the City. Interstate 5, and steep sloping lands exceeding 25 percent offer the potential of providing additional effective buffers. However, buffers of approximately 300 feet in width seem to be necessary to separate residential uses from--potential aerial spraying of pesticides utilized on row crops. Smaller buffers can be utilized where aerial spraying does not occur. Policies proposed by PRC Toups with regards to buffer areas are discussed.under sub- heading 2. . ' : . " c. Regulation of Agricultural Lands - The initial draft LCP for Carlsbad includes the following on pages 21 and 22: Several agencies have jurisdiction over land use and :• agricultural land conversion in the Carlsbad coastal zone. Federal controls are generally indirect, but may be significant as in cases of the effect of capital gains and inheritance taxes on individxial owners. The state has direct control over agricultural land use through the Coastal Commission and LAFCO. Both of these agencies support the preservation of agriculture, but LAFCO policies are confined to prime agricultural land as defined by the Williamson Act while the Coastal Commission policies also cover non-prime land. The current policies of • the City of Carlsbad would ultimately allow conversion of nearly all the coastal agriculture to residential uses. However, the Carlsbad general plan introduces the concept of the "Urban Reserve Area". These are areas which will be subject to . . increasing urban pressures through time. This program would allow property owners to "land bank" their holdings with the City and phase the development of the-land. The intent of the program is to provide the City with the ability to temporarily preserve agricultural uses and open space areas and no.t prematurely commit land to urban uses. Development is not expected nor encouraged to occur in these areas in the immediate future. The County position is similar to the City of Carlr.bad although under recently proposed amendments to the North County Metropolitan Jim Hagainan, Planning Dirc'^^r ' V,** January 20, 1981 Page 8 Subregional Plan, the conversion could not occur under County . jurisdiction until 1995. • . The basic policies o.f the California''" Coastal Act of 1976 (Sections 30241 and 30242) and the policies of the City of Carlsbad with regards to long term pre- servation of agriculture are at odds.. The City's policies allow gradual conversion of agricultural lands (including both prime and non-prime lands) while the Coastal Act restricts conversion of any eigricultural lands except as permitted in Sections 30241 and 30242 of the Act. Because of the Coastal Act mandate to preserve and protect agriculture, PRC Toups developed the following draft LCP policies^ _ 2. Initial Draft CarlsbadLCP Policy Recommendations - The staff response will highlight the policy recommendations prepared by PRC Toups in the initial draft of the LCP as concerns agriculture. Staff will follow the format of the Toups LCP draft. •'•'.. • Policy 2-1; Agricultural Site 1 - This site comprises approximately 490 acres of contiguous land south of Agua Hedionda lagoon, north of Palomar Airport Road arid east of Interstate - 5 (ref. attached map) Most of the site is commonly referred to as the Ecke Preserve. . . ' PRC Toups recommends that the Ecke Preserve be preserved as agriculture under the Williamson" Act for as long as is feasible. If the contract is not renewed, the owner will be assigned agricultural subsidy credits similar to the program defined in Policy 2-2 or some other alternative program. The details would be determined through 'the LC? amendment process. The portion of the site not in the Ecke Preserve is recommended for the agricultural subsidy credits techniques. The 15 acre segment located between 1-5 and the frontage road is recommended for visitor-commercial uses, . ' Policy 2-2: Agricultural Sites 2 and 3 - Site 2 is located just south of the Ecke 'Preserve ' and north of Poinsettia Lane. Row crops are the dominant farming operation and there are relatively few individual owners. Site 3 is located just south of Poinsettia Lane extended. There are many individual small farming concerns with nursery crops as a typical use of the land. A total of approximately 575 acres of contiguous land devoted to agricultural, purposes comprise Sites 2 and 3. The Toups LCP draft recommends that the land in Sites 2 and 3 be preserved as • agriculture. This recommendation shall be implemented through the purchase and transfer of the agricultureil subsidy credits associated with this agricultural land. The principle on which this method is based is that land ownership may be considered to consist of the title to various rights. One of the normal rights of ownership is the right to develop or improve property. Under the purchase of agricultural subsidy credits concept, this right is separated from the other rights of ownership and may be purchased by others. It should be emphasized here that compensation is not required to preserve these lands for agriculture. Coastal Commission policies stipulate that a strong regulatory position alone would be enough to preserve these lands. However, the purchase of agricultural subsidy credit is rccorrjnended here to incorporate some measure of equity into the land use planning - ~ .-> •---.- -~ ------- - - ~ HXXXX. -I r •"-•" -- ""••; -- -.-:: ~ - - -.<Jv£<XX->-^"rVr.\-.-.~--r:--£^^^i^:i-K->>-?-v\->>: £^i .- -~^-^^<xX<^>xxv'*~ —. r- t^^^f^^ \f\^-- - T-. ^ ».^-(r'"vxx^r^"^*'«». ~ »^ i *• '^f "V^ 'A/'^j I*- "** —' ^ ^•^S/v'^ V^"-. *^.-«. ~ . ^ r Vx!, < x>C *» vfV<--s'>S'-V^ /' \N x^s$g^4 jW P^^^V^5^^S?v!>'^$$S?> ' x5<<^:>^XXXXX>> O XXXX (<!?!>.*<»...'.. «_..M*—«. >.*J... ... .Jim Hagaman, Planning Dir^^-or January 20, 1981 ., Page9 ;' process. It represents an effort by the public to preserve agricultural lands through a compensatory program designed to establish stable urban/rural boundaries and minimize conflicts. . . The details of the PRO Toups Agricultural Subsidy Credits Program are provided on pages 24-33 of the initial draft of the Carlsbad LCP. Policy 2-3: Agricultural _ J5i_t_e _4_ - This site comprises areas near the southern boundary of the City of Carlsbad and northeast of the Batiq.uitos Lagoon. The site includes approximately 265 acres of agricultural land, the majority of which is on the Rancho La Costa landholding which was included in the Mello Bill Properties .(AB 462) LCP. The draft LCP for Carlsbad recommends that these agricultural lands be preserved either through the agricultural subsidy credits program or in" the case of Rancho La Costa with an internal transfer of development rights scheme (ref. pg. 34 of the draft LCP for details). Policies 2-4, 2-5 and 2-8 - These two policies discuss prime and non-prime agricultural land suitable for production but which because of urban conflicts, or because of the inability preserve them for long term production, PRC Toups recommends their conversion to urban uses. Most of the acreage converted would be required to participate in the agricultural subsidy credits program (ref. pgs. 34-37 of draft LCP for details). *"' Policies 2-6 and 2-7 - PRC Toups recommends in Policy 2-6 of the draft LCP establish- ment of a 100 foot buffer between urban uses and agricultural uses where no aerial spraying of crops occurs. Where aerial spraying does occur, a 300- foot buffer is recommended. Policy 2-7 recommends temporary agricultural use of land not permanently protected for agriculture (ref. pg. 37 for additional information). B,' Relevant Coastal Act Policies - Two policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976 deal with preservation of agricultural lands. These policies are found in Sections 30241 and 30242 of the Act and are quoted below. • Section 30241 - The maximum amount of prime agricultural land shall be maintained in agricultural production to assure the protection of the areas' agricultural economy, and conflicts shall be minimized between agricultural and urban land uses through all of the following: .(a) By establishing stable boundaries separating urban arid rural areas, including', where necessary, clearly defined . • buffer areas to minimize conflicts between agricultural and • urban land uses, • (b) By limiting conversions of agricultural lands around the periphery of urban areas to the lands where the viability of existing agricultural use is already severely limited by conflicts with urban uses and where the conversion of the lands would complete a logical and viable neighborhood and contribute to the establishment of a stable limit, to urban development. . Jim Hagaman, Planning Direcfor . January 20, 1901 - Page 10 (c) By developing available lands not suited for agriculture prior to the conversion of agricultural lands. (d) By assuring that public service and facility expansions and non-agricultural development do not impair agricultural viability, either through increased assessment, costs or degraded air and water quality. , ' ' (e) By assuring that all divisions of prime agricultural lands, except those conversions approved pursuant to subdivision (b) of this section, and all development adjacent to prime agricultural lands shall not diminish the productivity of such prime agricultural lands. • . • . • Sec t ion 30242 - All other lands suitable for agricultural use shall not be .converted to non-agricultural vises unless: (1) continued or renewed agricultural use is not feasible, or (2) such conversion would preserve prime agricultural land or concentrate development consistent with Section 30250. Any such permitted conversion shall be compatible with continued agricultural, use on surrounding lands. C. Summary of Previous Coastal Commission Actions on Precedential Permit and LCP Decisions - The Coastal Commission has a long track record in San Diego County of efforts to preserve agricultural lands or protecting existing agricultural lands from urban encroachment. Past precedential permit decisions include denial of the following penr.it applications: .Regional Commission State Commission Project Title , Location File No. Appeal No. MCS Development ' Tiajuana River F5702 4 " 284-77 Valley . • Madonna Const, Tiajuana River F5676 285-77 Valley • • .. Playmor North Encinitas F5031 55-77 Takara International Leucadia ' F5251 110-77 Pacesetter Homes Carlsbad . F5040 58-77 Standard Pacific Carlsbad ' F5449 ' 144-77 John Lusk and Son Carlsbad F5613 ' ' 244-77 Additionally, the Commission in appeal No. 15-76, conditioned the expansion of the Encina Sewage Treatment Plant to prevent sewering of agricultural lands prior to certification of the Carlsbad and County of San Diego LCPs. All of'the above permit decisions have several things in common which exemplify the Coastal Commission's concern to protect the viability of agriculture in the coastal zone. First, the land involved in each permit decision was either in field crop or greenhouse production or had traditionally been so. Second, the projects all involved subdivisions which v/ould introduce additional urban encroachments without formally establishing sound/stable urban boundaries. Third, in each case the applicant claimed that agriculture was not feasible; (except for the sewage treatment plant) but, the projects were all reviewed by the Commir.sion 3-4 years ago and agriculture continues to be viable in the area even though some of the property owners have withheld land from production. Fourth, in all cases the land was zoned for agriculture prior to W ' '•' Jim Hagaman, Planning Director January 20, 1981 Page 11 - • . tentative subdivision approval; therefore, purchase for future urban' development was speculative. It should be noted that in the LCP process the Commission has allowed conversion from an agricultural land use designation to an urban use designation for some of the above properties (i.e., MCS, Madonna, Standard Pacific ); but, only after detailed and comprehensive agricultural protection issues had been addressed. With regards to precedential LCP actions, the Tiajuana River Valley Land Use Plan (a segment of the City of San Diego's LCP) and the Mello Bill Properties (AB462) LCP for a segment of the City of Carlsbad are of importance to the draft Carlsbad LCP. In both LCP actions by the Commission, preservation of agricultural lands was a central issue. In response .to this issue the Commission required preservation of agricultural land; it also allowed conversion of some land suitable for agriculture in order to establish stable urban boundaries and to attempt to guarantee long term agricultural production. In general, the Commission's attitude in the LCPs "~7> ha.<s been not just to preserve land for agricultural use; but, to also encourage 1~';' v'- agricultural production through incentive programs such as the mixed use concept. D. Staff Suggested PolicyModifications, Additions or Deletions to the Policies of the Initial Draft Carlsbad LCP - In presenting this portion of the staff response, the comments are directed towards the concept of an agricultural subsidy program; elaboration of the PRC 1'oups findings in the draft Carlsbad LCP; and finally, major policy modifications, additions, or deletions as suggested by staff. This last portion references a lengthy attachment to this letter titled: "City of Carlsbad LCP •Agricultural Component" (Attachment - A) The attachment provides detailed'information, as to the direction staff is proceeding. However, the staff report to the San Diego ~"v Coast Regional Commission has not been prepared, and the staff position regarding the • complex issue of agricultural preservation remains flexible. Again, it,\>is urged that any comments be submitted to our office as soon as possible. 1. Agricultural Subsidy Program - Staff concurs with the basic concept of an •agricultural subsidy program as recommended in the draft Carlsbad LCP. In reviewing the program, staff is of the opinion that considerable refinement is necessary; but, we agree with the concept. A very important fundamental point must be noted - that is - the land is suitable and designated for agricultural use." Participation in the • Agricultural Subsidy Program is strictly voluntary. If a property owner does not ; participate, the staff position is that the land remain designated for agriculture. 2. Elaboration of the PRC Toups' Draft Carlsbad LCP Findings - The PRC Toups draft of the LCP and the technical support paper on agriculture prepared by Toups provide a substantial amount of information regarding the agricultural economy of coastal San Diego County. In seciton "A" of.the staff response on Agriculture, the Toups findings are summarised. In addition, staff has reviewed ^^ number of other documents related to the feasibility of agriculture in San Diego County, prior land use decisions and court cases. Staff would recommend the following findings to buttress PRC Toups' findings in the draft LCP for Carlsbad. Jim Hagaman, Planning January 20, 1981 . Page 12 \\' a. Zoning - Clearly large lot or agricultural zoning could be applied to all . 7r lands suitable for agriculture between Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoon. Much of this land is still zoned for agriculture (A-l-10 zoning), and where down zonings have been required in the. past by government action, the State Supreme Court has made note that there is no vested right to zoning and that a reduction in value resulting from urban use designations to an agricultural use designation does not constitute a compensable taking. The possibility of change in zoning to a different use is a calculation risk to buyers of vacant land and that purchase involves varing degrees of speculation. The fact that some property owners may have paid a speculative price for agricultural.land with the hopes that it-would be zoned and permitted for more intense urban use is not sufficient reason for allowing conversion of suitable agricultural land. b. Feasibility of Agriculture - As previously noted,- both the Copley International report titled Analysis of Agriculture on the Spiers Study Parcel Regarding the California Coastal Act, and the report prepared by Great Western Research titled The ^Economic Viability of Agriculture in the Carlsbad Cpastaj. Zone, indicate that long term product- ivity and Adequate economic return from agricultural operations could be realized if the amount invested in land costs was commensurate with an agricultural land use designation (i.e., approx. $4,000/acre). The Commission found in the Mello Bill Properties (AB462) LCP that while technically an analysis- of feasibility of agriculture may not be required for prime agricultural lands under Section 30241 of the Coastal Act, that nevertheless, a feasibility, analysis similar to that required for non-prime lands in Section 30242 is appropriate since removal from production for three years would result in all the agricultural lands in Carlsbad being designated as non-prime under the Williamson Act definition. . . . • . The Commission noted in the Mello Bill Properties (AB462) LCP that there is con- siderable difference., of opinion on the type of economic analysis to be used in determining the feasibility of agricultural,operations on non-prime lands. Such analysis could be based on cash flow from year to year,"annual income, land-purchase •-'"" - price (variable from individual to individual depending on date of purchase) appraised -# value, current lease rates or other factors which would all produce different con- clusions as to feasibility..... Economic feasibility based solely on purchase price is only one of many means to evaluate the continued economic feasibility of agricultural lands. If this test were applied to a long time California farmer who purchased or inherited his land many years ago, it would mean that his operation was economically -viable, (regardless of other factors such as net income or capitalization) and therefore he could not convert his land to a non-agricultural use. Hpwever, a buyer of his operation could convert the same land provided that he paid a high purchase price. In effect a buyer of land subject to Section 30242 could determine the suitability of the parcel for agriculture simply by setting the purchase price. Section 30242 requires an objective test that can be applied to all lands rather than a subjective test whose results can be predetermined by the parties themselves. Because of the lack of logic of a subjective approach based on purchase price,the Commission, in the Mello Bill Properties- (AB4G2) LCP, rejected the use of purchase price as the sole basis for determining economic feasibility of continued agricultural operations. Jim Hagaman, Planning DiraWor January 20, 1981 . Page 13 • The landowners of some of the land within the Carlsbad LCP agree that agriculture would be feasible if land prices had been $4,000/acre, but argue that agriculture is clearly infeasible because they paid well ever that amount for the land. Again, -. the Commission has found that the price paid by the landowner reflects speculative value, and that such speculative values should not be considered the overriding factor in dealing with the question of feasibility. Even assuming that purchase price were an appropriate test for economic feasibility in some circumstances, it then becomes appropriate to consider the circumstances surrounding the pufchse. Looking to the facts surrounding,development in Carlsbad, annexation and zoning policies have been an issue of major controversy throughout the 1970's. Initial annexation of this area into the City of Carlsbad was highly controversial, and 1100 acres were deleted from the annexation. When the annexation and zone change to allow development came before the City of Carlsbad, the Planning Commission on April 24, 1973, denied the zone change. In that denial the Planning Commission found: Development...could adversely affect the City's ability to provide adequate services...and...the City is currently developing its General Plan Revision... That denial'was appealed to the City. Council, and the City Council overruled the Planning Commission and granted, the zone change in May of 1973. However, .the area was still without the necessary public utilities to develop. A permit to construct a sewer line along the edge of Batiquitos Lagoon to serve the area was •" .denied by the predecessor State Commission because of concern that premature, sewer services would undermine planning efforts to protect agricultural lands and prevent adverse effects on Batiquitos Lagoon (Appeal No, 215-73, Rancho La Costa). The sewer line was subsequently permitted by.-the Regional Commission under conditions •-that prevented the use of sewer capacity for serving agricultural lands. Similar conditions preventing sewering of agricultural lands were attached to expansion of the regional sewer plan (Permit No. A-15-76, Vista). Land Development in the area north'of Batiquitos has been fraught with problems. When the regulatory process established by the Coastal Act of 1972 began, the land in question was without sewer service, was not zoned for uban development, and had not been annexed to the City of Carlsbad. All of these approvals were discretionary, and all were highly controversial. No developer who began the process of seeking approvals could be assured of final approvals, even without seeking permits from the Coastal Commission. In addition to the economic analysis of feasibility prepared by Copley International and Great Western Research, it is noted that "feasible" according to.the Coastal ' Act is defined as follows: Section 30108 - "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. Thus an analysis of feasibility under the Coastal Act must consider environmental, social and technological factors. Based on environmental considerations, continued agricultural operations is clearly more compatible with natural resources than Jim Hagaman, Planning Director January 20, 1981 ' . - Page 14' • conversion to residential uses. Experience with agricultural use in the areas border- ing Agua Iledionda Lagoon has shown that pesticide use on agricultural lands can be much more effectively regulated than pollution resulting from urban development and that agricultural uses serve to limit potential sediment impacts in contrast with the sediment and accelerated runoff problems created by urban development. A marked increase in sedimentation of Batiquitos Lagoon has been documented subsequent to urbanization of portions -of the watershed. Agricultural lands also provide a habitat more environmentally compatible with the surrounding lagoon. In terms of agricultural use itself, the size and location of the parcels do not present any significeuit environmental limitations on- agricultural activities. Social factors require the Commission to balance the need for housing against the regional benefit of continued agricultural operations. Carlsbad is a sparsely populated area of more than 38 square miles characterized by haphazard islands of low density residential development. Financing of urban services needed for additional residential development remains a problem and a moratorium on construction has been in effect for many years. In contrast, the excerpt from the LCP technical document as quoted on page 5 of this staff response indicates that continued agricultural operations result in a net positive impact on the area as a whole. Technological impediments to residential development (such as sewers) have been discussed. Alternatively, continued agricultural use is technologically appropriate because the climate, soils and relatively large parcels make agricultural operations in this area more profitable than in many other areas of San Diego. The ..long-term economic and social impacts favoring agricultural use of high yield lands reinforce the prior discussion of the positive benefits of agricultural use compared with urbanization in terms of the overall public costs (e.g. lagoon sedimentation) in- • herent in the physical impacts of developing the area. Thus, social and economic factors also favor agricultural use. • In summary, the Commission found in the Mello Bill Properties (AB462) LCP that the •-••environmental, social and technological elements of the feasibility test contained / X.' in Section 30108 of the Coastal Act favor continued agricultural, use of the agricultural . lands in the Carlsbad area. The Mello Bill LCP concludes that., .>. u.Vi'O ^ ^ • ' • • . The substantial uncertainties in .planning, market conditions, and • availability of services make it clear that acquisition of land at . prices well above the .capitalization value of agriculture was speculative, and did not reflect reasonable expectations of develop- ment within the reasonable future. The lack of unconditional land sales in the intervening period confirms the speculative nature of land prices; all sales have been purchase options, contingent upon all necessary approvals to allow development. These speculative •land prices, reflecting substantial uncertainties, must be compared to the substantial value of the land in continued agriculture. Within Carlsbad, the combination of a coastal climate and soils give the area an average productivity of 30 tons/acre of tomatoes compared to 8 tons/acre nationwide. The coastal climate also gives the area the ability Lo market tomatoes during other times of the year than most tomato growing regions, giving producers the highest possible price. Jim Hagaman, Planning January 20, 1981 ' • Page Is Similar climate advantages, although not as marked, exist for other- crops. The Coiomission finds that the great advantages of the coastal climate and the Carlsbad soils give the land an inherent productivity far in excess of the $200/acre required for the prime designation under the Williamson Act. The Commission further finds that the speculative price paid by the current landowner does not reflect any such inherent values in the land, but rather reflect hopes for develop- ment in an area wher.e both public policy decisions and market con- ditions involves substantial risk. Weighing these two factors, the Commission cannot -find that the price paid for the land under such speculation outweighs the very real, and substantial value that the land has in continued production. Therefore, the Commission finds that continued agriculture is feasible, 3. Major Policy Modifications, Additiojis^jpr Deletions Suggested by Staff - Staff recognizes the importance of certainty in real estate and the future of renewed •agriculture in this area. In order to assure renewed and continued agricultural production, staff i-s suggesting a planned zone approach that will assure renewed and continued agricultural production. It would allow additional development incentives in exchange for preservation of agricultural opportunities either through a mixed/supplemental use concept or an agricultural subsidy program. In staff's opinion, the approach provides economical, feasible development opportunities consistent xvith the preservation of agriculture. Staff believes that planning designations that enhance economic feasibility by allowing develop- ment of portions of the property may be more .protective of agriculture because they provide a mechanism for permanently protecting agricultural land and for removing the land use uncertainity and resulting speculative value from that agricultural land. Therefore, staff has included within the land use plan two .methods for allowing development that further enhance feasibility if the remaining agricultural land is permanently protected through agricultural conservation easements. These methods enhance the existing feasibility of agriculture by . allowing landowners a return on their speculative hopes as well as on the realistic .•value of the land to remain in agriculture. In staff's view, with these policies, there can be no question of the overall feasibility of permanently protecting agricultural land in the area covered by the Carlsbad LCP. There are several significant differences in the staff proposal for agricultural preservation and the proposal in the PRC Toups draft of the Carlsbad LCP. In summary, the staff proposed planned agricultural zone (PAZ) differs with the Toups proposal in the following ways: r- The word "credits" is removed from the "Agricultural Subsidy Program" .since the word'is a misnomer resulting in confusion. To preserve agricultural land, no credit to property owners is required. However, . to encourage long term preservation of agricultural lands and continued agricultural production, an agricultural subsidy program as outlined in the attached draft of the planned agriculture zone appears very desirable, • . . Jim Hagatnan, Planning Director January 20, 1981 Page 16 - _ • ; - Staff'3 proposal makes it very clear that the agricultural subsidy program is strictly voluntary. If the program is not implemented, all suitable agricultural land remains designated'for agriculture. - The staff suggested agricultural subsidy program involves a two tier approach: 1. The prope'rty owner whose land remains designated for continued agriculture could apply to receive a sub- sidy equivalent to the difference in the agricultural value of the land (i.e., $3,400/acre) and the market value (i.e., assessed value multiplied by 4). 2. An agricultural improvements fund would be established to be used for improvements such as agricultural access roads, irrigation, etc. The funds for the subsidy program would result from development fees on agricultural lands allowed to convert to urban uses which are located along the 1-5 corridor. The development fee would be equivalent to $24,050 per acre or approximately $2,000 per unit if the site is development at 12 dwelling units per acre. As yet, staff has not "determined appropriate densities for lands along 1-5 which are allowed to convert to urban uses. Ultimately, Commission determination of density levels would influence development fee per each dwelling unit. .- planning Commercial/Agricultural Permit; Staff suggests that the - area generally shown as Site I in figure 3 of the PRC Toups draft of the LC?, and commonly referred to as the Ecke/Carltas property, be designated for planned commercial/agricultural development. In effect, staff suggests a mixed use concept similar to that discussed in the Angus McDonald and Associates report titled Enhancement pf^ ., Coastal Agriculture. This approach is also similar to what the ••'-'•->. Commission decided on the Occidental Land, Inc. holding in the Mello Bill Properties (AB462) LCP. Approximately 1/3 of the land along Palomar Airport Road and Paseo del Norte w.ould be allowed to convert to urban use. In conclusion, attached is a draft of the agricultural component for the Carlsbad LCP as prepared by staff. This draft builds upon the agricultural subsidy program outlined in the PRC Toups draft of the LCP. It should be understood that this is only.a draft, that it is realized that further refinements are necessary, and that there may be <•' preferable alternatives that meet the intent of Sections 30241 and 30242 of the Coastal Act. The attached draft of the agricultural component is intended to provide the City, and any other interested parties, guidance or to the direction the Coastal Commission staff is currently taking regarding the complex issue of agricultural preservation. . Jim Hagaman, Planning Dir>ljor January 20, 1901 Page 17 WETLANDS AND'OTHER ENVIRONKENrUALI.Y SENSITIVE HABITAT A. Overview of Policies Recommended and Findings Regarding Environmentally Sensitive Habitat in the Initial Draft of the Carlsbad_LCP_ - ^' Background and Findings - Three significant wetlands: Buena Vista Lagoon, Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoon are located within the Carlsbad LCP area or in close proximity where direct and indirect impacts from upland development within the LCP area can affect the habitat, resource value of the lagoons. The PRC Toups draft of the Carlsbad LCP provides details on each of the lagoons (pgs. 44-48) and indicates that each of the lagoons is unique due to salinity levels, water level, urban encroachments and ownership patterns. Suffice it to say that each lagoon does have significant habitat resource value. This assessment is supported by the California State Department of Fish and Game which has designated the three lagoons as important coastal wetlands and are, thus, given priority protection under Section 30233(c) of the Coastal Act. Additionally, certain terrestrial areas of the Carlsbad coastal zone as noted on page 51 of the draft LCP have very high habitat value. The To'ups draft states the following: These areas are generally confined to steep slopes which are not suitable for fanning. These areas exh.ibit a large number and diversity of both plant and animal species, several of xvhich are threatened because of extensive conversion of coastal mixed chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitats to urban or agricultural uses. Also, well-established and well-maintained vegetation is a major deterrent to soil erosion and attendant difficulties. Maintenance of viable populations of rare plants and animals is directly dependent upon maintenance of appropriate habitats. Significant upland habitats comprise the coastal mized chaparral and the coastal sage scrub occurring primarily in the Evans Point area and the Palomar Airport Hills area. These two areas have been designated as Resource Conservation Areas ;' by the County. This designation is characterized by "significant vegetation, . • stands of trees, and wildlife populations which are to be protected by the use of sensitive resource regulations and/or appropriate land use controls." (pg. 50 of PRC Toups LCP draft). Another resource issue addressed in the draft LCP is soils management. On Pages 42 and 49 of the draft LCP, PRC Toups states the following: ' Soils of "the upland areas are fundamentally important resources and require study and management to prevent both loss through accelerated erosion and degradation of downstream areas through sedimentation. Very large areas of erodible soil exist within the Carlsbad coastal zone... The removal and disturbance of natural vegetation, especially on hill- sides, should be minimized so that the erosion process is not accelerated. Intensive erosion removes rich topsoil and inhibits the regrowth of vegetation. Eroded hillsides are also aesthetically displeasing. Jim Ikigarnan, Planning Director January 20, 1931 ' Pago 18 ' . . . ' Another major effect of erosion is excessive sedimentation in reservoirs down stream and the tranport of associated pollutants,.-such as phosphorus into the receiviny waters. Excessive sedimentation disrupts the natural ecosystem in a number of ways including the destruction of natural habitats for certain species of animals. • 2- Initial Draft Carlsbad LCP Policy Recommendations - The staff response will highlight the policy recommendations prepared by PRC Toups in the initial draft of LCP.as concerns wetlands and other environmentally sensitive habitat. Staff will follow the format of the Toups LCP draft. Policy 3-1; Slopes and Preservation • of Vegetation - In this policy Toups Recom- mends that 'the City of Carlsbad prohibit development on slopes greater than 25% except for minor encroachment for the provision of roadway or-utility access. Property owners with land having slopes in excess of 25% would be allowed a density transfer of one extra unit to be built on the developable portion of the site for each acre of 25% and above slope area. . Policy 3-2, 3-3 and3-4: Buena Vista, Batiquitos and Agua Hedionda Lagoons - Stringent erosion and sediment controls should be implemented to decrease sediment loads into the lagoons according to the PRC Toups draft of the LCP. *^ Policy 3-5: Resource Management Guidelines - It is recommended in the draft -LCP that Resource Management Guidelines similar to the Statewide Interpretive Guidelines for Wetlands and Other Environmentally Sensitive Habitat areas be merged into..tha City's permit review process. Policy 3-6: Site Specific Review - In reviewing site specific projects, appropriate 'provisions of the Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan and strict erosion and sediment controls shall be implemented, . ' - . • .. B. Relevant Coastal Act-Policies - Several policies' of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976 are directed towards preservation and protection of wetlands and 'other environmentally sensitive habitat. These policies are found in Sections 30230, 30231, 30233, 30236, and 30240 of the Act. Essentially all these provisions of the Coastal Act are concerned with 'the preservation and protection of environmentally sen- sitive habitat areas. Environmentally-sensitive habitat areas are defined as "any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities.and developments." (Coastal Act, Section 30107.5) . Enclosed as Attachment - B is a complete set of Chapter 3 Coastal Act policies for purposes of reference.. C. Summary of Previous Coastal Commission Actions on Precedential Permit and LCP Deci. sions - Similar'to the agricultural issue, the Coastal Commission has a long track record in San Diego County of efforts to protect the wetlands and other environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Past precedential permit decisions include either denial or conditional approval of the following permit applications in which habitat protection was a significant issue: Jim Hagaman, Planning January 20, 1981 Page 19 Regional^ Conunigsign State Commission Project Title Location File_Ngv Appeal Mo. Moshtaghi Carmel Valley area of F7453 . No appeal City of San Diego Wm. Lyon Co. Mir a Mesa West area of City of San Diego F9139 No appeal A. K. Enterprises County of San Diego F5286 109-77 Central Breen County of San Diego F5401-E 233-78 So. Cal. County of San Diego F8101 196-79 Standard Pacific Carlsbad F5449 . 144-77 Zanderson Oceanside • ' F7815 90-79 • Additionally, the San Diego Coast Regional Commission has approved numerous projects with conditions regarding erosion control, hydroseeding of all graded areas, and limitations on the time of year for grading (no grading during the rainy season). .The above permit decisions have several things in common with the Carlsbad LCP area, especially the area between Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoons. First, the land involved in each permit included some steep slopes in excess of 25%. Second, the projects were all located within drainage areas which discharged directly or indirectly into one of the north San Diego county lagoons'. Third, the Commission through conditions on the projects approved, required all slope areas (with very minor exceptions) in excess of 25% to be left undisturbed. Fourth, detailed drainage . arid runoff control plans were required, landscaping requirements imposed, and the season for grading restricted. Much of the Carlsbad area consists of steep slopes with highly erocible soils which drain to the lagoons. • . With regards to precedential LCP actions, the La Jolla. Land Use Plan (a segment of the City of San Diego's LCP and the Mello Bill Properties (AB462) LCP for a figment of the City of Carlsbad, are of importance to the draft Carlsbad LCP. In both LCP actions by the Commission, preservation of habitat and steep slopes and eros'i ;. control were central issues. In response to these issues, the Commission required preservation of steep slopes and preparation of detailed drainage and erosion control plans prior to development. Finally, the Coastal Commission has expressed similar habitat protection, steep slope preservation and erosion control concerns in the • issue identification for the San Dieguito LCP and the LCPs for the north city areas of the City of San Diego. " ^•' Staff Suggested Policy Modifications, Additions or Deletions to. the Policies of the Initial Draft Carlsbad LCP - In presenting this portion cf the staff response, - the comments are directed towards elaborating on the PRC Toups findings in the draft Carlsbad LCP and on policy modifications, additions or .deletions as suggested by staff. As "with agriculture, these staff comments do not constitute the staff report to the San Diego Coast Regional Commission; but, they are intended to provide direction as to staff's position. Anyone having concerns regarding this policy gx'oup is urged to submit comments to our office as soon as possible. •"•• Elaboration of the PRC Toups1 Draft Carlsbad LCP Findings - In general staff agrees with the findings in the PRC Toups draft of the LCP and the technical support paper on Environmentally Sensitive Habitats, Water and Marine Resources prepared by Toups. In section "A" of the staff response on Wetlands and Other Environmentally Sensitive Habitat, the Toups findings are summarized. In addition, staff has reviewed other documents related to protection of environmentally sensitive habitat. Jim Hagaman, Planning Director January 20, 1901 Page 20 ' . Staff would recommend the following findings to buttress PRC Toups' draft LCP. The findings are primarily related to drainage and erosion control and aimed at protecting the lagoons. As noted by PRC Toups,to protect the lagoons from increased sedimentation as a result of urbanization, PRC Toups recommended conformance to the draft Carlsbad Master Draimxge Plan and restriction of construction on slopes in excess of 25%. The Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan proposes phased incremental construction of underground sewers along all of the drainage course in the Carlsbad LCP area. The Master Drainage Plan also proposes a new grading ordinance that provides controls over urban runoff, but does not contain any restrictions upon grading season. . . . . As noted in the Hello Bill Properties (AB462) LCP, there are two problems with sedimentation that are of special concern to the Commission because of their effects on the lagoons: increased sedimentation from the urban development process, and increase streambed erosion resulting from paving arid storm drains in urbanized areas. Several publications note the dramatic increase in sediment production caused by urbanization, "Effects of Urbanization of Sedimentation and Floodflows in Colma Basin, California" by J. M. Knott USGS notes an increase in sedimentation to 130 times pre-development rates. Increases of 100-fold are also noted in Evaluation and Control of Soi.l Erosion in _Irbani_za_ing_ Watersheds by Chang-King Chen while even more dramatic increases are related in "Control of Sediments Resulting from Highway.Construction and Land Development" by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971. The Commission has observed these effects throughout the San Diego County, and has 'found that stringent controls over the timing of grading and policies to assure revegetation are necessary to minimize these increases. The policies of the Mello Bill Properties (AB462) LCP provide controls and policies analogous to those required by the Commission in its permit decisions. The second major problem with sedimentation, and the major long term concern, is increased flood flows due to urbanization. The Commission's own consultant, Karen Prestegard, in "Stream and Lagoon Channel of the Los Penasquitos Watershed, California f with an Evaluation of Possible Effects of Proposed Urbanization," reported that increased urban runoff can cause steambed erosion for periods of twenty to thirty ' . years, and is the major cause of increased sediment deposition in San Diego County. The problems of steambed erosion have been dramatic in San Diego, notably at Crest and Lux Canyons, and also within the watershed of the lagoons in the Carlsbad LCP, .and in the dramatic increases in deltas at eastern end of the lagoons. The Commission has found that phased construction of storm drains is"not sufficient to mitigate the effects of urbanization because unlinesi portions of drainageways continue to erode at an even more rapid rate after construction upstream. The Commission has also been concerned that construction of artificial drainageways avoids the benefits of filtration of urban runoff accomplished through natural drainageways. As a result of the concerns expressed in the draft LCP, plus additional concerns and previous actions by the Coastal Commission on permit and LCP matters, staff would suggest the following modifications to the draft LCP policies regarding wetlands and other environmentally sensitive habitat areas. For clarity, policy'numbers correspond to the policy numbers in the PRC Toups draft of the Carlsbad LCP. C - Dr • January 20/ 1981 Page 21 ' }•• Policy 3-1 Slopoa and Preservation of Vegctatiojn - Staff recommends clarifying language. t:hat the Policy on steep slopes applies only to areas not specifically addressed in other policies and that the last sentence of Paragraph 2 and the remaining.paragraphs be deleted. Revised policy would read as follows: Certain areas of the Carlsbad coastal zone have very high habitat value. These areas are generally confined to steep slopes which are not suitable for farming. These areas exhibit a large number and diversity of both plant and animal species, several of which are threatened because of extensive conversion of coastal mixed chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitats to urban or agricultural uses. Also, well- established and well-maintained vegetation is a major deterrent to soil erosion and attendant difficulties. Unless specifically addressed in other policies of this Land Use Plan,, the vegetation on steep slopes shall be maintained so that natural habitats are preserved and soil erosion is minimized. The City of Carlsbad shall prohibit the development of slopes greater than 25% except for minor encroachments for roadways or utilities. A development density credit may be provided for use on flatter lands. Unless specifically provided elsewhere in this Land Use Plan, such credit may allow one extra drelling unit to be built on developable land for ejach acre of 25% and above slope land. 2. Policy 3-2-. Buena Vista Lagoon - Staff would suggest a complete rewrite of this policy as follows: . .:_" Developments located along the first row of lots bordering Buena Vista Lagoon, including the parcel at' the. mouth of Lagoon shall be designated 0-4 dwelling units per acre not medium density as is shown in the Toups map. Such developments shall be required to submit additional topographic, vegetation and soils reports as a part of the permit application. The reports shall be required in addition to the Environmental Impact Reports and shall be prepared by qualified professionals in the respective fields containing sufficient detail to enable the City to locate the boundary of wetland and upland areas and areas of steep slopes. Topographic maps shall be submitted at a scale sufficient to determine the appropriate developable areas but no less than 1"=100' having a contour interval of 5 feet with overlays delineating the proposed project's location. The permit application shall include the computation of the density of develop- ment. Criteria used to identify.wetlands shall be based on the Coastal- Act, Section 30121 and the adopted LCP Mapping Regulations. Developments shall be clustered to preserve open space for habitat protection. Minimum setbacks of 100 feet from the wetlands, in order to provide a buffer between the development and the wetland shall be required. The open space and buffer areas shall be permanently preserved for open space uses through a•requirement of a conservation easement. If the wetland is bordered by steep slopes in excess of 25% which acts as a natural buffer to the wetland, the development need not be setback 100 feet. W>: January 20, 1981 Page 22 - The density of development shall be .based on the net developable •area which exclude the wetlands, and the water areas of Duena Vista Lagoon. A density credit as prescribed for Policy 3-1 is available for steep•slopes. . Storm drain alignments proposed in the Master Drainage Plan to be carried either through or emptying into Buena Vista Lagoon shall be constructed only in compliance with the requirements of Sections 30230, 30231, 30233, and 302313 of the Coastal Act by maintaining or enhancing the functional capacity of the Lagoon acceptable to the Department of Fish and Game. Further Land divisions shall only be allowed on properties bordering the lagoon in compliance with master development plans which implement the policies of this plan. Land divisions shall not be allowed to create new parcels except in compliance with this Plan. 3. Policy 3-31 BatiquitosJLagpon - Staff suggests that an additional paragraph, as follows, be added to policy 3-3. Erosion, drainage and sedimentation of Batiquitos Lagoon were previously addressed in the certified Local Coastal Program for Occidental, Standard Pacific and Rancho La Costa properties also located in the Batiquitos Lagoon watershed. Developments in this LCP located in the watershed of Batiquitos or Agua Hedionda Lagoons will also be required to meet those policies. Much of .the Batiquitos watershed in this LCP is designated for continued agricultural use which does not require coastal permits. When permits are required, however, conditions shall be imposed which assure that development will be carried out in a manner that assures protection of the water quality of the Lagoon. Removal of major vegetation for expansion of agricultural operations requires a coastal permit and such activities shall be conditioned with appropriate measures, including, but not limited to, manner, time, and location of vegetation-removal and types of contour plowing to minimize soil erosion and thus assure protection of Batiquitos Lagoon. Developments shall be clustered to preserve open space for. habitat protection. Minimum setback of 100 feet from the wetlands, in order to provide a buffer between the development and the wetland shall be required. ^* policies 3-5 and 3-6 - Staff would suggest that these policies be deleted as they are incorporated in other policies or the new policy recommended below. •*• New Policy Kelly Point Area - Staff suggests that policies designating the above referenced lands for planned residential/agricultural development similar to those previously approved by the Commission affecting property known as Uancho La Costa be adopted. Enclosed as attachment - C is a draft of such policies. The reasons for this special policy (as with Rancho La' Costa) are related to the sen- sitivity of the area from the standpoint of protecting habitat valuer, in and adjacent to Agua Hedionda Lagoon, the r.tecp slopes on the site and t.he potential for severe erosion, preservation of agriculture and protection of the visual amenities afforded the public. Jim Hagaman, Planning Director January 20, 1901 Page 23 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS A- Overview of Policies Recommen^c^and^indings Regarding Geologic Hazards in the Initial DrafJ: of tlie Carlsbad LCP - 1. Background and Findings - The PRC Toups draft of the Carlsbad LCP found that geologic hazards in the Carlsbad area can be grouped into four basic categories: coastal bluff erosion; landslides, slope instability and soil erosion problems; flood hazards; and, seismic hazards. In general, the data and findings prepared by Toups in the geologic hazards component of the LCP (ref. pgs. 56-63 of the draft LCP) are considered by staff to be adequate. A quick synopsis of the PRC Toups findings reveals that: a. Shoreline erosion is a serious problem due to loss of beach sand which. has been accelerated by urban development such as construction of dams which have sharply reduced sand transport to the beaches, improper design of coastal bluff top structures resulting in drainage problems which erode the bluff, and excessive irrigation which has created groundwater seepage concerns. b. Landslide areas have been mapped and are located -mainly on the north facing slopes along5 creek channels; slope stability problems are generally considered to be caused by human activity such as grading and increased amounts of groundwater (irrigation or wet-year rainfalls) and can occur at any location. c. Flood hazards potential is minimal in the Carlsbad area at this time. .'•,"• • d. There is a "relatively very high" earthquake hazard in the Carlsbad area. 2. Initial Draft Carlsbad LCP Policy Recommendations - The staff response will summarize the policy recommendations prepared by PRC Toups in the initial draft of the LCP as concerns geologic hazards. For greater detail see pages 69-73 of the draft LCP. Staff will follow the format of the Toups LCP draft. Coastal Erosion ' ' . Policy 4-1 : Toups1 recommends establishment of a Coastal Erosion Hazard Overlay Zone (CEH_)_ adjacent to the coast which would prohibit building new structures or re- placing existing ones. The zone would be defined as 200 feet landward of the MHHW (Mean Higher High Water) or 100 feet landward of the top of a coastal bluff, whichever is greater. • • .. Policy 4-2 ; A financial program to compensate property owners for losses suffered by both erosion and. down zoning should be initiated for the CEH overlay zone.- Po 1 i c i c s 4 - 3 a n d 4 _- 4 ; Toups1 suggests that the City pursue mitigation measures which address the cause of beach sand erosion. Pcxlicy 4j~j>_: This policy limits construction of shoreline protective devices to those necessary to serve coastal dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion. . . ^"K. • Jim Hagaman, Planning Dir\^;or January '20, 1981 Page 24 . . Policies 4-6 and 4--7: These policies are aimed at insuring proper drainage on bluff top .lots and what development may occur on the. bluff face. Landslides and Slope Instability Policy 4-8; Detailed soils investigations shall be required for all subdivision to identify with specificity areas of landslide and instability. Accelerated Soil Erosion Policies 4-9 through 4-14; This series of policies developed by Toups» in the draft LCP involve methods to control runoff and erosion. In summary form the policy requirements include; - compliance with the Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan; ~ Slopes in excess of 25% shall be left undistrubed; - onsite soil erosion control practices such as landscaping, mulching, special grading procedures and diversion structures shall be used; - Sediment control devices shall be used'to prevent sediment from leaving the site; - provide for increased volumes of storm runoff in downstream water courses; Flood Hazard Policies 4-15 through 4-20; In this group of policies contained in the draft LCP the means to control flood hazard potential are recommended. These means include: - storm drainage facilities should be improved in accordance with the Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan; - in order to reduce sediment in downstream drainage facilities, the ' City's grading ordinance should be amended to greatly reduce the extent of onsite and offsite erosion; - drainage improvement districts should be formed to implement the Master Drainage Plan; - no permanent structures or filling shall be permitted in floodplains; - adopt the provisions of the Master Drainage Plan to ameliorate flood and drainage hazards within the Carlsbad area. B. Relevant Coastal Policies - Basically, two policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976 are most relevant to the geologic hazards issues. These policies are found in Sections 30253 and 30250(b) of the Act and are noted below: 30253 New development shall: (1) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood and fire hazard. (2) Assure stability'and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. 30250(b) Where feasible, new hazardous industrial development shall be located Cor . January 20, 1981 Page 25 . away from existing development areas. C. Summary of Previous Coastal^ Corrirnj^ssion Actions on precedential Permit cind _LCP Decisions - The Coastal Commission has reviewed a number of permit applications in San Diego County where various geologic issues were analyzed'. Past precedential permit decisions include denial or approval with conditions of the following permit applications: Regional Commission State Commission Proj e c t Titie Location File No. Appeal No. Eller, et al La Jolla (seawall) P7616 '.No Appeal Erskine Johns Sorrento Valley area of San Diego • F5179 . 85-77 Wm. Lyon Co. Mira Mesa West . area of San Diego F9139 No Appeal Self Realization • . Fellowship Encinitas (seawall) F9172 No Appeal Standard Pacific Carlsbad F5449 144-77 Kemp, et al Oceanside (seawall) F7654 . No Appeal Expansion of ' ' . San Onofre -Power Plant San Onofre F0670 . 183.73 The Coastal Coirj-dssion has also reviewed numerous seawall projects for individual ocean front lots and projects on sloping lands where drainage and erosion control issues were addressed. If the projects involved seawall construction the Coastal Commission consistently required that the seawalls be constructed- as far landward as possible, that public lateral access easements be dedicated, that detailed geologic reports be prepared and that a waiver of public liability be recorded. Where projects in- volved subdivisions on sloping lands with erodible soil, the Coastal Commission re- quired mitigation in the form of preserving slopes in excess of 25%, limiting the season of grading to the non rainy months, immediate landscaping of graded areas, and sediment traps or other erosion control mechanisms where necessary as determined by a detailed drainage and erosion control study prepared by a licensed engineer qualified in hydrology and hydraulics. With regard to precedential LCP actions, the Oceanside Land Use Plan (LUP) and the Mello Bill Properties (AB462) LCP are particularly relevant. The Oceanside LUP addresses in considerable detail the shoreline erosion issue which is critical in that City; and, is taking on increasing importance in the Carlsbad area. The Mello Bill Properties (AB462) LCP addresses the grading and erosion control issue in detail as related to the Rancho La Costa property. D. Staff Suggested Policy Modifications, Additions or Deletions to the Policies of the InitialDraft Carlsbad LCP - The following staff comments are directed towards the policies of the Toups' report concerning geologic hazards. In general, staff considers the findings in the PRC Toupa' draft of the LCP complete, and that no further significant elaboration of findings is needed. Again, the following suggestions do not constitute the staff report to the San ipiego Coast Regional Commission; but, they are intended to provide information as to the direction staff is proceeding. Comments are encouraged. Staff's suggested modifications follow the format of the Toups1 report. cJim Hagaman, Planning Director January 20, 1981 ' ' Page 26 Coasta1 Ero sion Policy 4-1: Staff would recommend a complete rewrite of this policy. Information aval fable to staff indicates that FEMA has no plans to offer insurance in shoreline erosion areas. Therefore, implementation of the CEH overlay zone as recommended by Toups' is not likely. Additionally, no special policies are proposed regulating development on the remaining vacant parcels within the proposed zone other than those included in the Master Drainage Plan erosion control ordinance. Until insurance is available, staff would recommend against the CEH overlay zone approach and would suggest the following: . For all new developments and additions to existing development along the shoreline, a site specific geologic investigation similar to that required . by the Commission's Geologic Stability Bluff top Guidelines (ref. attachment D) shall be required and must demonstrate bluff stability for 75 years or the expected economic lifetime of the structure, whichever is greater. Ad- ditionally, development shall incorporate sub-drainage systems to remove groundwater from bluffs and shall use drought-resistant vegetation in land- .; scaping plans (as v/ell as adhering to the standards of the erosion control ordinance in the MDP). A waiver of liability shall be required when assurance of stability cannot be given. Policy 4-2: In view of the revisions suggested for policy 4-1, staff would recommend ' deletion of policy 4-2, Policy 4-3; Staff would recommend that a sentence be added to this policy stating - "The mitigation measures should be adopted, and implemented where feasible, by the City of Carlsbad. Policy 4-5; The following language is recommended by staff to be added co policy 4-5 of the draft LCP. • - As a condition of approval, such projects may be required to replenish the beach with imported sand. Furthermore, dredging projects may be required to dispose sand on the beaches if the dredged material is suitable for sand replenishment. Provision for maintenance of seawalls shall be included as a condition of development. Policy 4-6; The following language is suggested by staff to be'added to policy 4-6 of the draft LCP: The policies in the model erosion control ordinance will contribute greatly to this end; however, as mentioned in the comments to policy 4-1 above, subdrainage systems should be required where necessary to increase stability, and drought-resistant vegetation shall be used in landscaping plans to minimize irrigation and addition of water. Policy 4-7; Staff would recommend that the phrase "engineered structures" be eliminated from this policy. .Jim Hagaman, Plcinning Director January 20, 1981 Page 27 ' Lands 1 i dor, Policy 4-8: Staff would recommend that the Toups1 policy bo modified as follows: Currently soils investigations are only required for subdivisions. Any development proposed for areas prone to landslides shall have a geologic investigation indentifying appropriate measures to be taken. The geologic report shall be in substantial compliance with the Commission's adopted Geologic Stability Bluff top Development guide- lines.. , . Accelerated Soil Erosion Policy 4-9 : Staff would recommend that the PRC Toups policy be replaced with a policy similar to that contained in the Mello Bill Properties (AB462) LCP. The policy would then state : . a. For areas west of the existing Paseo del Norte, west of 1-5 and along El Camino Real immediately upstream of existing storm drains , the f ollowing policy applies : A site specific report prepared by a qualified professional shall be required to provide the necessary mitigation for increase runoff and sedimentation. The report shall be subject to the requirements of the Model Erosion Control Ordinance contained in the Appendix to the June 1980 Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan and the additional requirements contained herein. Such mitigation shall become an element of the project and shall be installed prior to the initial ' ' ' grading. At a minimum, such mitigation shall require construction of all improvements shown in the Master Drainage Plan between the project site and the lagoon (including the debris basin) , restriction of grading activities to the months of April through October, re- vegetation of graded areas immediately after grading, and a mechanism for permanent maintenance if the City declines to accept the responsibility. Construction of drainage improvements may be through formation of an assessment district or through any similar arrangement that allots cost among the various landowners in an equitable manner. b. For the remaining areas within the LCP that contain slope areas in excess of 25%, the requirements outlined in attachment "C" shall app3.y. Policy 4-10; " With revisions to policy 4-9 suggested above, the Toups' proposed policy 4-10 can be eliminated. Policies 4 -11 thro ugh 4-13; No changes suggested by staff Policy 4-14 : With revisions to policy 4-9 suggested above, the Toups' proposed policy 4-14 can be eliminated. Policy 4-15; Staff suggests that the phrase "incorporating the changes recommended in the I,CP" be added to this draft policy. /""v Jim Hagaman, Planning DireWfor January 20, 1901 Page 28 . • Policy 4-16; Staff would recommend thai, this policy be modified to require the City's grading ordinance to be amended. Policy 4-17; It is -recommended by staff that the v/ord should be changed to sh_all_ in the. first sentence of the Temps' draft. Also, an additional sentence is suggested which would Upstream areas in the coastal zone shall not bo permitted to develop prior to installation of the storm drain facilities downstream, in order to assure protection of coastal resources. Pol icy 4-1 8 ; No changes suggested by staff. Policy 4-19: Staff would recommend that this policy be clarified as referring to the "100 year floodplain areas". . Policy 4-20: No changes suggested by staff. Policy 4-21; The LCP identifies areas prone to liquefaction (map if 12) , stating that "Those portions of the study area. . .underlain by unconsolidated, saturated sediments could experience damage due to even a minor earthquake" .(p. G6, LCP), Yet, no policies are suggested to approach this. Staff would recommend that the following language be added to policy 4-21: ^ . Most development in liquefaction-prone areas should have site-specific investigations done addressing the liquefaction problem and suggesting mitigation measures. New residential development in excess of four units, commercial, induatrial, and public facilities shall have site-specific geologic investigations completed in known potential liquefaction areas. Jim Hugaman, Planning Director January 20, 1981 Page 2g AF F 0 RD AB LE HOU S T KG A. Overview of Policies Recommended and Findings Jtec^ardj.ng_ Affordable Housing in the~InTtial Draft of the Car Is tod' LCP - ^- Background an d Fi ndi ng s - The PRC Toups draft of the LCP contains detailed. information and findings regarding low and moderate (affordable) housing opportunities in the Carlsbad area, and in particular in the coastal, zone (ref. pgs. 131-137 of the draft LCP) . Additionally, Toups prepared a technical support paper on housing that contains supplemental data. In general, staff considers the inforamtion and 'findings on affordable housing in the draft LCP adequate. One correction should be made. On pages 134 and 135 of the draft LCP, reference is made to the estimated housing needs for lov; and moderate income households. However, the data provided is based on a document prepared by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG, formerly CPO) titled "Lower Income Household Needs" in the San Diego region. This document does not take into account moderate income household needs as verified by a SANDAG staff member. In summary, the PRC Toups' draft of the LCP found the following regarding affordable hoxising in the Carlsbad coastal zone: 1. A majority of the existing low and moderate income housing stock in the City (approximately 1,700 units) is located within the coastal • zone in the older northern coastal strip. 2. About 31% of the City's housing stock' is multifamily, but an estimated 43% of the housing stock within -the coastal zone is multifamily. 3. A little over half of the City's households (52.9%) are renters (an increase from 47.1% in 1970) 4. Census tract 180 along the coast is the most densely developed area of the City, with nearly 87% of all households in CT180 being- renters. This comprises the City's largest stock of older, rental housing. 5. If current trends continue, the existing supply of low and moderate income housing stock may be lost through escalating prices and rents, private redevelopment, conversion to other uses and demolition. 6. The south coastal area contains about half of the City's mobile home stock. Many of these units constitute an important source of moderate income housing. 7. Approximately 90 units within the coastal zone providing low and moderate income housing opportunities are in need of rehabilitation.- •8. Providing new affordable housing was a primary goal of the City Housing Element revision. Jim Hagaman, Planning Director January 20, 1981 Pago 30 - . • 9. There is currently a need for £345 lower income household units in the coatal zone. For the period 1980-1985 it is projected that there will be an additional demand for 290 lower income units in the coastal zone. 10. The feasibility of providing future affordable housing in the coastal zone will depend largely on the availability of higher density combined with other incentives and financing techniques. 11. Current cutbacks in federal funding and possible state cutbacks may mean an even further decrease in outside assistance for cities to provide affordable housing. • 2. Initial Draft Carlsbad LCP Policy Recommendations - The staff response will highlight the policy recommendations prepared by PRC Toups in the draft LCP as concerns affordable housing. Staff will follow the format of the PRC Toups draft. Policy 9-1; Funds to finance rehabilitation of the 90 units in the coastal zone needing rehabilitation shall be sought. Policy 9-2; Demolition of existing units which provide affordable housing opportunities shall generally not be permitted. VJhere' demolition is permitted, affordable re- placement housing shall be provided on a one for one basis. Policy 9-3; Condominium conversions shall not be permitted in the coastal zone when: . . • - the conversion would displace predominantly low/moderate.income !sbuseholds, . or, - the vacancy factor for the City is less than five percent of the total available rental stock . Conversions may be permitted if neither of the above conditions pertains art_d and units meet the city's conversion standards ordinance and 15 percent of units are reserved for low/moderate income housing. Policy 9-4; Mobile home parks in the coastal zone shall be permanently zoned for such use. Policy 9-5: Available federal and state programs shall be used to assist in meeting the City's affordable housing needs. Policy 9-6; Use of the Housing Development Fund established in the City's Housing Element is encouraged. Policy 9-7; Suitable sites in Coastal Zone Master Plans sluxll be identified for higher density zoning (20+ units per acre), low/moderate income housing, and mobile home/modular housing. Policy9-0; Local concessions and incentives shall.be given to developers to assist them in producing affordable housing. Tho;:e may include, but not be limited to the following: ' • Jim Hagaman, Planning Director . January 20, 1981 Page 31 - Density bonus of up to 20 percent - Reduction by as much as half in off-street parking requirements - Waiving all or portions of facilities, services and valuation fees - Preparation of Citywide Master Environmental Impact Report to reduce time and detail of reviews. Policy 9-9; Developers of five or more units in the coastal zone shall meet 15 percent mandatory inclusion of low/moderate income units, where feasible. (Inclusion in Housing Element is voluntary.) Mandatory' inclusion shall require the City to provide the density bonus listed in 9-8. One or more of the other concessions listed in 9.8 may also be applied. B. Relevant Coastal Act Policies - Section 30213 of the'Coastal Act is that Chapter 3 policy of the Act that deals with low and moderate income housing. It states: Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities and housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income shall be protected, encouraged, and where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred. 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 , the requirements of subdivision (c) of Section 65302 of the Government Code. C. Summary of Previous Coastal CommissionActions on PrecedentialPermit and LCP Decisions - The issue of protecting existing affordable housing and providing new affordable housing has been a complex issue which the Coastal Commission has dealt with on many occassions over the last several years. Past precedential permit decisions involving the affordable housing issue have included the following projects; Project Title . Location Regional Commission State Commission File No. Appeal No. Caster Pacific Beach area of City of San Diego F8656 No Appeal Gregory La Jolla area of . City of San Diego F8109 No Appeal Wilson/Mayberry Ocean Beach area of City of San Diego F8712 No Appeal Sheldon ' .. Del Mar Heights area of City of San Diego F8086 No Appeal Win. Lyon Co. Mira Mesa West area of City of San Diego . F9139 . No Appeal Shapell Ind. Encinitas F6604 73-78 Mozart Partners Cardiff . F9374 291-80 Degen Leucadia F9142 27G-80 Zandcrson Oceanside F7815 90-79 The Caster project involved demolition of existing,, sound affordable housing. Tha Coiistal Conunission required relocation of the units within the coar.tal r.onc in the same general area, and that they be rented at affordable rates. The Gregory, Wil:.xm/Mayberry and Sheldon projects involved condominium conversions in which the Coastal. Commission Jim Hagoman, Planning Director January 20, 1981 . • Page 32 ' ' ' required that approximately one-third of the units be set aside for low and moderate income housing. In the Lyon, Shapell, Mozart, Degen and Zanderson projects, new affordable housing was required (between 15% and 25% of the units depending on environmental constraints) in the subdivision approval. Concerning precedential LCP actions, the Oceanside Land Use Plan LUP and the Mello Bill Properties (AB462) LCP addressed the affordable housing issue. In both of these LCPs affordable housing was required in new residential development. In the Oceanside LUP, replacement housing and condominium conversion policies were also approved. The Mello Bill Properties.(AB462) LCP was comprised only of vacant land so there was no need to'address replacement or conversion issues. ^• Staff Suggested Policy Modifications., Additions or Deletions to the Policies of the Initial Draft Carlsbad LCP - This portion of the staff response is directed towards what, in the staff's opinion, would be necessary .changes in the draft LCP policy recommendations in order for .the Carlsbad LCP to be consistent with prior 'LCP and precedential permit decisions of the Coastal Commission. Once again, these comments do not constitute the staff report to the San Diego Coast Regional Commission, and the staff position regarding resolution of the difficult issue of affordable housing remains flexible. Public response to the PRC Toups draft of the LCP and •the staff comments is solicited. Before stating staff's suggested changes in the draft policies on affordable housing, as previously mentioned, one correction should be made in the Toups' findings. It should be made clear that the estimated housi-ng needs for low and moderate income households, referenced on pages 134 and 135 of the draft LCPf actually does not take into account moderate income household housing needs, .The data used in the draft LCP is based on a document prepared by SANDAG titled "Lower Income Household Needs" •in the San Diego Region, and according to SANDAG, the document contains no estimate of moderate income household needs. ,VGenerally, staff has few concerns with the policies recommended in the draft LCP . •regarding affordable housing. However, because moderate income household housing needs were not addressed, as noted above, staff would suggest that in Policies 9-3 and 9-9 (ref. pgs. 138-139) that the reference to 15% be changed to 25%. This would result in taking into account moderate income households as required by Section 30213 of the Coastal Act. Additionally, staff would suggest that Policy 9-9 may be to restrictive and that perhaps the minimum size of a project in which mandatory inclusion of low/moderate income units would be required should be raised. . ; "" 1 • , w • • .. ' • CITY OF CARLSBAD LCP " •' ACRICU1 AURA!. COM/X)NTJMT I« A^J^illHSL^liil^l^SL^ili ' AT'T^ A. Policy 1 - Ba.-"JLC^^Ag^i-j^ciiltxira 1 Po 11 cv The basic agricultural policy for the portions of the City of Carlsbad vithin -tiie coastal zone is t6 protect and promote agricultural use on lands suitable for agriculture. The City finds that agriculture in the coastal zone, because of favorable circumstances of physiography, climate and water availability, is highly productive and is an essential element of the local economy. Further, the City finds that large lot or agricultural zoning is not adequate by itself to proir.ote agriculture, and that creative incentives to encourage agricultural use are desirable:. To prc.vj.do noccssaiy incentives and to accomplish the. goal of protecting and promoting agriculture in the coastal zone, and to conform with Sections 30241 and 30242 of the California iCoastal Act of 1976, the City of Carlsbad shall institute an Agricultural Subsidy Program. . • ,' • i' ' iB. Policy 2 - Sumraary of_Agricultxira.! The City of'Carlsbad shall adopt, a Planned Agricultural Zone (FA2.) as a part of the Agricultural Subsidy Program. The PAZ shall apply to the agricultural lands in the coastal zone as designated on the local coastal ' program, land us.e map. Lands in the PAZ are those "where a combination of factors such as agricultural soils, climate, water evailabjlity, land use, lot size, the existence of an. agricultural preserve, and tne absence of Significant natural features or archaeological resources make it desirable that the City take positive actions to protect.and promote agriculture as '. the principle per.TU.tted use within the Planned Agricultural Zone. C. ' Policy 3 •-. Agricultural Lands • '" "~ ~ " """•—*""'- • >--~^--* • I ( All the lands designated on the Map $ are included within the PAZ, and are therefore agricultural lands. Such lands are located on . parcels_which can be characterized as agi~icultural lands. The parcels are stibject to Section 30241 of the Coastal Act because: a) they are agricultural lands as defined in Section 51201 (c) of the . ' Government Code; b) they have spils rated Class I through Class IV in the U.S. . . Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Sex-vice J./mti Use 1 Capability Classification; • ' c) they have a history of crop production, as evidenced by an orchard, greenhouse or plantings of seasonal crops at some tiruo in the past, i D. Policy A - l^fjjll Agricultural land'! arc further defined as one of thy following, dc!>ignal:£.'d on the Lnr.d Uso Map; -.. ° ^au^--> cl';:it.;-.nutccl for . , continual ugri-CulLuraJ. pjoJuct (cm, shown on I;,\!,l.bJ.t __________ which an> el.i^iblo to receive agricultural f,-.il.i.siill.o.'i ti:; i:;:i'jiif:ralcd j.u this r.Uu:. 2. Dcyolopab 1 e Agrj_cu 1. tni.ra 1 j-an ds - Those agricultural lands vhich arc eligible lor conversion to urban uses as specified in Policy 9 of this Plan. Conversion shall be subject to the requirements .. of this Plan, which include the payment of an agricultural conversion development fee.to be used to subsidize continued . • . agricultural operations on the subsidized agricultural lands. E'. Policy 5 - Description of Afj'icijltpral Subsidy Program In order to protect and promote the long terra viability of agricul- ture in this area of small fragmented ownerships, an agricultural subsidy program .shall be established. The program is voluntary and encourages agriculture by subsidizing agricultural use of the .subsidized agricultural loruijj. The taibyldlzed agricultural Lands arc in fragmented ownerships varying from approximately 1 to 20 acres, but are. located in largely un- developed contiguous areas. There are no improved roads or public services, such as severs, serving the subsidized agricultural lands. In contrast, the developable agricultural, lands are located adjacent to I~5 and may contain public service improvements. The agricultural subsidy program would allow additional development incentives to the developable agricultural lands if such lands participate in the program. If landowners of developable agricultural lands elect to participate in. the agricultural subsidy program, they vn.ll be -required to pay an agricul- ' tural development fee. The development fee will be used in 2 ways: an agricultural cash subsidy payable to individual subsidized, agricultural funr.cwners us yhown In tho Tables 3-6, 3-7 and 3-8; and for an agricultural ijnprovenents fund to be used for agricultural access roads, irrigation improvements or other capital outlays intended to promote and assure long '. term agricultural operations on the subsidized agricultural lands. The agricultural development fee will be-computed based on the gros^S number of acres of the developable agricultural land to be converted, as specified in Policy 9. Scopes over 25% will not be assessed for an agricultural .development fee. If any landowner believes that the acreage figure spe- cified in Policy 9 includes slopes over 25%, he shall submit documentation prior to certification of this LCP. After certification, the acreage figures of Policy 9 a.re final. The City, County, Coastal Conservancy, or other appropriate agency as approved by the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission shall be responsible for the administration of the program. • F. Policy 6 - P e mil 1t e d IT ge_s _ on Aftr i ci 111 u ml I .an d s In the absence of participation in the agricultural subsidy program, the permitted uses of the Planned Agriculture Zone are £is adopted by the Commission on September 30, 19SO, when it certified the Zoning Ordinances for the City of Carlsbad. The permitted uses arc defined in, Part III of that Zone as follows: ' A. Class I through Class IV Agricultural Land. (1) Cattle, sheep, goats and i-:v;irre production, provided that the number of any one or combination of said aniuvil.'; shall not exceed one animal per lull acre of lot area. • Said nnii;p.ls .shall not be located within fifty feet of any habitable structure), nor shall they bo located x/Lthin throo hundred feet of a habitable structure on an adjoining parcel zoned for residential uses, nor shall they be located within one hundred feet of a parcel zoned for residential uses when, a habitable structure is not Involved. In any event, the distance from tho parcel zoned for residential uses stall be the greater of- the distances so indicated; (2) Crop production; ' (3) Floriculture; . (4) Greenhouses less than two thousand square feet, provided all requirements for yard set backs and height arc met; (5) Horses, private use; • (6) Nursery crop production; (7) Poultry, rabbits, chinchillas, hamsters and other small animals, provided not more than twenty-five of any one or combination thereof shall be kept within fifty feet of any habitable structure, nor shall they be located within three hundred feet of a habitable structure on an •adjoining parcel zoned for residential uses, nor shall they be located vitliin one hundred feet of a parcel zoned for residential uses when a . habitable structure is not involved. In any event, the distance from the parcel zoned for residential uses shall be the greater of the distances so indicated; (8) Roadside stands for display and sale of products produced on the same premises, provided that the floor area shall not exceed t>,*o hundred square feet and is located not nearer than twenty feet to any street or highway; , • • ' (9) Tree farms; • • ' . • '• (10) Truck farms; • •_. .„•.. ^ -....- . (11) Wildlife refuges- and- game preserves; .„..-. . • V - •.-.". (12) Other uses or enterprises similar to the above customarily carried on in the field of general agriculture including' accessory uses such aji silos, tank houses, shops, barns, offices, coops, stables, corrals, and similar uses required for the conduct of the enumerated uses above; (13) One single family dwelling per existing legal building parcel. ' ' B. Class V through VTII Agricultural Land. . (1) All of the permitted uses listed above; (2) Commercial recreation; • ' .• (3) Hay and Food Stores; (A) K'urscrlcs, retail and v/hclesule; • (5) Packing sheds, processing plans and conmorcial outlets for farm crops, provided that such activities are not located within 100 feet . of any lot line; (6) Greenhouses greater than two thousand square feet, provided all requirements for yard setbacks and height as specified in Ch. 21.07 ore met. ' • G, Policy 7 - Cgj\dj^onal__Ug_es_and Land Division^ of^/vgricultural I^ancls In the absence of • participation in the agricultural., subsidy program the following conditional uses shall be allowed, subject to a Planned Agriculture Permit. ' ; • • i 1. Developable Agricultural Lands. Residential development shall be assigned a maximum density of 1 unit por 10 acres. However, to conserve these potentially productive agricultural lands, all such permitted development shall be located adjacent to existing roads, and all developed lots shall be clustered on one portion of the total parcel. Further, each permitted residential unit nsay be developed on a separate subdivided lot, but each such lot shall not exceed one acre in size; a.s an alternative, all development way be on. a single lot at an overall density not less than 1 unit per acre. The remainder of the developable agricultural land shall be preserved for agricultural use through recordation. of an open space conservation easement and a required agricultural management plan as a condition of approval of residential construction. Land divisions shall not be permitted below a minimum parcel size . vhich vould provide a reasonable opportunity for viable independent farms, and in no case shall divisions be permitted creating agriculturej. parcels less than 20 acres in size for field crops and 10 acres in size for green- house operations. To inform potential purchasers of such divided lands of the planned long-term agricultural use of the property, divisions shall tie permitted only upon recordation of an offer to dedicate an agricultural conservation easement permanently limiting use of the remainder of the property not developed for residential use to agriculture. The instrument shall include a long-term Tsvanagement plan for the continued preservation of agricultural portions of the property. 2. Stibsidized Agricultural lands Due to the lack of roads, public services, fragmented ownerships, and adverse effects on adjacent agricultural land;;, no additional residential development except a.s permitted by Policy G shall be allowed. Land divisions shall be permitted only upon a finding that such division promotes continued agricultural operations. To accomplish this end, land divisions shall not be permitted below a minimum parcel sixe which vould provide a reasonable opportunity' for viable indimpendent farms, and in no case shall divisions bo permitted creating parcels less than 20 acre;.; in size for field crops and 10 acres in size for grecnhou.se operations. To inform potential purchasers of such divided lands of the pL:mned long-term agricultural use of the properly, div.i :;ions shall be permitted only \tpon recorelation of on ugrlcu] tural conservation cur.cr.C'iU jn.-ntvincal.ly lijiiLl.lng u;;o of the pnint/rty to agriculture, Tho instrument. .'.liall include a long-term uvmageniont plan for the continued preservation of agriculture and u covenant not to J.urthor divide. H. Policy S - Additional I)evolop;ncnt Applicable! to Occidental Occidental is a. landowner of approximately 157 acrc.<j of developable agricultural .land. A.I/Deal Coastal Program cippllcablo to Occidental was certified September 30, 1980. Occidental has 3 development options if it elected to develop aecording to a master plan, as specified in the certified Local Coastal Prograra. Option VI. C. included participation in the agri- cultural subsidy program. If Occidental elects Option C, it may develop according to the land uses specified below. If Occidental elects not to participate in the agricultural subsidy prgrarn, Options VI. A & B of the Local Coastal Program certified September 30, 1980 s are available to it. I. Policy 9 ~ Add^.tiorKal_^ cultrural^ I ni ids iipon P>xyii!f-nt:__or ^ any) ropria te secu r i ty pf_ an agricultural dcvelopr-ient. foe. 1. Oj^cJLclcntal — 157 acres. The property ov/ners shall develop according to Master Plan requirements as specified iii the certified PAZ ^dth tho folio-wing changes to Option VT.C.: • A- Commer c j.a 1_ Uses . The allowable commercial uses are as specified in Section VLB (2) of the PAZ in the Zoning Ordinances certified and adopted on September 30, 1980. * * "• Off ei: to Dedicate Or>en_gpaoe^. Approximately 82 acres located North of Poinscttia Line on botli sides of 1-5 arc subject to a recorded offer. Upon both approval of a caster plan and after payment of the agricultural development fee, the Commission will rescind the offer to dedicate o.pplicublo to this property. Tho area ±n designated ay appro- priate for residential construction at a ma>dLmura density of 12 units/acre. '2. Existing legal parcel of 53 acres located ea.st of Paseo Del Norte. The maximum density of residential uses shall be 12 dwelling units per acre. 3. As a condition of approval of a Master Plan, the applicants shall provide affordable housing opportunities to the full range of lov- and moderate— income persons according to the requ-iraracnts of Section 9 of the Coastal Resource Overlay Zone v/hich vas certified by' the Commission vhen it adopted the Zoning Ordinances for the City of Carlsbad on September 30, 1980. . lands> regardless of ovnorship, vhicli are seeking to.be developed with residential or commercial uses as specified in (A) or (B) above sliall be deemed developable agricultural laud s"ubject to the payment of an agricultural development fee. Note: For purposes of the steiff response, a density of. 12 units/acre as used. Actual determination of appropriate densities ay not yet been decided and staff has no recommendation at this time. w 2- L*Lr:?lj:J£L££™£- (Assessor Parcels 214-150-16, -17, -IB) The parcels .shall bo required to develop according to the master plan requirements as described in Ch. 2.1. 38. 06 of the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance and shall also include the following additional information and develop- ment standards specified below. Upon approval of a master plan and payment or other appropriate security of the agricultural development fee, the following additional development shall bo allowed on developable agricul- tural lands: Maxj.Tm.gti Density. The iroxiimm density of development shall be 12 units per acre. Zone. The underlying zone shall be P-C .Ch. 21.38 of the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinances and all' the requirements of the Coastal Resource Overlay Zone shall apply. Some of these requirements are highlighted below. E ros lorii r S ed im on . t at ion A J)r^inafxe . . The requirements of tho Coastal Resource Overlay Zone or Policy 4-9 us applicable shall apply. Buffer. Adjacent agricultural xises, if any, shall be buffered by a sturdy fence capable of attenuating noise and dust impacts, generally to •be a concrete block vail, a minimum of 6 feet in height. Housing. As a condition of approval of a Master Plan the applicants shall provide affordable housing opportunities to the full range of low and incdcrate income persons according to tho requirements of Section 9 of the Coastal Resource Overlay Zone. • "" " 3. Shell Oil (Assessor Parcel 211-040-13) - 35. 41 acres . . Bankers Life and Casualty (214-020-060) -26.45 acres t Maxir:Turn _Den.sity and Zone . The underlying zone shall be KD-M with a maxiirjxn density of 12 welling units per acre. The requirements of the • Coastal Resource Overlay Zone, unless modified herein shall also apply. These specifically include erosion, sedimentation, drainage, housing and buffer requirements if located adjacent to existing agricultural lands. J. Policy 10 ~ Role and I>aties of Adrninisterin^^ Agency Within three months of certification, the administering' agency in consultation with tho subsidized landowners shall prepare a cash subsidy payment schedule. The schedule shall be submitted to the Executive • Director of the Commission for review and approval consistent with the certified Ixind Use Plan. The schedule shall assume within the first five years that each subsidized landowner desires to participate in the Program • and shall allocate cash subsidy payments as each development fee is paid or appropriately secured, because 1/3 of the Total Program is to provide agricultural improvements: Tlie allocation schedule shall reserve one- third of each paid development: fee for the agricultural, improvement fund. A reasonable portion at the discretion of the administering agency may also be reserved for the costs of administration. Costs of administration x.-ill bo hl}',her in the beginning of tho program, so that tho portion renewed should account for thir; and gradually taper' off i >..«.» the p retrain continue.-!. . Q Withi.n ono year of certification, the administering agency, in consul- tation with the subsidized landowner.'!, shall prepare a report detailing the appropriate UHC.'J of tho nj'7'l.cultural improvement fund. The report uhall bo submitted to the Executive Director of the Commission .for review and approval consistent with the certified Lund Use Plan, along with a schedule indicating when the uses are to be funded. K. Policy. 11 ~ Payment and^ompirtation of Afiriculjrural Poyolopuicnt Fee 'Prior to the issuance of a development permit allowing the additional development as specified in Policy 9, the applicants shall pay or provide appropriate security for the payment of the agricultural development fee to the administering agency. The development fee shall be $24,050 perjacre, which is the total number of developable acres specified In Policy 9 divided by the sum of the agricultural cash subsidy specified in Policy 1.2 and the agricultural improvements fund specified in Policy 33.. L. Policy 12 - Agrlcu^fiira^^Cnsh^Siibgid^ Subsidized agricultural landowners who elect to participate in the Program shall be entitled to a cash subsidy totalling $4,352, 647 as specified in. Tables 3-6 through 3-8. The subsidy shall be paid in proportion to the payment of each separate development fee according to the payment schedule as specified under Policy 10, In order to assure that long-term agricultural use continues on the subsidized agricultural land, the landowner, shall record an irrevocable offer to dedicate a permanent open space easement for agricultural purposes over contiguous agricultural lands under single owner- ship of a form and content approved by the administering agency in consul- tation with the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission. The offer shall have a terra of 21 years, shall run in favor of the State of California, shall be prior to all other encumbrances except tax liens, and shall run with the land, binding all successors in interest. The offer tc1*dedicate an easement shall prohibit future land divisions, limit the use of the parcels to agricultural uses as defined in the certified Land Use Plan, include a management plan, and may include a terra which allows cne farm- owner-occupied residence on legal parcels in existence as of the date of the offer. The irrevocable offer shall be recorded prior to payment of any agricultural cash subsidy. M. Policy 13 - AffricuItiiral Improvements Fund An agricultural improvements fund of $3,147,353 shall be established to be used for long term improvements such as area vide irrigation equip- • merit, water conservation devices, loan funds, cooperative marketing, or roads to promote and assure agriculture on the subsidized lands. The funds shall be invested and otherwise administered by the administering agency ' in consultation with the subsidized landowners. -- tural Areas Policy 1 - Development Standards Applicable to the approximately 500 acre Area • • : shown generally as Site I, in Figure 3, PRC Toups Contiguous lands shovm generally as Site I an also including the additional 13.46 acres bordering. Paseo del Norte and any other contiguous land ov/ned by either Carltas or Ecke shall be designated for planned commercial/agricultural development to allow additional commercial development incentives to encourage the retention of'agricultural uses'on those portions that are either subject to the Williamson Act or are being currently farmed. Permitted uses in the zone shall be primarily agri- cultural uses v/ith conditional additional commercial uses allowed subject to the issuance of a planned commercial/agricultural permit. All Land divisions require a planned commercial/agricultural permit.- A. Permitted Uses on Existing Legal Parcels The coastal development application will require additional title information in order to determine the precise number of existing legal, not assessor's parcels, in the zone. Current LUP information indicates that the sols arc all class 1-IV, but detailed additional sails information showing the class of soils as defined in SCS Land use compatibility system and currently cultivated areas prepared by a qualified soils engineer at a detail sufficient to determine the appropriate land uses shall also be submitted as a part of the permit application. -Existing legal parcels containing agricultural lands as described in Policy 3 - of this LUP shall be allowed the permitted uses as specified in Policy 6 of the Agricultural Subsidy Program (!•£.•> ^ar^ I'^• °f this Land Use Plan), including an allowable density for residential construction of 1 unit per 10 acres. However, to conserve these potentially produc- tive agricultural lands, all such permitted development shall be- located adjacent to existing reads, and all developed lots shall bo clustered on'one "portion of the total parcel. Further, each permitted residential unit may be developed on a separate subdivided lot, but each such lot shall not exceed one acre in siie; as an alternative, all development may be on a single lot at an overall density not less than 1 unit per acre. The remaining acreage shall be required to be preserved 'permanently for agriculture conservation easement shall be recorded prior to issuance of a development permit. A management plan detailing how agriculture is to be nBintained in the retraining area shall also be required. Residential development on existing legal parcels with soils rated below. Class IV - in the USDA SCS Land Use Capability Classification shall be assigned a density of two units per acre, provided that residential use shall also be clustered 'in 9 manner to minimize alteration of natural landform, preseryc existing agricultural operations, and adjacent to existing roads as described above. The remaining acreage shall be required to be preserved permanently for agricultural use. An irrevocable offer to dedicate an agruiclture conservation easement shall be recorded prior to issuance of a development permit. A management plan detailing how agriculture is to be maintained in the remaining area shall also be required. • ' B, Additional Uses if Existing Legal Parcels are Developed as a Single Unit According to a Master Plan 1. Commercial uses may be developed on approximately 40 acres of 'existing agricultural land as described in •UK*' 2. Residential uses at a density of acre. 3. The remaining lands 1n the zone shall be permanently .protected through, recordation of an irrevocable offer to dedicate an open space easement for exclusive agricultural use and an agricultural management plan. 4. The Master Plan shall include all information required in Ch. 821.38.060 of the Zoning Ordinance and the additional requirements of VII A, B, C, D of the Planned Agriculture Zone, certified September 30, 1980. O ir pCOCTNcrPwo 0. H1 H- 'J f r-^n o M g'"3fX to0o CO </>to** 1 CO•t- co ro > Vt "oroto 01 (.1 M VCr» I-1 I-1 CD O CO CO£»to VOroI—-TN1iito0'.rot)t)re toCO COC/l rosoM ON SOCN COSOO l-t VOLn t-* (O ON VOUi Mro ON. COroffiH1tjjU1 o HK) p Co 0 0o §o ooo t-foto 0oo toVO CO "ooo ro CO 'ooo ^Jro^_*fg<Lsop"f-J ^-Jocr n S-rt to C7NCO MCU VOc»CO ) — *ro CO ro H1 ^CNto ON h-1 "J "cn U ^4toI-'1j— jS1oCDre^_j(-•ocrnos-rt • • CT*J> CO OlVOOl N3 NJro 0 -P- G\ Oi"r4 Xo t--'ON CJ •T> VOf. -i G^ 'L«W0K1j-jfH*Scb-vj'-2 P•oTJfj. Q 3 3to M O• CTvH" ro•-J COto soCO CO roOCO I-1 CO Is)ro en O roso--4 ~OOCo nt^ro\~tro1oSro01IVo 0-3 3^ pj ^_i CO CO VO oco toroo j>x•j totoen o SOso•p- ~-J Cn so C-Jroi-j1p1toto< wri- P t~*O p?owrt ON 4> U>CO Coro SOCO CO • to) — i so s tsl. to CO OlCO.sn CO I—1 CO "ON COo toMl-f10s(") ^co ^3ot-"O. . CO CO 0 SO> COto.0 I-1 CN ONroO - tn CO Is)Oo to ON 1j COro rjo- *" 'S3 p"|J TJ(-tOB!r!0* 3oi-i o" HM 0O rt . - I-*0 ^l o < J3 let-1 ^3.rt "p* ^ « H MM r1- HO O rtW C H" f5 Ct rt3 '-1 Ort p (X r-* 2 O H> raMO 6o g wM* 2* . £> Ci1H-0 p*p P> Optop- 0 •Q1 > wp- 'So-p. rt.O •?ao (5K a totj'rt(1 MI-I & COI CTi ••w 81 toriV"3J*^"|~-^ •^ .' -jV.CO toto t^ b>J"' Or; £ to tow toto toUl Ult 1o o-v) --Io o1^ 1VO CO AitchisMartinop «J h-» 0 0VO O co • i-ito ^4 UI totO £-cn O - • . toj> to H- f-O Ocn O Ul H- 4> VO O O Ul f->VQ tO £. VQs s totoUl-4O1cn (Ja *3 toM OUl -•4to rOO MOUi Ul o o co Ulo CN COu>o oto^"^1o011-1 1- I-' J~-*o o CO COo0 to ocn Ulto 4>VO ^Cn CO 3 MtotOO1to Schir.dlo M0 OCO Ul VD Ul •t- to to f_4 -vl cn a. •Ul CO to cotoUl0Ot X P- toO y cn Ul COco cnCO Ul CO VOCO o o vOCO o o -4M'Ui1o--J01o CardosaUl 0 CO to o\ -4 Oc\co •• Ul 1—(•* CO .*•»• Ul\-f- \-rj>to cntoUlcSOt0 t-J. f to o toto tocn cn- oto toUl Ul 4> to Ul Ulto UltoUlio-JoCjCO Alvarezf t-* COo M Cn cn roO tocn toI-1 cn roo\ U! £ '^toUlIoo£*Carnatio3 I , !'•*0 oUl LOUl toUlto *- tjo H0 1-1COIS) o1-1 l-lCOto wtoUloo1O RudvaliM ui o cn Ul!--•to tl MOto 10 ^o t)to COfe totoro1C1 Tahataw3 U to toto to Cv o to £ co M cn Ul Ul to OvUl Ul to oK.f-J•o1-4 Tlicriapso»3 tr OO Cn - to t! OOo ^-•J VO•-4to 1 w>M vr> to (-•IS)£o1cn 0t-1-B-oH ' •. Ul JSo t^ CO CO toenO • Ui-4 j> to Ul ~J jv to J> OtoI—*I-~io1tocn Thbn-pso£J [-,Ho oo to VO CO £ ooo Vf>Ul CO£ VO Ul CD£ oto .I-*HI--Jof^VO Thorapsoa too oo f/)toto Ul M to <^ cnCO O00 0> Ul (_. to Ul-J J_4K aow •i'i?P "OrrO•x)H0O>t3 9 (0 a »-3t o ?i P« i-.-1 *>01<5 <S' tLo r-* ^O3rt v~' ^^W H'.1 l-1- S 8 f r?0 fi;j Rrt pi1-1s 0 HJ1-*1ol-t300 V)5- ^ V Erj I-4 W11tt t rtoO. CM g. fk a o & g CaH- S"R Q*JB. r+O ^•4P & O tl & ts 1M •O W!-••rtO MHW • . ta f"V r I-f_A&•MH- <? cfW 1 * ( p>o* n wi•-4 • *-S*-N/-Xo cr pto vJ i: e uitO\O > >< <nr> i-tM I-1-« ro M. P>-•• t-" Po w M^Srt- M uC C wH ra i3p f3 ui rt- w o <t»to p ^5re KJ (-M o p W C M£3 I-4 laBPrt prt ra MPL, M(t> ra^5 .cr w 8 p>f* to Ul toen to CJ VOco co >J3 (U> 00CO -vj v-I "j O •^ O to too o Vl Ul COCOtoM i £5 g fs£ iNi Ulo to 00 K IO ca oo *o ui 0to '. 4 >*> ro 0!to 1os1 0 w i" to Ulo to to to CO Uloo too VJ VJto tJo to CJCOtv>ui j Os1o\o OQ LT to Ulo to CO o!4> - CO Uloo Ul tocr<'*- M CO 10 Co CO CO CO CO toCO to M O ^OtO tO fO to N>ui ui ui ui uiI I I I IO O O O 0 8 £> Co cy\ CQ t3 tf R 6H- b P fJ H5 5 rt ^ S5 6 p p c, w . • 3$n>r H0 • . ; toto en ui o M Ul O O O O * Hto c\ o\ &- to O *O M vJ O CO to C* O O M M criCO' vJ vJ CO CO Cn O O O Ui O O O O O ' C» vj o OJ M Ul U5 M "vj "jv M vJ H. CD COCO IO O\ O O • - >-< t* C/l , CJ to 4/1 'O M Ul Jv hi v.) (-. fo CJco to • o\ o o toCO'toUl1o COo1 Ul "' 1 p 2g. r-ju ) , i i to COCO CO ro 0 • VD O\ to 1 «3 O\ Ul CO to o>UlCO 10VJtoMUl1OCOo1 p1 ex MUl co M to 0o to • M to O ^j fc.j CO MO O .O to toO\ Ul.to toUl Uli Io oCO COo o X tn u. P 01 I-1-(t> MH p 'g ,] tto ui <J} I-. Mto j>10 tO to I-1 o\ 4> i> VJ O Ui O CO CO Ji~ "to ui O J-No> o> CO CJ Ul v.| Ul UlM Ui totoH1 UI o COoioM >X!OMH-O § P c. 0i•u§s . CO 10 143 • 1 Ul }-j -.to M' .CO O \CO VO ^J oM 1 toto ** COo ,rtH-§^M Ora •* § :"3 rj v. 0 3 i 11 O 1o3rt > •J) Ownnart g 3"i ^113ora TOb-w 5 *sy HO M P^ 1 W 1J- M tdRP.M . H|-— M r-t-i'rt OD. ,1 8art- c O'o cr ps-'vxx-'•4 N C0 |1 Hy o '~*O M P > f- C»-• 4> C-J i-l raO M H p MCD >-" 1 '• H- P O • • 0 U Hvj l^j C *^ 0) . °i>> X> ^O h^ pi O f^•P- r} H> w . h g 3PI o</> r-4 H- 13ui H rt-v| i>.co u p aUi 05 Pfl> h-4 P : WOWH p 01B P rao P w13 rt lart o oP. P. Pec:W W (6 " S° rt w t4*0 u> u•• g ** o Cw ta'a 0 O CO •• < — j<0 f> 1 ' -o <J "vj P COp ?& - M • s, s °t?H.' Q ' & 8 - ^H . w P VO f "^pj J~*5 ct>Pi• / **> - 0> • H-t-j (-J• W5 * ^xs-^O ' Ulo J^Jto Ulo IjJ UJ Us ' Co Ul1O *O CO CO vj IO tO tO M tOJ.-* ^» J-J (^« J_* C\ O> C?\ Ul Ult 1 I 1 1,-. !_• ,_. o o to ro M ui uiM !-• t-« ' M O O O O O H* LO to H4 4> ^N *3" ** «^* •?• 5- P P oo ?rt rt g: |< P- P I -9' -3 ™p- p- >^ <C X X O OO O O . Oi-« M a .aJV O 'O Tj |~4a *^> . to to l-i M O IO O CO O VO vj O vl C3LJ VI O CJ <7» l-« t-1 H1 H*H4 CT\ M O UlO^ CD -^£& 00 J> o o o to i-*o o LJ ro c^o o to o o - tj v| CO LJ .p- Ul 4> O O\ to O» !-• O CO Oro ro o to j> \G CO Ul £•• t-*tO IO.,s H 4> VO £N Ul O Ul VO ui CO L-i to Ul CO IO • to CO O '• ^O Cn vj ^4 ' CJto O% Ln O • CO r* M T* to ot.o U> O« Ui Ul CO ^O O Ul O LJo\ to Ul1oUlo1H4 LJ Larson-W8p. , o oCo cr>o UlCO / LJ<> to to to LJ H4 LJCO (_» 1>1to U)Ul to Ul1oU!o J-Jto •Schuttc-s1 U1»s« a 4" o o 0\"v] p Ul CO s Ulro Mvj Ul '. CJCO too' C« 1u>t1, toMUl1 (^Ulo 1™* • H4 • • - •," 1 Silvers-Van Damf? 5 ' r Wai\ _ 0 o VI ! '«/> CT> "oO 0 ! i . t 1 w*". to' <JCO • .- 1 </> o\ 1.4c^to . 1 </> cn °vlo\to o0919° XP *OrtH" "O3 ?O<D O >0 Hn o 0> rt P P X} M » <3ra p p i i"p 3rt "p* >(J°T Mto M wM H* rtS ? I?S M t.T rt rt-q p 0;j H P, •s*"1 s^' 9. HI ™? ra<a 1?' tr-io n**£ -* • £ !1 •E H P>»-• C°lp&r» £•s €^i vJLg w t-*M rt "3 1 HO f-J ft)P«. o*M H-J O O*la "U> *- i" § *• §• M •S3(B WH Hw P & . ' *t» • *M H-8M (> COP-rtO H . ' . .' . • . , ; -iI •' . . *| > Vi, . "• ;i . i « * * ' ! • •!• t••'•-';: - . •.< ! i -| 1 V".• • --;i_v -; :.' ^ ': ' • ,-i; •.•'.'•"•.-^' ; !• :-J v ; • -»» : '. ' ^ ' . .••':-• ! • •;$ \ I > : i * . - f ; i • !it , i \. ' ,--fv i .V I " t*' * V-..-1J • <* - !; ''. 1 i .V-;'*-v i '-. ' •••; 1• • ,- - «r.* ' . •,'•'•' *.t... ( '•i. :.: !. ;^ ' "l - • ' -1 4 * «•''1;- '- 1.• 1 1 . .•.•:! c (JlH <3 (CUC ((n irtH 'iH-p (MOCD <CD H O•0 •3CD-3rt wotoeno ? !5— i3J <jD3•t U)OroLnO Sj32ia1)J)D3TT>J) wo 0i&o E? ;HP-3CDM3<!P-HO33CD3rt . OJ 0tou>o rt. >? 1-s ti> t3) (-t :D (3 <((( WO 10toO 2— 1-*.1»T•)D/)fl jJDNJ HO CnnhpH lC!•C C P-O nI-isO COM Ofa »S3 O1-3 MCO*d O t) HM » O H H2! O O£H•nono>en p Hvo CTi >r5oMP-OP-CD £0 p t^CD P0 £X* P- CD <^ (t> Qj •reso£jHo CDco p-£3 oH PJ CDh{ rt-0 PCOCOdH CD rt Prt rt 3' 0 10 CD ft) HiHi CD0rt OHI COdo «3J (Uortp.. O13co O 3 0 0pCort Qj \~ « N Oy CD 5; £p-3 rtyCD 'oopco rtPI N O 3CD CO£y* fjj^~t \ — • O O 3MP- fi CD ^s 1 OOd PJ ^r* P CD P PJP- h^CD Ort P*b '0p)ort o3 H CD(/) Od Mo CD CO p-3 poftp-<p-rtP- CD W Odrt(n p-PJCD rt CD 0 Op 10 ft PI-1 N O3fii ffPrt £ ^C5dcrj~jp-n PJ *-OCD 3O P- CDU) n fU hi* H P- 3ua q rt 0 wd 1°o rtI visio 3CO 0 Hi rt p-co P*p-<p- COp-p p CD PJCDrt CD ^rj P- 3 CD PJ H (0 O M CD PJ PJ CD < CD M 0 *T3gCD 3rt CO CO &<_!. CDnrt rtO rt'J' CD '0H O 1 InCDOftP- O3 wOtn O O• — * P 3PJ rt3*CD •OCD y P- LO 0) P-crp-(-~J P-rt 0Hi PCO I-! O<P- PJCD PJ P-'J n3*P•ort CD hf CT. *^X Op ••JfD* jP. 3UT j' P-rr 3' rt CD P PJCD*QdP0 oHI i — *oopH1 O0pwrrPIM fT3' |^O H ^jw wtrpM oo3COrtp-rt drtro rt CD WrtO.1 3P.P(--^jj-j Ci (tr j*',yp-o 3* PJP- P- M P-O3 rt3" CD ^O OI-1 p-nP- CD CO* O Hi rt3*P-t/1 O 3*P *T3rt CD O Ft3" CD Hsi P- WCD 10 CDnp-HIp-oP •f~i *< H O < P- PJCD P. P-jjl rt:rp-w 3 cnCD 0 rtp- O3 w 0 O0PJ • en P3PJ CD XOn>^ort C'CO a i..* tr(D n03Ul FJ- CO ft CD3rt «^ p-rtV rt3-CD crP 0)p-o *-Qop ^Jw U)CDrt t~ti0 h ff COCDnrtp-o3 U)O NJoo * U)otooo 0H P-OP-CD M 0>CO PH ow «-• M H Or1 w CJotop'>t*tl&H-O PJ Oon>M W •«O H-0 H-CDin *>• tJ- J^T3j-j CD3 <D 3ft PJrtH- O y010H-U -.« *OM(DHi Hto 3nfi>£/3 * Oi0NJHU>*aCDCDJ — 10'0 CD3rt O .HI HI OP-I — *P-ft H-fDcn•»• H O O O01ft U)otoMto*O^*tl&p-o Hipop-Hp-ftp-CDin*.• PJp-(nrt HP-tr 0ftp-o3 4 HiOHPn0 CD0) 01•». CD XOCD tfft P-03 • u>otoP>to>3COPJCD <^CD(-J O Is-CD3ft •a oi_i. CDnrt 0! *•• *X3 Mo p-01p-o301 u>otoHP On CD0 <CD CD01 Y->01 O• 133CD 3ft 3oft fto p-3ft CD Hi CD HO £ P-rty tJotoHo•o ow nrt fl>M- W£3 tfl tjQ •••• H CD OHCDjyft o3 H O 13OHrt 5P- rtP-CD 01 •*• O %OMCO HH P M to CbCD<* CDj— j O gCD 3ft 3 PJ0CDin 3Ort p- 3 O dPb «.* ^^tr *^do f-^ •^J c* ^ooin CDin OHI rt-yp- 01 0! CD Oft o" 3 % w3"CD£ Ppidintr'Prt'OiCDO]3 iQ 3 3' CD O p- P x D" OjK,ftP OOHiOP CDP-MPCDSCDCOPJ HCSMMpjOl ft^OH1 P- W < in O •-< rt p pi 3 CD K» - tr*& ft O H CD £ CDP* O 13 ct in X t"ti 3 3* M d CD P- t-5 P- CD 13 P- P D" CJ* M 01 PJ M H H rtO I-J CD *< ft ia P- CD O *< O P- in p- rt <fDOHP MP^-^P-O 13 CD Hi 3 CD f-( M RJHi ft P i-Q Hi CD '< — CDiQ 0 CD P O PJ ft H CD P- O K O W P- 3"CD 3 h ft O* P> CD ftp-CD 01 O CD CD *<H Ifl O 313 ^<j QJ QJ •% rt EJ p*p O • pi M in 3O3Oft O (-• p- CDO in t-s O H rt- P- f. CD P- D K •< 301 tj* *O CJ* CD ^— «. O O PJin [-•• HCDpjOJin3OCDs; M p- P- *-* o ra 3 < PP-<OO CCDinCD^< rt PJ 13 P P n Qt p- PJ . •< ft CD rt iQ OOiWO CD 3 CD M CD - rt fOH> PJ p- in CD 3O P rt n - o 3 i1-)t~i in O P d H rt 3in n PJ *-~ rt3 O 13 n rt M rt £ p O d CD C --' '.3* P- 13p- P- U* 01 M CD rt M3 P 1 — ' 01 CD P* 3* Ort rt P- £ Cl. 13 >-),CD p- n P £ ro H *d CD3 O •< O iQ O d flP) 3 d C r- ft ir rty in M P CD M wn CD . PJ rt n P-fD T co i n HoP& fu fu ^ *-*• rt" *r3o c&rt My P-CD O 01 PJy oo oH CDCD 01M 01 P- 3 H, CD H OP 33 PJ ft C3* P CD I-1 0 3 3 CD iQ P Krt CDy 01CD rt O 13o dp & 01 Mrt p-o . C/J <3 M CD O uQCD ft CJ Po rtM P- M OW 3 * * 03dO O 01P rt CD 01 ft H OPJ p- 11 M 3P- M O* rt CD CD (!) iQ P PJ P-O in3" rt p- CD O Pin - rtP-rt rt <o y CDCDft Py d d CD 01 ft CD 3'H» OP- O HH Hi p-01 Nft PJ P)H rt M '< P-P- O 3 10 3(DP-.3O PJ P-Hi 3P O rt 3 PJ CD P, dK P.t-< H P- CD O 301 O iqrt ^ -H. •<;P- D"PJ dH rt n aP- CDvD <iy CD ft HoO 13 Hi BCD P 30 rtO CD Win yin PMft PJ O 3rt 03J rt CD P-ch 3CD rt P CD h£ H,y a> CD H t1 CD CD ^P P- 0 rt- [O Jj*c*H- rtt-( ^J fD fDPJ 13rt c 3" CTM M O P-d o >v» in cn oH s:n 3CD f^CO tflO ~to M P M 3& 3Prt dH PH1 H CD 01 OdRo ph( CD P01 ft> ^03 o CDHr^ 01 CD 4 rt £ tf CD P- (D0 rt rt 3*13 *"0 *r3 Od d <cr tr P-M M PJ P- P- CD O O PJ N. w HI P- P OtQ hti H 3^ CD ft ft P01 ^ p1 H 3hj CD fttj- CD yiQ PJ CD3' 01 ft 13 11 p CD 3 0O PJ 13Hi PJ ft CD"a 3* H CD O P- O < 3 3P CD 01rt CD p- CD PJ 01rt 13 ft CDH O 3O rtla 'aCD H H 0rt I 13 3 .&.O Pin X Ort p- HI CD 3 PJ d !>** 3 ^rt$1 pj ^-». 3 O O PJ O P* CD CDH cn CD W XO -H OCD £ Hi P 3"ft p- rtp- o yo y CD 3P 01 OM 3' PP M O M P-13 M Hi 13 Oo tr HH CD 3 ft p-d o P 3 Op- 3 nrt w O P- 13 3cn p- 01oi o rt d P-w O rt3"d dP in rti~j f_j ^j. P- K O 3 M3 0PH{ (-^t<J P-3 LQ OCrt rt3" CD !-< CD^o ^p- h^CD3 CD 3 ft OHi C/l CD O rtp- O3 U>Wo OJ Oto1 — i O '— o H- s: 0*0"f HI 3 tr HI d3 O P- D'ro s-< M o a. M3 .h d y d P-PJ rt oi ft nro p- P- P P-PJ o < H 'ro PPJ ro ro 01 ocr ro ^ o•< n P rot>< o ro 3 oin HI tQ PJ 01p 0 dPJ Hi rt P- H 3• y n ro ort ro ro 01 Hcn rr PJ fyrt 0 O O 0!p o cr 3 3"rt O < ^ 01 P01 p ro p- M • M H. CO CT Mp- 3 ro P-P- HI 3 n M P-vo o ro rt p- rt vj M 3 P- rtus 3 rt o p- ro- p- 3 ro x P O W « OOddtr o PJ & o 'A' o ro cr. HI ro 3 iti\£> 01 P -J 1O rtP1 rt 3 oo d yic p- p, . cr ro"—•rt P" P1 d cr H-'Ort *< rt n roP- 0 HOf/1 P Hiy ro cn <£ o• o cr> ro Hrt £> 3 3P- -J 0 P O CO P- 33 • ro o• PJ 01 ro , — ,o• — 'T*ortyp-3iQP-3 rt rt3'roroVrtroHP-0H01drlHiPOroy P- |O 01 tti• PJp- <2 p- 01p- 0 3 01trP rt D'ro rtOrt 'PPJ -~j-1P-3rtrohiP-OH cLI(JQjP-3O£cr.p'o <^oPJd3ro M rt Hdort d f-^roPJ ^ro 01 rtH P 01 rt•^p-01 Wd^y* PJ P- <^ PJPftroHPi—**!)dcrp-oPonro 0) 0) PJ OIdoyPortP-<2 OO?3'jP-01{/IP-O3p-rt nro rtOt^^3 cor-*-ft^I--.J~*| — iOHP-M rrP ^roU-J O P- <-Q01 P- O33 '-roP01dHroa HI h^03P- - 5'u M rtyro crroPJo^3' X* • ™ ^J P 3 (^ PJ <^roH^ 01ro P-3 Port 0 3 03 cr(Drtyrooo3• i P- 01 01p-o 3 PJfDrtro H p*3 O 0! ft-rrP H Orortp-o3toO0>[ »Oro --Q P- ro rtrrPrrPJ 'i pd ' ' 3PJro 0) 01 O O P 0) rtPrt|pj ro ^ro, c\p- 0 3 PI-1 rt C-jo --.*H-O3'rt(D0 , v•^•*-^|yU-•^O 0)3nt-^oP P0p oro^ft01 ••0!o -tr3 Ipiro33PJ :^oHcrMt-*rrrp-Qrrrt3 It13 o icrp- n k0!DP-O3 rrP 01 arortro h^3p- CJH- O ^3 P Lj.b r~^ro 3 rt :=:y PJOp-nrrijyroQjo 01rt h^C 0rt £ ^ro D •'^ 3Ort 3Ort rr OO r^ Hro O K 01dPJrtn3 O 1 P- p. 3'OroPJo 13 ro "~* "*o i — 'o 3ro 3rt '"vJcH, P 0 IPrt 'H.<j P* r 0 i rt C r<C r^ 01ron 0 XJ0 ot- ^rtrrro01rtdortah^Jro cr 30 ro rtyP 3 PJo3Op-3011roP01rorop-rtrroh( rt ^ro HIt — i b 0H P roPcrP'p- P. "OO"~5ortO3'P302rort^roP- ^5 - — »OJvM'3'OMoro3(03rt CO rt (D rt 3 O01p- 1 p ^L3 o p-rtw d01ro pj *•oo3 facu rot3 HI • |H W »* ft i 0 . II ^7*rop- ^* rt ^^>j P- 01 ft t^d |-^O'roo'-o nro11rtPinrtD"roHIOH3rof^ 01 rtHdOrt p-rt(DPJp-3rtro01p3ro PJo 0 rt^j. p d , ro 03 rtP'ftrtrop,rono3tort Hijro0 IP-H;ft3 irroroh!01rtHr-0rt^Qh^do cr rtroPJ '1ro 01p-a,ro *~i rtroi ttj — *ooP^rj r_ic •-Hro rtrrP 3 «p OP- _Q H |PJroO1 Jwrtd0ftO^cnt-'-3<-Q|._jroif^i3p-i i•*.*Ot'lp-^(-)Oj L1?;"; 3n 0 p- r ^t-o— "\-i-f*roPJc)3OPJl-l.ftp-o §' 3 3 0 P « O 3rr - joj '•~r •— < 'v-; rrlP H3 C0roM O 0 o •rtd rtyH roro ' 5^3* 'P- 0 3"r>rr Pl-h PIroo rtro 01yP[ — >p- 01 hrj O " 0n- V-*d o H r-J <^ M* Oj ^QJx - 0 X" 0ro - t 3rt O 0 ^THi Clj D Hroo 0 301 rt d0rtp-0rt ^ ' !,-t 3P- rr M1— •P3 ^ro rt |Orr HI& ro 'n 'IK -rt ftb3OJOMO•ft0rt. .- ( ^ro^oHot^p-01p-o01oHi 01dcr p-<jP- 10p- O3 ^ — .r] — O H-. corooi f-j- — *WroUpon•_j(D3ft O HI PJ 3 ^ 01rt ^d0rtdMO t^-j d11oid t3rt PJ3PJ Prt g? 3^PJft I-1 ro<roPJ oHI p-3rtro 301p-rt \^* , «»•— »M• — • i-33-ro oP T) (K0 P-rt ^ O Hi rtyro 01p-rtro rt0 01d 01rt P'p- 3 d01ro P. iH. 0! 3 rt KQP. '„ 0rtw• . ^ Mx_*- tq ooo J3 KP 0rrP- 0 crc;rt 3Orr PJ P-3p-nroPJP 3PJ rt0 iQro 0Mo iQP- O C1p-rtro fty rtrrro HI &OroP -o rt 01 P3 PJ OP-H P3PJ 3P 3 3roMnd3O Mrt P3Oro 01ro • HIot~jMq .>,i-- 3>norrw11 !•>(1 rtn .H .'( p- 3 roP(i;y dP) 01ro (-'• 3O P-3rt O r-t 00o O en rtgrooiMrt^-upJpJMM W 3'rot-'rtOP-roiQ33Oro o ro3rop3ro3ropjp4s:rtgsrooirta. ro 01rrPI Md rt rt3*ro 3O O OjrndCrrt OPJ' "p-o inonroen Hro crro p-3 'OPJ D3G3 rt Oa. p- 3.0d IPMif-; rt 0'/i 0, ( t <j (3 1 '< ' Ij P, p. 1 1 p-;io '.3 - QPJ f.P.O3 3u 3 roH rt Prr ftP' " '^'o — ocnrop. en - g tr n (D CO O 3P01PJ OO— - o < O rt H y H fd OJ PJ C OK> rani(npj(jJOH,3fi>uioh3 M hj to PJ O !i H P- 01rr .c. 3 CT PJ ~ P"~J PJ ro < O 3 PJ 'O O ro Hi p- £ O P-d rt p- rt M ro 3 y P- •a 01tr < ro P- p- n I.Q ro 3 fo P-PJ o P- PJ n ro n n o o rtp- QOI p-<ro>droonon PJ P- P- ro ro PJ d 3 rt Hroo3oipj- cr HI n> dP •3-OPjro3P O p) T3 P- P 01 P- 3n -— n P o 'z n 01 y n- p,ro o o 3 p. ro P- P P-oi --^ o PJ s H. D' M ro H01 n P- ro M M 01 roopjic3rroro o•a HI P o o n - tr HI Ho 3 PJ n c ro ro o ro M CO O P' O 01 P 'O H, P)p- ro ro w 3 P- rt H, 'o rto n HI 3 P- o ti >d P-p- rt C o 0 J5 o < o ro oro P- P- H) H 3 P- rt H 301 O rt "j p- p p, ro 01 p 3 3" I-J P- 3 M (I) n O PJ O O ft PJ rt 3HI 01 rt o '< rt o • ro 01 HItn y p rr >o PJ Pit u) ro o-J £ ro 'o - O o ',")' O P- O O Hi P--j KJ H 3' (t o \\ n ro t-1 ,D O t)' O (t < 3 PJ P-P O ifi d P'- r: .ro- o o ctM HI d 01 rt oi :> M o *; ••'•ft p- !-•• :.r ft p- o d oP- H 3 fl> !» 1 'U H (''w i ro a} t--' l 1II 1 en c n P H, HI 51 W 01 O 3 P P Jo on n o rop. p p. p- Hcr p ^ p- PJ roto >< M ro p- P- <o p rt rt roto rt P P- P- HPJ rr 3 01 ro ro U> fD PJ O 01 01 P . •« - Hv3>r! o P fad rt 01 01 P- Hcr rr 3^ 3 opj ro rt P o fop- H O pJ M Hns H- d • P-p- 3 PJ P O 01 P- C!" P- rttti ro rt ro 3 rop- 03p iT) PJ P 3 O P P- 13 3'< HI rt 01 P PJro rt P, 01 O h ?T Hip. j rt ro o H PJ rt P' >ro P- ft rr o>PJ 3 rr <1 T3• I.Q ro o o dd n cr O P- vQ P'H 3 -r P-•d o oo P d< n rtro rt t', OlI •- % O» i^o Ol\>PJ N) • Ul « 0y•to1 — 'VD•— *<^Cp'd3rrroCDt"1•^Ol^oiQt-fP3tn• •. * — * D^QJDJ fDCb tr^ CnrtD>rt0)« gP3P'-OP~3CD3rrOOtnrtinP*-jCbCD 3nocHp tQ CO rt^z*ro dinfD M VD 0 •J Hi VO^» 'O^p-•^Prrroo^1^3P3p.Nfl)rtP-OU(n £ 3' P- Otr ^Orij,._.» tij gp-^jp-3p- N CD ' p-ln3oi->c.Ojp-3'-Q•-t.rdrt3OrrPJp-gp-rt p-O3OHiP-33O^Prtp-<^roPnorotnCD tnc. rt 0 •* P vQ1-1 O CDgro 3rt CO £P-rt3* 3p 3 P:Q ro3ro^j rt rtrooy 3 P- Crotn PvQQ3Ox^tn3'P&— j 0 100 1 i-h"•5gP-tnIT,P-O;;•trtPJ >.OO3tnp-DJroM P 3 DJ CD 3 O Od1-1P ro rt 3*ro drtp-\->p- p3DJP3'<0rtr3- o*"S (-^fD CO ^Oo rr ,—-»3J OH. •—;ftP In•1 3rrh-1*OCD4,ft*~~JCDOOrj 3p-tntop-O 3 3inp-tr | r fD T) & 1-^ro ^Q P-0 ^JpI-J H- ' P' O NP"^ ' 1 nPt-^^l<Cp-3XI0 rr opPJp-Itlot^3p-PO03tnrtp.rtrtp-'Odtrp-oc3DJ<;>^tnronrtp*o3O \K±3 rt O Hi 3'ro "0dtr p-n ^/H rtP-n (t> i xPo 0rotntn 'O O H, rtg" O OJ 0 O1- *)-J.gp-(-t-p>rtp-O3O3rlyrot^p- -3- rttn ~0CP(-^ P3rt CD CD D. rtO rt ro p- O P3-^P'1Q3r>j:jCD3rtrl-;^j-CDi-^rorr Dl1 — iH-t -f tO|-^tj -yCtnC'p3rtH-'Qj rtOn03tnrrp-rtc:rt t/)CDortp-O3p. 1 ,[^O3 0 • w 3-P M tr o0 310 rt- CJ CD P 0) p' fO ^Ort P- 3-Q 0 ^>Pj rt n CD X rt3*to3C >~ip-Q3'1 1G'!trp-0Hinwno3tnrtp-rtCrtp- O3Ppj P,p-JQyrt P- 103 rt^y P-tn 0 IH,HI rt ^ro C/)ro Pnnrotn M o rt3^ro ootj]i-'-o.otnrt^j*rop-3DJp-^p-QJcp M o q roP rt 0 3ro H P- rttr O1^rtr>'CD^1 ' ^~*P-OOjortt -"•3oQ |Pcp-rtp-ro00 p3 DJ rt D'Prr trp— i P 3 ODtn i-v(CDPCOo 3 P ^1 — ' ro g 3 ro rtD- Prt- •rt H3J -j tr— ''\— ip-o MrtPop-t/iorotnin^oi — jP-o l'J''CDtn rtU"*rap-^;rrO 3rt rt3'CDO0P-1H-1roortP-O3OHI1 — iP-rtrr CDp,• O H, O rty p-in P rtp-OPJO ro |tr ICDrtp- OP rr PfDinrtbrrp-n<jP^coinoHI•rtS" ro P K fD P P 10DJ 1 HiL-J.PJOro^3rr^j1-^OGnt^rt-p —o .r-o ^CDtntoPMCDfatn'< Itn00 'Z IP3 tnfD>-! rttn |o P3 D-. 3- Irj-lrtro H |o P<CD ^•QP-tni-jPrt C b rt .. ^0 H^O P- DJP- 3'-Q Hi O *Tj5 H^Ortronrt rt ro "fj H Ort ort rtyro '^1i-^p- Po 3- - 10 P H, '63"CO3rooD.rtOTJp. O <^p-DJ •ro i-ho • rty CD 3p3P ro PnnintnPHrortOpDJpno ^rr p,rotnp-aro 3rt p-PI — i Ctn•o P,roinO^nCDinp-3rt3"roPp,roP P2 D. rt 3"fD *~0 h^o X.p- p-n- ^01 '• |o 3ro3rt rr™ro o3tndn3'POCD ^tn u>IrtHI OPnrtoinPinrtrty(DKP-'£.rt3-lrt0 [o HI P p-i_j p-rr Ol-ri rt 3"ro 3Prt dHPI — i rt -yjj Ptntn j_^3"fDPpq|-^oKp-PrtD 3 O •jitn P 10 3 H,& t-i CO 'T3 Pintn DJ P CD 3a,P' i_jp- 3p-rtp-^s ^-Q S- r— 'H- 0 3v£)30224.LO Ototow •30222.30221.OJ0Mtoo •Sectiong (0 rt *.• iHt) JJ>oH- !-• H-rtP-row• •g fD O HroPrtP-03P H1 tro(1)n- H- trj. C (/> (1) *, CD Uoodt~^ fy ^Q fD1 C 3*u ro\~> 3PJ rt DJ "X5 C PI tli-i 'a fD Ofa (nin ro• to• ^^P-<^ Prt fO I — j P3 DJtn*• ^0 ^H-OHH-rt ^ OH) DJfO<J fD HJo ^1 o t'J (Dprlp-O3PH din fO pj'"3P« DJro ^fO f_-Jo•ogCD3rt • O 0 fD P 3 Hi (-•J O 3rt I — i P3 D. 1-0 HOrr fOOrtH- O Hi 0 1"^ Mmi P 0rtP-<j p-rtp-roin« T) M 0 rtro Ortp-O 3 OHi 0 fO l-^rtP)p- 3 5^PI ft ft)H1Ohp-(0 3rrroPJ Hg H O OJ c01CW•^*£yGt•!G HGOP,QPftp-o3PI-J c'"OH*PJt3PaPMGPLT.Hi cno-ortp*O'ju>0KJ:ot^jG C 3PInP-ttT_J WruincnG 3"•P G ^GinG 3 Gfit HiO ^ M Ocr G0OinCOPH!*<° c*0 *oO rt nOpCOttPJt-1 Pin»xp-ocP'rtCh^GOhiOOP(JlftPJ 11Pa Gh3 G 3 P,G3ft P-3P.c;inrt J-^ *^• *-0mt3Qf"1p{ — >oo33ret-iot-t.PJPJ0><^CD^_jo*v33re 3rt••• crcrt 3Ort O Gh( "0p-<^prtG^Gcnp-PJreyrtp-PPJ*-QG3ret-iP' p-3 £ inrth( P- P P4 0K. O PaO Gp tnW P-rt -OP aM rePaQ rt0 0re GP 3rt 3'p. illO 33 OG^y *O&'M M p-3- o P < OG W *0 O Pi t~SP-- rto £ P> 3p. p. rt rt'< P- GO in <^G Hi H Oh in• Gi^<^p-3<-Pno3•1G^0P-PpaHGOG ft P- O 3 P1 — • Hi P O P- M P-rtp- Gin i-3^yGCinreoHI*z3t-^p-<^prrGPJP3in in0 P-rt Pcr G HI 0 ^p. cnp-rtOH1 *TJh^0«^p-PJGPJHiOHP-3rt3*GPh$QP • 3OPJPrtGPJO3ft3JG•0d'0GHrt-^CH P- CO p H h{ G P PJ PPa GjjQ fjPJrt GH- f-(GOMrePrtp-o3P1 — iPOrtp-<2P-rtP-Gcn jy Prt O O fjH~*PJ cr G P Ooogi P0'MGHiCrrCGPJCD^P3PJHiOP,^0& h-1 P- O 0 oo t^G OP- PPJ P3PJ0<^fD*}~Jo^j3G^ftc:3i— ireininTJt!ocn re 3ft P 3PJ Hi O Hcn G G | d[/JQU)"jj — rJ— iC*"QX'^ortGOrtGPaHio h^G O G Prtp-O 3P Ccn (D OOreP3>-- 1i-^G^5ft^-*-J3PJinCp-rtPD'PJG Hi O ^ i-^ G Ot-^ G Prtp- O3P 1 — ' fDTJ cr K op G re oO OPft fO H Wre !-< fD rto o P Prt < rt PJG P- p-O P3 t-(- . P' GO pJ Pt-< P) 111rt pjin o inC H- rt cp 3 P- P-PI P- Gri 3 rt pain p, p-G G Hiin C in o• P hrt rt G 3* ?h P prt rtp. ro G P P 3 Oin 3 nO P-in rt G 3- 3P ^ rt M G G H P PJ PJcr p- G M COreortP-O3O pi ^G [jQ fi> PJ H, K Oy PJH H 3 P. 3 G 'Ot-i Oft G Ort G P. 5?pjrt G H P G Pin P3PJ p. 3 P G Pin 3 tr G P £ Hcrtr oO Kp cnrt P- 03 H, MHI rePJ HI 0 C P- uQ M Gp. » rtP. p G 3in Pa P- D- M l^* 3 *CJ PJ t"!rt 0C <t-i P-P PJi i p. 33" 03 PM Hitr oO MH % croPrtP-3uCl Cfi(^ ^O^0o h^rt t-hpop-pj p-rtp- Gin •^ T3 HO< P- P. 3 iO P O 3in Ginrt pi O 0reincn oo HSp-PJo cn Py PJ 'rtt-tG 0 r: Pa P- 3 3 03 1:£ P rtre Hi1p.Gf\Uro 3 re 3rt I — i P 3 ^inretn rt 3' P Cf cr G h^rt 3"P- 3 cn ^PJ Oro p- 3 re Xp-w lTp- 3 iQ •yP Ka'oi~S (0>. \.,1 I-J.np.rti -,-jP•^ 3 O D' P- 3^rj Hi P O P') — ' p- rrp-rein-, '0t-i O<J p- pj,.,. 3via1 P P. f)a P' (t P- O 3 PP1 P- 3 Pah;K: inrtO1-1PiQ G P G Pcn*. P-\'j O&-^ n>Pinp- 3 ^O *'JI- U" I--*P'o poo 0H Pa C>J 3 OG <^P- ft 3' ft 3" P- LO Pvp. <^P-wP. O3 *• tr 't^ PaG<* G I-1 O 'O1 0opcn rtP I — ' •^Prtret-iin in 3"PPJl — ' t)' G G 3Q OcK.p^o G C^*•* p- '^ H 3 O P,roPcn0PJ j-j, Gn ^roPrtp-o3 P1— j croPrt .p- • 3u} £ 01re o r-h CO t-I O• LO Oto NJ t^ • COotocoG^•s:prtCDWenc^j^oM k^ P3 PJ H,HO OPJ O O ft OPJ» CO0toCOin•&u)<j(frtfD3rr01•« tr H.roP ?»i «£Prt (DX 01 ^ rorto • troprtp-3HiPO P- HP-rtp-ro 01 • U>0MOJt£*•oo3•3rohjop-PP1 HIp- 01 rr P- 3 P 3PJ H fD O M CD Pft P- O 3p) M COO10COCO*OP-jrfP-3^Q•*HiP-1 — * M P-£3 |Q O M PJhiroPJ p- 3'•Q * CoOtoCOto*op-pPJrrP Nphi PJO 01 01 01rtP3Oro 01 ^3P-M H 01• COotOCOMtWp-OHOP-OPP" *OMoQj £ortp-<^p-rt «,* ^P (/)rt CD £ (-f- 0>t-S COOtoCOo•K0*^p-3fDHro01oc HOro 0)*t» 3 P-3ftro3pu 3O O• cnronrtp-o3 f-3MO PJ 01 O Oo rr o H P 3O P1 rl- ft O P" pi hi O P- Pc> tr 3 3n ro 3 01• ro ^513 3 OH rt HO ft P- 3 rtPJ PJ P-ro oPJ 0 3 HI ro o O P HiH 3£ 01P (0 C O 0o HI rrp* PPJ 0 3ro P- P3 H ri-ft p- roP- rt Hpi p- p.H ro P01 M01 W •0 P • P- 3 P" PJ|— j fjj 01 >TJ Hi H Hirt- O arr n oP ro rtrt PJ p-r: <H CDro 0) W iQ t)•T* f\\ i-j,_J ;JJ r% P 01 Op< - rtM ro ^ 0tr ro rtro rt p- hi O W O 3 H P1 o ro P< c: uap- g pPJ P-ro *o 3P. h; 01 0 rtp- PJ3 a rto rrh; (-1- roro 01 H - 01P 'a rt O P-P- H MO P1 3 :r PIP iQ rt N (DO PH O pi DJ Hi3 0•< c o 01 K,Cl* CO 0) P,< r: roro trPJ 01 OO rt p-'O P P- H 3 -(o n .3 ro 'irt 01 cn P M 3O PJ 3p-u) 3O P-to 3 CO P- to N• p-3 P| — 1 rtroM Prt P-O 3 0Hi 3Prtrj h( P M 01 ft ^roP 301• tr H 01c ro cHi O hfHI M HIro P P hi 3 0P roP rt H P- £ro o PP 3 rt01 •- roH rt 33" P Hi (1) p- p- rt 3 Oft '<.•O P -H P-o 3 ro rt P- 3ro 3 no in ort C3 h( h! P PJP- rt in *T3 C P-P H 3 hi P lO P- HP s:3 < Pro w3J iTj rtP ro rotr rtp- P s:rt rt P P P- rtrt o ro 01 3 H 01 01c c;w ^u ^0 'U p- p-ro ro01 01 P P3 3p. PJ 01 01 C Ctr tr01 01ft ftp p 3 3rl rtp- p- P P P- p-3 3H- rtro ro H hjHi Hio .ro hi Hro ro 3 3o nro ro ;.' ?, P- P- rtrt 3'*y M ^C P3 rto ro Hi HHI p- W 01 hi 0ro rr< pro H3 inrt ro P- 01 3 3 PJ PJro'a roi^ »-< ro ri-ft h( p- p0 P- 3 330 rot~ti 3rt hio nd o3 3DJ rtH £ Oti) P' ft Mro P- H 3in 3 S rtro 3' P-p ft) O3 H 301 ro 0 Hi Hi3 roP- P 3"3 01 c/P- P- 33 tr Pp- M 3N rop- - rr3 rouQ hi pJro MP 0) rtPJ rt rr < 0ro h; 01H ro rr 01 PJ Pro Mrt PJ rc rrH"i 1""^ tjHI o roro c rt rr P 01 N p- 3O PJ rtH, 3 PJ O P-?: 3 3PJ in roW PJ rt Oro rt PI 3' 3ro PJ'~»> «, C pftp-o301 0 Hi 3P p-3ro 0 "-Op 3P- 013 01 P 3PJ Hi O ^ rtrr (D ^Mortroni P O H3 3 O 3"PJ P ro0)p- rt trn PJ p- 7T p" Oro p1 01 £ O P iQP rt p-'a ro o ^ hi PJ H 01 pJ O - fQ t!h( 01 hi P- ft O pj H PJrt ro c:ro P o3 rtrt 01 p-0 <S P-3 ro rtP rt '< p- P1 3 P Prt 3 3P PJ PJP- 01 3 - rtrro ro roW 01rt ct (Op- c ag p Pc * H P'U i-.. p. ro rt 'O 01 *<o -'(J O 1 Hi cn "t! ow c: P-n K p o -CO 01o ro h{to 01 ro CO • O1 — ' hiroPrtp-o3 i_j^ 01np-ro 3rt P-HI P-n •H P3 PJ roPJp^nprtP- 03PH 33TSOC OirtPSP P hj (i 01 ^d P- 3 PHP-Ortroroopjhi p- 3 Oi 01 O 3 P-3 rt d P- P- ^3roposopoirrrop- rt HI M rr ro O 3 P- P pJ K hiK < rt tr M ro roI.Q rr P- g rr p- PJ 01 PfDrtProO HiO3P^<3 Mtrrocp-p1 33oroph(oirtoropiii wo3 rr HI hj hj p- in p- ro01 ^ p- o P- tr 01 . 0 ft 3 P < P'p'norrrop-rorooip, o P P 3-3"ro ^0 01 rt ro o P tQ C rt 3 hi rt K MC;PJPS;< orop"PJ PJ M p- p- ro 01 rt rt M H n P rt trrop-sjpJOOhioroOP 3 3 ro h;Ht!3rtoi3orjro3owrocroyoipjp hi h( 01 3 P- • P- O to rt rt 0 P .3H Hi P 3 rtO p p- 01 w PJ co p3 P 3 3 rr p- io P-USP-PJ piQclfl)3IP1 rt M 3 'O O rort rt rr M p- ro P- PJrooirrro HIOP-H ^o PJ tr P- P- Mgrorttrrooro roO P- PI 01 'O 3n p- ^ o o 3 H rro P p- M P n o o P 3 M. H O H ro Hi rt 3 :j P1 iQ H • (D nro o P- P- o roH HI o ro i PJi P PJ cn fijn• COo NJ CO Ot 3 Mro PI£ 3p.o enhi -ro P-X 3y pp pj3 tjPJ P»0 P-PJ 3tro enP ftft hip- ro3 PO 3enHI -po rop- en 1 — * rt H- Cft PH* ^ro P-en ro• tn^ p3 PJ M P rVro0)«• *~^*N*•-'p<3O*^jro3pcpInrtPPJ ^Prtro frSin*. ortyaH rryp 3 5? Qrt1 * rt0rtPM<^rortpjp3PJph;QPrt0trro Hroenrt 0 fl>0, H,PPP-MP-rtp-roin^D*OOt-^fDPrtroH; rtyP3 K>cn 1^5roHJofi> 3rr OHi rtyro nf-WP3^jro(_-ien•NP13aP3*<3roproenenP f-<(•^ cnd '•O0hjrt enro H <P- Oro en'UPJoro^.rtcH3P-3•-3O'Penp-3in** 3roproenen P Hj ^£3 p<2p- upprtp-0 r-nOt-jenCop-troPr!~P-3tr)HiP0P-i—1P-ft ^«. P-3PPJ(^ PJP- 3viQ trroH fl-yp- 3 iQ ro<^ro3rtenyPj-j! — irtyroenp-Nro0HI rtyro s:rortpjp 3 PH;roP CenroPJ acprtp-<roJC*fDrtP-JP3PJs,.•",3*"*!0<p-pjroPJ•. yo<? ro<rohi rtyPrt p- 3 3 O HronrtoH;roPJP3pj3Pp-3ftP)p-3roPJ Pin P trP- 0 o p-nP PJi^ ^3HJ O1 enrt-P3rtP-Pi — *fro0Hrtp-030Hirt^y-ro aro P,P roPJ ^rorti — i P 3 PJ P-in pon\—i-c3Ortp-O35^p-rt3'enc>.j"O'o r'fP- 3 Hi P P P- 1 — ' P-ft P*rotn^ CJ W 1 COroortp-o3U)o•t*h- 'pj».HiOh^tr0rtP- 3 ^J. HiPnp-i — ip- rtp-roen p- Hi p- 3 0HIVrlP-in3"P3PJOP3rot5CHJincPI3ft rt O endtrPJp-<p-enp- O3 r*-*. D'•*~s OH, P.rovQt-^PPJroPJffrortPJPt3P.p-PJro3rtp- Hip-ro.PJ tr*< rtyro Oro'aP rt3ro3rt Hloi-i3(I).<^OroX'"Op3P.roPJtr0Prtp- 3 HI Pp-\~-t P-rtp-rotn••• P 3P. P- 3 P f — .U)~~--H3^rortMP3P.Ph>roPw o 3pj ^.. ro3rtHJ P£3 0ro Q, P33roPJw pp.g•oot-1p-3t_QP^roPin*.p)3PJ CT O P. rt I — i P 3O P- 3 h^P3 in• rtp-O3Pf — ip.P33roi — *en.,rt£j^3P-3 trPenp- 3en •v <ro 01inroi — t trroHJ rttrp-3 varo<:p-or;in) — r'<PiproPJ\2jD(Hi•Hf)jCD*~ort ^in p-3 roXp-inrtp- 3 3P< P- ^Q P 1 ^-^1-0•~-'L'XP*P-3ftPP-3P-3l_QfDXH-(ft rt-P-3 *"QN o )-^ hiroinrt O P- 3 rjrohiPPMHiP-cn3*P.r/jvjQhtlPnp-PJp-rtp- Ocn. PJfD'Oro3PJro3ftP-3P-CinrtHJP-P) — iHiP OP- 1 — ' P-rt"p-roen^ p-3 O1 — 'da.p-3 OO3I v)__".**-*•5Z(D*c0h(roX^0p3PJroPJ ^oo rt«» ro3roHvO^<js. p3 PJ OOpinrtPMI rt- roy 3ro <P-b oP- 3o ros; 3p- tt3 PiiQ pJ.«roHIHIroprtcn*«P3 PJ en£3* PP1 ) — i trro PJp- 3p-rtroPJ fto 3roenPJroin3'PJ<^rotrroro3^oHo<Jp-pjroPJ rt0 3p-3P-g t5(D pp. roHJenro p.3i-QPrtto3Prtp-<roNP3PJ^3"ro ^ro HIroPinp-tr 1 — 'ro gp-rtp- idP)ftP- O3 rt3'roHJrop-3OHIroPinp-trMroPJ(D Win D3<p-HJ O33t3ro rtP i — '•< PJp^.p1^t p•n•6P-oPJtrPJro^73j-^op-inp-03W0Hi ft p-cn PJp- <^p-tnp- O3^ ^^D h(ro in3*PJt--*(-Jtrro'0(Dhjp-rtftPJP-3Pnoo a 3 PO 3? P-rty cpr tj* O ^ OOp0)rtpjI i5"prtroHJin..3^rortP^jPJinH roen rtC PHJ P-roen^ P SPJ t--Pj?^* O[fi . ,DJ^— •»~33'rop.P-ftP-•jjtQ^HiP-I-J )-~j P-3 •-Q^ Oh$ ahjroPJijQ P-3iQ oHI 0*T3ro 3 cnronrtp.o3OJowU)LO 1 ,H-> 3!J to) O< p. , ° u pj ~J t3•+, P n -r-J- W 3 3*a PPJy P1 nrt trp- ro p. PJrt rop. tnro P-U) iD • 3D p3 PJ r^enro PJ HIOM en oy p.g t,o<ro 3ro3rr 5? q PJPJ o roprtro PPJPJp-rt P-p PPJ trro rt£y*in Hg H; Ot5OenroPJ rtO trro p.ro<ro o *TjroPJ o p-3 M 0<roPI -C3'ro ro 30 PJroenen it 3*P 3 COO >urohjpro3 rt O P PJ D'O Prt 3 'O HIPpp- pJP-rt P*rotn HIp-en_ r-f P- 3 HiPnp-H-> P-rrp.roin p- 3 rooPJrouaP roP><• 2 3roPJ3in rt Prt H] C (-^ rt3"ro IT^ Chj Oinroen OHI n-T-J-*rj*en (ft (Vortp- 0 3 N -f;o3Un op-PJPJ Popo pjp3Pro 5^P-rty rt 3'P-en P.p-<? p-inp-O 3 "T3Phj ften OHI cn O Crt£7* c/j-p3 Op-ro o ro T-Ji<^ ^ P-Hi Oftyroiv ^i ••inro P. 3 03 3 O p)P. rtro c p ro W enP rt•< e- Q., p -3PJ p0PJ 3ro 3< roro hiM nO P-T> P3 y-j ro 3 ttirt p-enp- y3 P-3P a H Hiro PPI pp, p- ^J•p, rtro p-< roro 01i— •O P-•a 3roPJ p- 3np-PJro 3rt P *T5 Gtri — ip-P HIPIPp-^~jp-rtp-roin.« hiroenrt Oi-ip)rtp-<*ro : i(t)PIen r^Htt)en OH, nP p-HIpH; 3P- PJ_ •s cn*j*pi— > trro PJp-3p-rtroPJ rt O <j roM 3p- 3O hj Jl ' = Jj^ O CP-enp-rtp- O3 >X) P- O p-rtp-roen H) O rtyro noPIinrt Pl-J ;,^roft P3P.in £rortPJP Oj03 h1- Ojro 3rtp-HIP-roPJ p- 3 p-rten Hro••aohirt ro3rtp-rti—1 roPI•« p- 3ni-j P,p- 3 s. trcrt 3Ort P1 pi- 3p-rtrop. rt- O rt +Jro PJvi) poPIinrt P'PJ P- PJro3rtP- HIP-roPJ tr t-<H rtyn oo^nPJ'•>n 3ro rt OHI h*jp-(ny PI 3p. or.i* i(D N Ot, roenrt P ^C • *^p p rt H rt-P- O O 0OPIinnP)i-j rorti-j P' ^Pi(j) O ro3yP3pro rt3"ro HIc3prt P-O PM O P'0POp-rt • ^ OHI ft* j*ro :-' fun 1 • P3 P. ro Xp-en rtp- 3iQ roinrt CPhj P- (Din P3PJ ^rort PI 3PJen in 3'PP'PJ 3PIp.:.iftPp-^i rtyp-en cnroprtP-O 3 PJP- P- 3|-Q•, HIp-PJPJp-3 tQ ^ O (-< PJ rop. p- 3iQ P- 3 ^-^. n M 3 ppjp.p-rt P-O 3 rt O rtrrro ortyroHJ 'OHJ O <^p-enp- O:ien 0i-t-i tn Cp-rt P, PJro PJo3 tnyo ro p HJ Hj ro 3rt tn ^inrtro3in• en Co *-3 fj hiloOenroen rt O p 12PJofa p-Prtro trroPpyroen o HJ P- 3rtO trroPo.y HJro*oPJro3p-iny3ro3rt en 3'OCpjPJ trro rt HP 3M ^Oo ^ftroP. htio'i ^PrtroHJ P P-H; P HJ Pft P-O3• a cip. ro tni( 5op. (— ' in inPJ p-rrPI0' I--1 ro HI0.h( PJP- 'SIHJ C ft-p- CD3 ft Q t^P P- ^ro PI;j PJ ^P. I-J PJ | j. M1 o' T-l t_>- p-(1f,l f!in p;) 3 P. ••oPJ P33rop. PI3 P. nPHJ HJ P-roPJ 0r^tt rtO pj *^ Op.PJ inP-iOJ3 I-'- f"ii 1 •• O pJ 3rt- . — , D'«*_>. OHJroPJ p- 3^Q P3 PJ in^oop-pjen PJp-tn ^'3O 01 pi p-J wrr13i--jPJ ey (D t-!0)en 0cM Oro\ PJro*oro 3PJro3rt Pnrtp-<j P-rtP-rotn• .«. ra *^Prtpj hiro cnrtr;PJ ». P ^QdPoc Mft £Hro•. o ^"S tflH* 3p- P*pjH; , — .^j •--^ tdroCOrtoHPrt"p-O3 ^13ri hj•aoenrotn• enro 3cnp-rtp- <^ro P roP• HJroenrt 0hip-3 uQ trroPoyroen«• ro Xoro*T3rt p- 3 ro3 <^P-HO3Mro3rt.PV-*pj ^<i s-~. CT1 • — - ^P" 3rohiPPJ roXrthPpttp-03•. p- 3P pJfa PJP- 3 ^) cnP3 t5i HIO ^ p3Oro 0HI ro Xp-enrtp- 3«.Q p- 3rtPyro P'MPJ ocft I 1lp I — 'l-J pjp. '-'(Dtn• P3 PJ *X3P-t)rocn O hi P-3int-fjroprtp-b3 O Hi *X3p-roi"i wl pl;.jpj 3PIi"3f rfix 3I P-3 OI — ' •— * C Ul PJ ^~^p-3 iQ H - 3Otr P- C PJrt ro33 rtO Pft M PJ n:! K" F-3 bp- PJft P-ro PPJU)rt roO IS N ^p.tr or: ro hi "< '(.) P- t^ 3 hiiO i'p O cn PI (Db' o;i j -(Uin rt fi,3' rore <COp- pj3 On -1O CO< 3ro rtg enro3 £rt 3'fDO '1Hi OHi rtp- tren ro3'pi Hi3 P-PJ 3p) H. >< pi Hi P- 3Hi OfD rt 3* O PJ '3&p- p-rt in PJrt • rt >O P-O H; DOfd rt rtM O 3'o o rert rtro P- HIn O t jrt D Ooro P- PJX 01p- ^01 3 Mrt CD P>P- O P-3 ro 3iQ 0101 p-PJ PI tOre H;< •< HIro roV-1 Hi PJo o en'0 t. P-3 ( cr 3 p rort cr- PJ PJP- 3 O O PJHJ x-% pj D' •— ^ CD Hjrt re COo cH n 0rt3"ro^r^rert3"OPJHioHi'00rtreortp-tilQ ro Xp- 01rtp- 3 COrtf-j c. rt CHJroen *0 PJ *dK 3 OO P. t<!_!. pJro tr rto re rorten PJ rt- P- 3"3 roro rt D'*— ro rop, enHI rtPJ rtO O 3O P-PJ -- rt|_, p.O ^ — ' iQO PJ3 3 rtrt ro P-Hj O Oo re 3PJ 0101 3 HJ P, pJ O K 01 L_J. £ro s: H; O PJ fDrt rt 01en ro H; HI 3* en PJro c 01H! >-a P-re ^ tri — i i — i3 •x; roo > PJ nM D"rt PJro 3H! 3P roP- H-JO P-3 N01 PrtO P-H, O^H. enH- -<;re a,p, PJ01 301PJ -DPJ O01rt Ot, rt pi fD3 H;en en 01 p3* crPJ enM rtPJ PJ 3P- rt 3 P- O P O 1 — 'H; 1 en >dre 3'n prt • enp- ro0 PJ3• ' Oto C0 rttoto OCh hir£j'titQf-JPJQjrePJ^3'rot,re HIroPJenp-tr ^— JCD• td 0O PJM CP* enC P-rt 3p- uqO3 £P^ rtt-i roO H(D'pj enre rt3 PJin o3ID ji>3 rtPJ P-OHi 3p-'en n3" o ^ tJp- rt PJ P-w cr .dw rt ^ H-O ^ C '-Qt — 'DJ rtOtrre en a HIPI P- H(3 rt Op. P- 301 PJ roC rt Hns re o^0 01M P P-*-< PJ O.• < 3roHf pM 01 3x ro p.p-en p- s;rt 3 3Tp- to re3 P 3iQ Ort PJ3 w rop 01H; o P-P- 3 iO 3 3ro PJ ro O PJen nrt p rt H; M OCo 01 rort 3" PJ COP-M *".. 13ro re P- 01 M 3p- P3 (tro ro oH CD 01 "13x re HP-.U Oen < nrt re roP- 013 o entq o rop (f\tn inrt rt 01>i P 3'C PJ Pn i Mrt a, \~'c reP, trj D're ro reen 3PJ '0o re oH; 3 Mrt 3*a p-C C rtD' 01 rtM re rop- en PJoO £D" HI 5-ro ro •p rt 30 03' H;ro "rj oW H; ,.Q O CP- rt p-3 re H;n roPJ rt PJp3 rtua oroH n to too ro re3 PI <in ;" rort PI rtti PJ 3r; i-j- roO en 3rt - rtP- eno n -3 P1P- crrt i-h H3J H) repi pirt HJ X"re £p rt pI-1 p rtrt p- rore 3 >sH; p- wW 3 -3 u3P •£! HJrt pi oc PJ P-P, PJ 3p 01 01 M - «• 01 p 3J 31 3 PO PJ HJt, crro o opj rt H;p- tr3 ro oro HI 3'Pen 3e 3n reV PJ tn rt p ?, TJ PJ PI 3" o rt n PJro r.5' 3' H p, CD P o ID ro PJo re H, re o CD 3 t-s 3 n o nrt PJ P, >a ta P tr 3 rt K p-P- n w ro o c ","• o ro re ra PJO O 3' 01 p a. t-J l-i p, p p-3 3 P- HI D rt O rt rt3 O ro PJ ro HI 01 p- p p- p-u> ro 3 oj o 'cj p 3 o rDo H; 01 p, 01 H; p t-j p. 3 01to o PJ P- or: ri ?iw p- en . cr. o • cr rt re HI PJ tntn P PJ HJ co 3* P- 5 re.PJ 3 re re rt o tn en 3" cr MO - PJ p- 01 3' rr ro o <H, rt rt rt re P P- HJ p p-P- CT p- c PJ 3 ro rt 3OlrtCDOrtHiMuQ P- O3" o 3 re P HI 3P- Pjp o 3 Ci f!> O rt3 P- ro PJ 01 p- O 3 P 31uQ 3 tn 'a P- rt p, en p- rert p- CT pi p- p- 3p- ro if) o o rt cr H; cr PI o3 t-j a pi re h'- ro re P' c opjH.rort re orooiaC re PJ P- 3' tn t< H; -. rt EJin H; 3 P ro re M rertroPtrj.oi3pjPCP-Hj HI 3 Ocrt'OfDO^ s: p, HI tr o P- >Q tn P-• p- P re M re o HJ pirtpJoreopj3pcnM 3"OP-33 O & 3*OM udcpjrepjphrtpjp-fore3 p,pjp-3Jrl-rtHjHji--cr' p-enro ro P- o ro o tra ro < re w PI cr P- •3 WP-Xtnrttrire3re P- PJ P- P- x care3tnrotnrt3P-'O PJ S'pjrtD'i-QUiHipoitnp'tnro rtO3r. M P- i p.O 0 M O 3HI rr •» H ia enoortp-O3toOfOto*t-> roinodMorocn•woro*.•exoyProoJ— io^-Qp-0pH OH *OPJPJroo rtoMO inP- 0 H U)otoU>O "XJO My o< PJro dM Oin rrP- P-o <y P-w rrC Ix^ OHi tn . OP-PJtn PJ PJ rtp-g uroK uioMtod I"1cn Pro y-. p.tn0O iny c< p-ro rrM I1'in D' P- MO ID£5 • HioK fl!vTj ^SLJ. od rtp; M P pJ PO(DP-yPUSMP- OdPJrt C- f"Sp)H 'C OP. nrtp-oym UJoroPJt,P-3roPHp-odj ft r^M PJ PJ PyQj *,t 3 p-yrtroyi ProPtn••iPPJV — 1.PI*nroyrt p.ro<^roPJo^03royrt • wow,[ioMyp-h{Oy3rourtPP-PJt<^ tnroyinp- ftP- ^ro yPt_rp-rtPit cnroorrp-O t< d oG»OMto HOtr1 td PJ p> f. dp- y o MS PJ d trp- PJ Prt o PJ yort y o d O rt O W• n 3 roC P- hcs cnM tr PJtr r; ro Pp rt rt yy ro ro PJ PJ rt p s;ro o y< PJ roro rt o MPJ y I.Q roo ro P- "O O rts o PI yro w M roy n-rt p P o• tr y oM PJ yp- <to < roy P- Ma p wo tr P-y M ort ro y o y o Mi fj Hi P- p if) fty yw if rorr oP M MFr :r Pp' ci yo o CLp. in d PJ PJin p pro y yPJ PJp* tn inin ^ PP y MPJ to O M M dro ro yP PJp, rr•< y rtro ycn roro << P- *afD CL» OH tf hro H- H- 1 — ' (~-* ^Oi< H- :rft <D 1 — ' *"^ h^I j. t..**go" P- Hi 0rt HIo roPJ x d P- hjtr in D'K rr pjp- yo yO i£) PJy H«) P ropJ vf) PJp- M 01O P-rr o rrw c. o t/-J s; rt rtp- d yrr M roy P ^ — » tJ* N ' tr)'< 1 — t H* •3 H-rfH- PIJQ o •oy<roi-^ COp-0yin 0HI Pin M H*q I — *rr C p.'pj d Htr CJy 1 — 'P J3PJ dinroin• » rr £ ino y roO 'r!g H Pp- ro My PJP- y rt3 0 P-H- o yN O iQro win dO P Mo M try ^ PHI - y P- O Po M yrt ro a,tn p H. Mtr M c;o *< n rt p ro roro HI py P- My oP ro PJin PJ 10 Mp- tr •o d P-d HI ypJ Hi Ort ro \->c n u PI P p'M H yro if j.p; p -y uiPJ , — ,P^-" wk^ rotnftf"trPJp-wyp-yiQ tnrrP CJ f--1 ro D'o ^yaw Hp. Oin d 3 ocn p- dro y Mtn P- rt3 dft p- h(y N PM a HO PJd roIQ tr oy ro ort yP s oPJ ro 3PJ ro ><y -oHI P PJin y rt M PJy P-ro o o 1 °O rt HIPJ d P1 PJ if H-O P Os: PJ rtp- iny Pin 'y tn.. p. yP H h— 'trP try ro PJPJy rt cn 1-3o y yP ro in M 3w pc tr xM ro P-ro 33 drt P gy P-fD y prt 3'-a P oM p- do y yn- ro rto p,o ort p- HIp- yo -ay P Min P'O M 3Hi P- (Dnrt d P ro rt hjd P-P M O M Pi dfD M PJp rr Li >0 d -KMO PP p. PJ ifi fJM O Mp. rr pii P- y O PJy to rt cn *a M gro p- d M ro roo y o ro o yrt d y < M rt —p- p ro ro P tro y P y P M -' •y o M rt rt Mro ro P- l P P- o IDo o in g y cn roto HI •> 'u ro <*^ p p y roM en PJ o M w pj d y rt ro P- oo PJ w p rt hay tn p- gin s; < roy y y tn ro yp PI p- y fttr PJ o P yp- M y PJ p P-rr PJ & yP tr s: P-rr ro O tr ft pd ro P Mp o PJ rt roM o PJ tn pro 3 p- p cnP 'a tn rt Mtn p p- ro ro PJrt in PJ P PJP- y cn i~i-tr p- p PIM HI y P nro P- PJ y roo PJ y•£ P PJ rtp- y ro 'drt rt in p rry (_, p. it o•< in Xrt y tn roy pi o yro ro p, p.- <in y P"O M rr p, M O P O Oy PJ yi ro i POMM y d ro ^P cn rt.in d P-• o oy y M Oro HItno yd PM tro P-ro rtin prtcny : oro yj i<jf P- drt tny roP- L1y tn ro'd 't)o ny yPJroy wyP I — ' pJ V--tr •ro M M <O P-rt Mro oo yn- 3ro rop. yrrP Pin t — *P Mp- •<yco in(t roy P COy P-'< rtp-w < .p- ro iQy yP' P'HI trp- P-O rr PI Py rrrrPPJ Mp- rot;i pI cn toronrtp- Qy Ulo NJtJA O n01inp-3iOPIDPJH!roI iPrtroHi 0pt pjp-f-J- p-roin PJp-*jp-rr0rrO^cJHO<;P-PJP-3•-OHiOH 3ronro 0101PH; (-*f i.(co[*^;3rr oo•j•JroHIop-PI01 P-Ch*cr3t)J3~f)O)p-Nrorto noP01rtP» — »n0*3DCDh^op-Po3^rijD ort^j"ro O Hj^J- Ph— i 01h_i. N d 01ro 01 0ro HJ intrrt p-p D* tp Hi 1*0 HiO1 P^h „_!_j trf0 rt3"rop-H; ap- ^P-inp-O3 rtp-3trroHJ ^— J P3 PJ01 P-3 d 3P-rt 01 O H, t-jft!3Pi'/I(JlyP! — 'p-trro*or-^Ortro0rtro Qj«. p D Pj 00 3<roHJ 01P-o 3 (/) t O H> 1-33'rop-o3id1rtroHJ3'"Clh^op,dnrrp-<! i ->•rt ^ 0 Hi 0) 0 P-( — " 01 p 3 PJ rtp- ^trroH;i enroortp-O3'_jjOtol[^U)rtdH;PPJdinro03inCHJHOd3PJP' 3iQ 1—j P3 PJOl• 01D'T-'.|_i1- -JO'ron0B^O0)rtp-tri — >ro•^p-rtI--1' no3rtp- 3drop. P <£> p-odi — ii enronrrH-0DU)Ot_nO•°Z.t^^01dny ^ron.yp-rtrtro 0J oo 3<ro H01p- O3 Oo3nro3rtH(Prtroaro<^roo•3ro3rt OO3 01p- 01rt ro 3rt ^p-rt £7* 5^ocI — tpj*oh<ro01roHi<rofcp-3roPiQ7^ P- O j — i rt d HJ P P1 [ — i P 3 0HJ dinrop-0130rtHIrop01p-tr( — (O*.o H » — s [\J *— • tnc:o£y no 3 <ro Hi ^~* ^O3 ^3I-"ro01inf~^.\~->— -Oo3rtp-3droo H( HJro3ro roP. P iQ H; p- 0d 1 — 'rtdH!PPJ o>*-;'P1— ji — <3OrtD'rooo3<rorrro rtO 3 3PiQ H(P-nd rtd h^PJ H- J d 01ro 01 ^~*i — >i — *ortyroPJP>->PJ01indp-rrPtrMro HI0H PaHIP-od rtd H P M d01ro cn •roortp-o3OJOto P' rtP 3"3 roPJ01 fO• HOPJdOrtP-<^p-ft^s0Hi0).df)3- ^o H( P-gfD P H P- O Cpj rtdPipp-1 rtO^0HJp-3toPVjQP,p-ndi — *rtdH(JD) — ' 1 — iP£3a Ol 013- PJ PJ 3 Ort PIp-3p-3P- 01 0rt3"p-0101roortp-O3"*CU*3fjjP[ — iPJ •PJro<roMo•n3ro3 PPJi_i.Poro3rt <roOlP'o£j01PJ^o^oH!o<(DPJ''Odhj01dp £3rt rtO in &ap-<p- 01p-o£3 ^-^tr^— ' p-•iroPtf]HJP-OdPJci-dHPPJf — iP3 PJ11 N ro Xnrot)rt rty O 01ro o03. 1 .--^ro^oKP01Ol&np-3iQrt34 Prt PPJt — i PJp- p- 01p- O£J 01 0Hi p.rot-ic>roPJPp-HP3PJ5)PrtroH{ ,Qdppjp-rt *^ * rort3'ro>-'rt3*HJOdiQ3'P-3OH;rop01ro P 01 01ro 01 013ro3rt O001rt 01 O roP'ofoD(33ftP'03Ortp-3•ap- ^P fv p-od rt d Hi J_J <; P- Ptrp- ^p-rt H)Pnt-jP-rtro>'P^50!P-Otj0)£jD DJ ^jp p ijQ ^p- OdPJrtd ppj pjroi , — ,PJ^— ''w**cP101indi-j.p-^3lQftyfy rt f^-J dtr ' p-n 01ro Hj p-oro P PJ 0PIiQHp-ndPJrtdPPJ\—iP3PJ01 01dp-rtroa.HI0PIHJP-OdrtdHiro h3 HJP-OHJ rrO rt fD oo 3 < (D W H-O ^ — ,nwu^PJro<roH-1o^op-3i^Q p<PP-H-JPtrt — *ro » 3a01 3orl- 01 3" P^_j PJ tr (D H[ r» Cp-H (D & * t rt p-O 3 OHiHIP- 0ro » Hrop<eno3 C' D'\ — i (0 yp-f (•p-inP'rrp- O3 nit)pi 01J-j nfD 01 p 01 p- PIro3rt p-Hip-roPJ tr^< rt3"ro C/)rrPrt (D KP- 0)rt O h^H- O *U f^ru(/)(D HJ <^P1 P HI 0, *-J Proo .}—* oiQp-OPt-j. O HJ *^Op ) — 'roo3rt 0 t~* O iQp-OP H-* H( O01odMoro 01 5^3-ro HJro QJro<^roi — *o*"Ogto 3 ft 5?dd •PJa. PPIi^o H( 0)oH-» l<^ P-=1 '0Pnrr O recreational facilities to serverty (0 y ro *PJ Ci) ro o tj (D*3 rt and development plans with the pro<p-inp-oy 0HI o£j wp-rtro rtyro-1qrtoMlP.ro<ro03rotJrt p-rty O OPJPJ *"CJPJ£ po »Q p-top-rtp-O (load nearby coastal recreation arroPJto tr oo H.ro pJ Pft P- ^iQ ro0opirtp-O;jyCDC?P.WOM,ron(-- , M P- DJro rtw ^P.PJPJ *"3 Ort 0 ro i 0MiHiP-nrotrr;P-p.ytoPtrCA w to C p.y rt Prt rtyro rtPitltoP.rttiiOt-ip-p-rtroywP-rt Cwro to tocoy PM yP. \jQ y4 1 Hi P- Wro VortPP-OyPMwcp-yrtro 0rrro rtP-P Mi O *O CtrPJ P- O rr.ear.s of serving the development;£ P-rty ^o& PJP-n rt P to1 P.16pirtCDP,VP-iht-nPoP-p-rtp-n>to O tso<p-PJp- m wctr toftp-(tcft nP.COf»rtp-pp-rtp-roPJQ 0 *P c& rt *— -s,r^ «w- >o f"l0<p- p-yin ooClltor-;-ppooroCOtooaw o p-p. £3ua *~So g rt Ogbtrp-[—1 Q O'iP-tl0rraiPI"!roPtortyPrr<•p. 3p- p- 3p-Nro rt ro ctoro o Ml rtp-IDM**".P-rrtrp-oPLo'p.p-rowp-PJ CO rtP- P Ojro ro Mohagro£3 rr oHIrtPI•jtoP-rrtorop-oro'0Ho<P- p-y 0og3roHop-P HiPIop-H H- 1 The • location and amount of new der.aintain and enhance public accesby (1) facilitating the provisionto <o roh^ ft" h— *o to X rr 3rt y roro ro y3 rtto O P- O Wo P yy to ort C o!and by local government shall. bethe character of its setting.SEC. 30252.to &OHDJP-3 PJft CI> rt O pared bv the Deoartment of ParksPJ P. *flroo roPrtp- 0y Coastline Preservation and Rccreartp-o3 ^ Py *t3 Hroi c:o_»•>wrr6wP.OtoP-tlrtCDa.p-y rtyro n p- MlO yp-P p,C:P01ro'Ci,ro<iroPJo'a-iQDrri->-3 yP- y tof)royp-o PHroPw PIayPoop-toCPIP-rt P-y <p-tocp i — * K^ Q ^OH PQj Q f^* P< p- 3 to Hp- y ro y ro- PJ y p 3 i-'- p; rt M P 10 O H1 P-p- CD HI yo o ya y t-i o - P • CD - fts; MP tr o5! PJ y ro roy o PJ yCD < Hi p-i-s -o >a o oro P- t-i Ho o 3 rtro HJ < ro 5.' X 3 H- P. Op- ro w ito y p- o PJrt rt o t-i Pp- y yy p- ro Q<Q y o xp HI >a t-io o ^ P ot-i y y P to ft p, QJtrj P- y ro •PJ w ro p.P rty ro n ro wy y ro :•: 't,ro rt (•< o roDJ < O O •d P- o rt |yGrt ro i-»' tr *:M s: y n.H- rt O o p-o y c, t-t mp- M ro rrZ, to Pi nO * fi* fj-n y M nX^ O co rtto ft ft> wtoI ' ffi ft rtH- y yo P roy rr <* ^15 P P- MK rt 0<jd P- P-O to toc p-rt rt Oro y yro toPJ P- 0p- y MIy n-CD rt11 y yC rt- p-t-i to P OM Hi PJ p- P rt < ro o wp I'- W 1H Oo r.)o in *• Mi P- to >Ort i-J t<y PJ oO ft < C P-O t, P.O CD O W- rl •«rt yPI PI y »-" n C)>; N (-') (0o n <: t) P' !l>ro r i t-i rt DJ 2;ro ro roP. co sp-d' in o*< y t-sro -PJ PJ roro x CDo c w:> P,WWWtj- yto in urr d t-1 CD y PJ y IDrt n D- P' (5 p-rr cn 3 W PO rtp. Ooj yoto '-O Ul O*>. p-yrtw Ml 0t-i f^rooi-iroPJrtP-OtlP CWrowt tf c g 3 Cp- yi-Q P-c rtro P- .~.ro cno w —~yP P st-i y t?P PJ roO t-irt y roro roH p- Pp- in (rjJw tr tort tr i-i P- O On ti foto 'y t-i- O P-o PJP> P. rtt-i w roro ^ - *"O r^' 'c5O P- I,ta o oP y rr M - CDPJ nt-i tr riro< o wP- PI »Ow r; ro P- CO firt ro p- O P'H O }-'H, . P. 0ro rr oto y 3rt ci' iP. p. 1 H 3p- row ^~^ rt »ts t"i ' — *P< Sro P-i i ^ ro p-PJ gp. Nro royro ^in • ^ 00yw fortp-0y pyDJ <^rotrp-o ro PJ 0 roMo•t)3royrt _ >• tr tt Pjjj yro -^ W pi OJ O P- — C< ^ K Wo 13 roro ow PJ o H 0n c yO rt toy P- P-rt O toH y rto roPJ o yo rtrjJ yO rt s:p t-i p-M O rtp, t-j y p PJ t-tw p- row tnrt rt CO H P- HJ- t-iro o roP rt 3n roy "o yH rt0 toPJ rtH y p-rt ro 3P- (Uo to &C rt topj PI roP rt PJH (D p to rty c yDJ tr rotoo rt o M P Op- y y Ml ft toHI P- rtto P t-; • M CPJ o•< rtP- P> OM yrtro o H Mi 3 *UP Mrt or: rtt-i roP nPJ rrP-PJ <PJ rot)PJ PJHI ro 0 <tj p.3 oto CDtoPt-J rto try PI. iT) rt tr ••>". t ' 0c- r-H( i -j . M, P, rt ro Py n yro o PJww P- yp- o ro -—rt y p- roro - rt ^-*-<• o in ro >K, ro n wo wto t-1 O C£ O M isi~i in CD rot-i p- PJ O O rt toc ro -fty P- PJp. y y trp- to O P-3 rt t-i PJ iQ PI P-tr n rt P P- O l<t-( (-• ti CD P- rt PJPI rt i-; y>< P- PJo - trh r: wO rt rtp- t-i ro t-< 3 CPJ to nP (D P- fty w iQ c»< rt ti i-ti-i P- P-% f> HI i — * p O P-IX rt O p-p- PI yt< O :i rrro ti n ro |Ci PJ If) C O *< Hp- iii P-i, • ct rtro o l< H P 2H roro £pW PJ--, roo PJ <HI ^ roPJy s oP. p. ty in y 3y p- ro3 yin P- rt. ro NO ro wPJ yOK Pin P* t— *p- to P>o x^ w HI rtP- OOo PJPJ p- - H,rop y PP. yPJHIP- fOH Hro o*oy ro(n t\ M ftpi K; t-iPJ P-• y cnWo• OJoto UI OJ •» OPi(D^CDHJ0fytjroyrtw«30255.njHp-0HP-ft t-<J O H, - O0PJenrt P*IP..roti J3a. fD J3rt 30254.*C£j*( — ip.O <]ohi j^(fl Hi PJ Op- p-rtp-row royroh^ijQk<^ ooytoro H '<j PrtP-Oy <^p-tnP-rtO H W •30253.tnPMl(Drt•* tnrtPJtrp- Mp-ft t-^1. *oo p-crtp-Oy««30252.V -5d Ptr P-M yp- rto royP Ph< yro dP ro W• Pya roy Py .orog CDyrt oHI to0toUltooroyp-op_j t^ PJ <^H-UiC P i-Q 0pp-rtp-ro (/^•.30250.(-1oop• P-o t^ -* ^oo ^ (-^fu M ^•SectionasI HO p *O O tnK PJ Hi Of& rt CDPJ H- y yw to1 p H- ^ H ft OCD r;p) MO 3 £ O Oa. p- M p>- rt wy M rt5 PJ P)y rt y MCD y aH (D PJ CD Hi H<o o CTJH. y H PJCD P' B (/)PJ h( M -to P) »p- o rttr rt rt 0H CD OfD H 3tr p-o fi> yrt HI p-O < 3to p- p- hi C M NCD H r- ru W K pJrt O M rto p M yM y •< IDro a/ P- O (Uy o Mi« U rti n> MPJrtp-oy fO Cb U (0o <rt rt> CD M 0 Ort >ag < CDP- 30) ft 5w wyft P 0 MM PJy tr &i CD PJ w,_, p. 0 rty m\.q p, rt P)yj y CD & o p.o ro C!) W P) P-y IQyPJ 'D t3 P'a*r(-O H PJ ^fD hj ^s- CO fD O O PJC w tn H 0 O M fDfD y yCJ P- O M O Hi HJ PJ•o v y&fo a. H1 0 < P- O P-o y wto Cp- p- PJg a M^ CDO " ,.Q H D drt (i PJPJ My PJ P-o y rtro PJ P-o"a wnni o o fD rf H»M a> r3 0 OP- rt Ort (D PJrt p, 0) fD rt P* PJ P>M M PJ tn r> H>H y o O • H • t- <w o P-O V£) Wto o p-Ln -rt I-1 --- O Htn« ^^ PJ & CDyPJro D. tr•< nPJ H1 . • tnftPJrl-to. P-Ui^j <£> < Hifi) <BM PJ O 0)hO P-g tr ^~ fi) M Oy •< —rtw tr <ro p-o w H M P-0 rtPJ o ort- a- H.ft ito ro w fD 0j fDM HfD P- <o y P-rt yro ro vna- xp- HI»d (n PJ O ft 0p- p- p-y y Mrt i.Q P- W ftp- p-o w ro Hi O (/> MPJ EJ rtrt rt yrt (ti !li H fJj ff CJo n. oft ;D PJp- i yo yy on ro ^j-J*tortp-y iQ PJro<CDHO ^0fD P. PJHfD PJW * ftMP-PJ M -<~VDJ trro —<ro sM y O fJ^a n3 roroy HI ft (D fuw • wy P-PJ tr(_, |_i !-• 0 V "ro yro M -t Oo yPJ (ijrt Nro pi & h! PiPJ 0 f, CPJ wKi •'•HI nH PJ 0 Cy o)i w tJ PJ s; P- M M PJ inp- PJ hj y us ro y c P-N 1-1 ro o 03 fj pj CQro n PJ t-i M PJ M yro ro PJ ro PJ M P-o M y ro tn PJ *< HIHI to PJ en < p- p- < 0 0 Hi rt O 0w £ ro »-• o P- t-t funo y o M o yhj c b' ro h3 y o rtH M ro i-i o PJ - c O P' O O PJ vQ tj pirt y ID t-s M a PJy tr y PJ P- PJ i-- <p. CD PJ (t H o y PJ rop- ro ro c rij rt- hiyy<opJM P- wiQOroHiiortpj<roM c; P- rolOWOrttfih!<i-jroPJ '-3 *o y y PJ P- '< HIhjpfDOpJl-'Wx HIo M PJ PJ P- roroM dMCOooM ro P w w y y rttn H y PJ tr ro w MPJ tr ro w - o •»rt M oy ri- ro "a o PJ roPJ y ro o rt w P-y ro 'u H d y rt rtPJ g rt ro PJ ytt o h P- w hj M roy 11 o n p- i-tro ro ro rt PJ rt hep> 'M ro ro y ro p-p rt tn PJ p w y<; ci) rc y o P.ro PJ P- o x c P-hs 3 y P- h . PJ P-y yPJo^ rty yro Q11 HoPJP- Hrr (DP'<. top-p1 £ M p- fty yort Pp.y ro i» iO< cro PIrtro 3 rt 3 trjOOP- HPJ -^ rt Op y <rt- ro P- p-ro x y PJp- - ro p. u) PJ ft ft 0 P- O P-o y y yhi uq rtP- rt PJ iQ y5 ro d P-y < o (nro fo d11 p- tn PJro o P-v -t <in ro P- P-r.: PJ rt n 0 P' P-y P - on yP ro o - H P hiro w t/iP P- yw PI y PD- PJ P M O M11 ro Mro o tr ft W IDy o ron Mrt p "D O O hi f)PI n O PItr o x rtP> a P- roit) 1 -3 fJjp-rr ftC •< P-yPJdw rt — . h! P1-,. ^ PJM SroPJ s:ro < Hro ro P1 10O P- *0 PJ •3 roro yy rtr i- P-PJMro •>xO 0ro ohu ,-jrt Sro P h(en op- O PIrt Mp- O O H M?:p-wro tn HO Uloto Ulo w io i nC'O'oots(1•^OM.(i**^rV(/i:3H-! (^rt"v<^v; ! rlla ' °ro3O.CDfittr^oP'i — *« cnriPJrt 0) * HV£)**j V£> 4. q rt3'»T0r:P'QJtrro(D i^• >ro3fO)'Oi"iO!0[^p-PJrtroIPJ -OOPJwrtPJM1 PJft)•nro3fljro3rt Cwrotn rtfT*ro o o •oo- 1DoO-i PJrtron. s:p-rt 3"" P-3 (-^ roPJwo o0P-lwrtPJ h~* Ih$ (1) (--»PJrtro Qj p..ro roi — »ot3y ie- CD IX)o n(oyfttonD'PJPJ(- j3OrtDJroinp-rtrofi p-3 pj S (D rtI-1 PI a. !•";jf t-3^p.PJP-«r^I-'-P-O3-OOfllwrt-pj f— '1O-iro*"r5o t"-5aro rt a.ro<jroPJo'ai rt£ 1"*\'D(/7*DJbt^(Dj_jH-^fD•MX(Tro>uttPJ(/)' ^3"b; O H*Qj (D PJ ro inro<^ 3* CD ro "T3('JI-'-O^H.rt*x^0<zroHOrtroi-;PJO• <jro 1 — 'c *X3 ^ro3 rrW 0 o h^ t3roPJ * n0'j]rti-jlaro'a(D3PJro3rtP*ro<^roi — io*ni3ro rttn w 3"1 PJ PJ 3"* PJ <^ro . c/it7!c^.'OJoroUlLn•D.(D<roo»••«bro3rt•PJPJ3PJ£wro(.1w3'PJMM30rtO'CD*X!Jl-^ron . £•Qj 0) 'PJ tr*^ ort3*ro ooM:!ro\-\np-PJi — *h^ro0CDPJrtO£J<* J}J £J P. <p-ton~«. rt O{-\ \to Oh^ < H-3 ^Q I'!rouf;^/•03*.0)(-VPrtro<«oK^*-;fartp-O ^J -* *Tjc; tl* j.j. n ^D 0 rorj p- f-J* D 3 P-3P.r^M(tP-fi>in<p.rtPJi — irtOrtrorooo t^og p.n 3*fnPJ(-•rt3* oi-n rt3J O h-1?-Jr^O'Cro^rowHIro3PI-p-PJ^cr/H1 P-o tflron<p-oro 01 PJ 3p.. trPJ P-o o1113O:-aOjfD<rof- -jo*\"j3o3cf^i"tOi •;^P- (^roto rtO O0PJ LOrt PJt— ' PJro'dro 3 0,ro i-.iE.>oP.i-jp-rtp-O(^nPJ3PJnno•-3'^2Oa,PJ rtro 03M ^ PJ I—4 P-3p-(-^roa fy 3Oi^ J3 CJotSJfD3p fDM (D OrtHH-O fD CD H Prtp-3 rttn HiPOp-P'p-rtP-fDin• U)oto01•fDHiP-3fDM P- (DW OM fO rfH0o 3'fD3p- 0p woroento0p-] — >P3PJ "-Qpto PJ. fD fD 1 — ' to HfD 3rt * 3Prt^MPPJ tQ Pto rtfD 3p. £3P)p-in• O.)otoCAHctn0)OHi rtP3 *K\> fD M Hi P O P-1 — i P-rtP-fDtn^.« p- CP-Hi P- fDPJ CJO!v>OlOoopirtP-O3 OM fDX p £3inP- O 3 • aainHB p<o HOtr1 W S* M .3pjHiOpjincnc'iocnO33* fi> ^ fD o M P- fD fa rr 3 ro P- c, roO O ^-^ 3 O O 1 — ' in ro O P* 3 rt rt 3M fD rt Q 3 P" Q •£ fD to EJ 10 rtfD P- y 10 tn US P- 3 in P- P P- p^ p p lo 3 ''O 3 HI en rt rt PJ I — 'O fD < 3 O P- fD P- rt P- (D fD'T3 fD PJ rt <i t — ' PJ O O P *s PJ *-Q(DP O (D pJ 3fO OOM3OM 3 ro rt en tr p HI PJP*<3fDrtfDpjOP-ropPtn PJrt tn o 3* 3 ** rt PJ M ro tn P-HiOOfDrt ^ fD (!) rt fD rt X O O M < • — . P-1 • 3 (D p O P' Hi3 fj (D Co 3 O to > — <J M tn tn op PJ M b HI • — p- 3 P) rt MPJ fD P> K: in 3 H M P P < P-pjpjfD rt O 3 P- P O rt 3 O 3 rt><: D' ro rt P- 3 3 3 P- PJ P- vQ ytr P ,Q ro 3" 3 P- x 3 < PJ roO P I — ' Cj Hi ro P' 3 ro Q (D tn rtM M PJ P- Hi M 3 P- M 3 3" M ro PPJ P fc1 (T> P- N rt rt p p- M MP- P) fi "3 o < N ro HI p ><: PJ w 3 PJo en rt o rt ro ID P PJ *r> PJ ff P- PvQ rt p- 3 P- co rt O M ft) 3 •p 3 rt <; in rt 3* p- >< Crtp M S vQ CD (D 3* fi) M OtnOpJ PJ p Hi M fD P- *O Hi fD K:*< rt HI O HI in rt rt M CD P> o(D P M fD - M O P- fD to p 3 M <, M M O p H- ft CD Hi *< < fDfD p- O in ^ vi p in ro tn 3 p- PJ rriQ. HI PJ p- p- u) A" M M rt O M tn pC H H- M tr — ' in P ro 3 O 3p- o rt tn p- o < rr tr 3 o M n x'M 3 P- 'o ro 3" HI o P M b" 3 3' TJo IP p- PJ M M ro n n ro P) MPJ rt to P- o < n d M P o 3 i-1 • P M O ro O :3 Hi 3 *< rt PJ rt 3 rt to 3 PJ TO b' O P Q«s* O - rr M M (D M tr tn P-> tr 11fi> P ro P- o ro ^< M ID ;j11 pi p- p tn HI p tn *< p- W 3 3 PJ P- rt UPJ I '< O fD p)3 3 M N t/J 3 rt 0 P 3 3 ft r"?*CD P" M3 O ^Otj (I) 'O t^$} fi) rt rtP- p-tr o! — ' 3ro en £ p rt PJ£j* Prt tny tnro ooP1 P-P p3 rtPJ roP.r;in oro 3wPJ 3*3 Ofj* Mroq < rop- <M roO M 3 0 1 IU roXQro>art" ^*|3* Q(^CD rt 0 PJO too ^0 G M PJ Mroin £ | — 1 rf p- 3 p- 30MrointnroPJ 3 rtP PX 3P- X4 3 fD i ^ P" ro Px o srt p- Cro PJ M3 P- (trt rt P-P- OHI ro oro en 3P fain tn p)p- 3' 3tr P '<PJ PJro p- ctoP tr ro3 ro PJ Oro HI 1 — ' 3ro o rouQ O X P C P-M M tnPJ pi rt'< i£) p- ro 3fd P' tqroM rt P3 O 3p- PJin rt0) 3' 3PI ro rot)' sjPJro*•' co 3M P O XP-3w co 3to Cfi fDP- Xrt(D- 3 rt HIroPtnp-D' fD V ro 3<jp-M O 33ro3rtPPJ roHI H)ro 0rttn P M fD 3p-rtp-uaPrtroPJ rtO rturro p p. M Hi p O Hi 3 O(DPPO u3 rtrt P- P-• 3 Ort iQ 33* ~- toro—. pfO to M&— - ro PJ rt P-P- O 3O HiPJ ro 5v O Pro inPJ O P-HI rt trP 3" M M (D fi)ro M- s! op. Mp tn3 ro 3 PJ O£ M—, o rou> c;•-^ pj ro PJ 3 P P P- < PJ Mro < oM ro 3tn M 3 (D tfl <Dro M M (tkV Hi Oo ro o M P Pp- en inO P- rtp- tr Pro PJ p-en *< iPJo tr roHI ro ^orort P 3y p PJp- o roin o 33 rtp. 3 P- O P- < PJ 3p- P ato rt Cp- ro tn0 PJ rt 3 M ^ O P-O P rt 3 PJtr toro P- HI^< en P)rt O3 ro p- P 3 M^< rt P-rt3 f. P-O P- fi>3 rt- inro 3'rt Orr o Pro ft 3PJ :r 3ro ro oin M ftw PJ P' P- P- O 3 < 3 iQ p- iQen i enp- rt P-O ro rt3 M O• 3 w iQ PK M 3o g PJ ro rt- to< y yro P M £ M *• *~3* \~*br-: M tr3' ro roroM 0 n-5ro o ro 3 Mr? en 3ro P- P-••?. en rt(t rtO ro roM 3 PJrtro MX £ ro'0 P- Pip rt tn 3 3" OP. 3ro rt PP. rr trp- P'tn ro tr oro oPro en3 rtO P O MC 1M PJP ro vJ3 *"0ro roPJ 3PJrt ro O 3rt PJ O P-0 3 P) P. rt C(D inrt 0 M M P-Pro M X'a HIPI P3 nPJ P-PJS p-p. rtit p-3- rop- in3tn ro 3"X P P- Mto I-*rtI tntdO U)otoc^o• **«>O PJC CDP ftW fDIT h30 p-C 3p Wn P.PJ P-P 33PJ OOrt 33" enCD r:>" ftH P3 ri-*< P-0 O 3OH ^13 P-W rt OHI rt 3"M fD3i£l CJ P- 3 fiv rtD fi)H PJW rt rt' fUin 11fD01pj1 — irtHIH03(t3'fDH,POP-pJP-rt 0 MCD Prtn. O CDHPrtp-p tn•H ^*--/C'KQPenp;0^mrt-P3rtP-PI 'rr£yt-iPIp. rtO <CDen CD rt PHIHIp-o gp- i-y* rt ,-— »P..TJPftHiO1gIPop-wPJp3 PJCO ^*p- 1 1 Moft tr CD enp-rt CD enrt*}rtP-PHPJ^M(DCOenn?3P-HO33fO|3 rtPP1 HP-en en & £3 qn> p''W PJ10enC pin trCD inrt0 p)Hi 3rtCO P-i-j pO P-13^ 1 — 't<^inrt PJ11 CDC <£)0 Hrr p) C PJ H CDCDen oO P- 01PJ ftPJ pjPJnCD <in P-C mp- no- P p. 3 i£<Cen p C pJ tr H-1 rt CDW 'dHJft)rtP-O3WPCD£enrePJ5-3'CD3PJ 11 P-( — ij^j P- 3^Q 13L_J PrtHiq 9 C/l ohi p-inpjPpPJ10 ^,nH<jP-'1O33Q3rtPJMr-*K^ IT, P Hi CD p PJ H)fD Penp-trPJ CD en r^trinQP O 03 fDnc3O3H-OPJP->| — i*-<^P£3f. i^P-rt^p-D V-**a j— » ro <^H- ^o 130>£3 rt PJ p-g*ii3PJ0rt-0 * O [ti, ::'roenP- 3rt C-D -!w trCD'1 '1fD,G OC HIP.ti 'dCD HPJ O£jjft C0 0p.'d 311 'Q0PJ s;r: ron PJCD PJinrt - o inr.n '-oCD '0 10 Ore K>1 ct<2 O Hip- PJH nP. p-rtp- in^ n0ino,QCa>3nfDtopPJ5^p-t-JI-J3Oft in p- ^Q ^jP-HiP- OPJ3rtPJ K (D PJ£oCD C)OWoPJp-OjPJrtp-0"CH-V-*V--t^pi<CD P PJ fDHien CD fD 3<p- t^O 33Q rtP fjXrtfD^1rti-tifDPP-tr(T)PJ3Pjt-1CDiQPP1 1 — i C^ ^dro 3p-inenp-trPJro•• 0 3 PJfDenen PJ(D<^O\—tO^.3CD3rtPJH0)o03in0^p-P-PrtO PJ rtO d-3fD 3 PXP-3 3 ^ — .tr^O^o^SCDy.*dP3PJPJ HI PQP- P1 p. rtp-CDen i-^ oi — i P ,rtCDPJ rt O inr;tli J_J* f, oro oPJ 3M enp-in wp- rtrt refD 3• rts;p-rt3'rt*T*fDiQ(Df^ 0 P- O oo3PJP-rtP-O3en oHI rt 3"(D 0 P OO O p-3 n PJPJ Op- 11 p-~~. rt P' 3p p- p) PJ--• O 33 f) ^0i-3 lit CD Ptr enCD c) s;H p- PJPJ (I) rt DCD 3J << 3 roro CD to MP1 rt CD OO •• O TJ'd rt 3••=? p. rofD O 33 3 rtrtoj en P- O 3'en to p (Ti M"T3 O MCD -H trHi P- CD ° ^ h- 3 rt O fD 3*11 PJ (D 3p-en HI rtP O rt HI PJ fD CD M PJPJ O*•< S H-P. 3 P 3£3 yQPJ en P- PJ •xJfij 3 P- po. < trp in p-OJ O '-•• Oo tr Oto 3 C(T> O ftNJ 3" in P-• P Ky PJ'd PI p-rt PJ rta PJ p-11 fD3 enP- 00 rt OOP Pi13 ID1-0I — ' P^< 3 PJ ftt J *~y* (D fDinw "x)H fD OX ^13 P' rl 10ft) p-en O0) 3PJ in ^O13 H>H0 rt < 3"p. p. PJ en OPJ 3 P« 33 PJ0p. ro3 Xuj. oi — iST.' fjp- enrt P-3' <CDC/> M,7) >-<Ort Pp- in03 fdt-^(Ji OOi -^Ul P- 0 PJ—• oPJoHi p- 3DH- O< -3-p. P)en *ap- rtO O3 *1 to M Oo t~h -^-**0n 0tr 3fD i Hip)Op-p'p.rfP-CDinrt[J**CD>1CDH,OrxQ103'P1 — i PJ tr CD PJ CDrrpP(3p- 3fD PJ in0PJ D H•< Mp-(/"Jr:oHIP.raPJ£jPrrt-^P.)McQTV0)-.n' tlT*6 j— < 0fjpri-P-0 13 OHi rtoh$ 3t_i. t^P1 — * rt3"(DP-3 ^-^•b tro -^K,-t tUPJ CD.t 0p. pO C3 en- CDrt OH, HiPJ3 rtrn 3"'- CDQ ii pjrt 3 p P-ft iQ P- CO CD3 *• *T3l-^ P O3 trPJ PJ CDy 3P in3PJ P-P> 3 P- <3 O (jO r™1 <^o oHi Pi p. 3 iQPen fD XrtHPOrt o"3 O CO prtOHin ^~ gp-rtP. Prtp-O3 ^C?^soiQ PJ3en en3'PJ f — ' tra> troK53 (!• £j* C^ t — ' P- *cp- pj p'3 P.. DJ P-rtp- O3in •-y P Q Wrl- trp-PJp-t^0 (. o0torten O fti 3O3 P-rtO {.J, ^^Q pi:sp. rtp-o3 W tr CDuOp-3 p3 P. W 3*P P** 0 O3ftp-3r^ CD C3ctP- enfj'1HIPJofD CO 'i H, cp-PJ CDXrt P'nrtp. 0 3 C j-J P 3 PJ 0 3fDP en 3'Ot, CD tr(t> Hi OHfD O ft)npi w PJ 3" PP 3M PJ in fD ^1 Hi P- p3 nP- CDrfp- ppi 3rt a.CD PJ 3Op. ry 3 HI IM enO :r0 OP> >irt fi)P- O O3 0en CDPO 3HiHI 3 Mro o£ o pj pi :-1 ti 'O fU K> 1 Hin (aO 3PJ ni-j enCi) -^i 3s CD fD.. fp 'dH fo |-^P- P rtro 3O3P-rt 0 |-J. !J ^'d rl O 1P11p w r i"O Hfi)fi Oi",PJ rl OM fD § O PJO in P3PJ 5^pjrt CD' Hi ^^i **!,.PPJp-rt 'd otr fD3en* 13ti O p-enp- O 3 P-en 3PPJfD th 0 ^ rttro ft>PJP-3 !-•• 3Prt P-03 O I-ti 'd fti ^ rtP trrt CD(Di-i OO X) CD (D pin 3oc s:H P0 ftfD CDen fienOo a3 P-rt in rl OO, 3' h^W >-Qo oP11 HJ PJ M PIP 33PJ OHIz?y rtCD 3'11 CDCDtnPJ rt|l> fu CD ft ,Q (Dc:PI(t rt0 iiCDP- 3 LJ. CDOrtP- 03in 5^P- MP1 trro i^11P 3rfCDPJ no3inp-tnrt ID 3rt ^p-ft 3' f,3 O3fDen 5? P- t — ' l-J H; CD PJr^ Q fD (D 3 <^P-HO 33CD3rt P> 11p. enXin• r*jX0ro '' ;ftp. O3en <Op-H; en P3 PJ C3P' CDenin p-3w-raortp-O3 p- 3ftO Ort 3'CD ', Wf. O"(ni^t^i it Pn f!) •g. O PP- PJ PP.< fDH; in CD PJ'< PHI ri>" Oft ^t-;0PJcortp-03 0 H, ri '.J'fD 11CDtn CD 1^1 ara'dPnrt3CD3rt OHI n0 10fi)1-; <^Prtp-0 3 PJCD rf(D11 3p-3CDtn rt O PiO ino NO3 CDen C3 M fDinin rt3* fD DP- <P-I/)P-O 3 OHI OP-l-j Pir>PJ oPJw oHI rt f!) Hh P- CD I 1 PJ tJ^h$ P-3 CDen P)H; fD i-,fDP- 3i i. fD0ft QPJ P- 3rfO Op- P-i fd ^0 f Jj fj (-) p-3 vXj; ^-^ Hi* — ' •SI P-rt 3" HCDen13CDort rtO 3 CD ^ H, PI0p. t— Jp-rtP. CD:n-. Pi -*i — i Op. M1 rt-P rVCD 3 rt O II h^CD ^(D 3rf PJP 3P n> HI11o en Cn 3' inf.0'en p-p.fD 3OfD f pjCDrt CD P- 3CD P. rttrPrt PP.fD .PCPrtCD 3fDPenCnroin £p- M pj 0' fD rj 3Pi ff)HI OO3rtHp.tr oC-> ""-*'rtCD in(i; ft 0o y en PJ rJ CDtr < 10 CDp. pj PJ OfD fd3 3 O CD CD 3rt 3'P •£.\^ p-PJ P1 H MPJin 30C rt3p' n CD Pin Cin infDP-rt p11p-in p-r^It5M&&rt•d'Sooroininroin^rrroHro H>roPinp-trh~*ro * HIcuPinp-d'p-roP3a.tr^dtnp-3^Q rthf CD P ftroPJ •CP 01rt (D $£PrtCDKin Hi O3 no0PJp-auQtr^[^WH-£JVJQPp-i-iooo H P-£5 IjQ ft 0 rt3' CD 3PXH*3 3 roXrt CD 3 ft Hipnp-P-p-rtp-ro01in"rrPi — tp-3p-r3p-3p- Nro rt 3'ro 3roroPJ HIoM O3Oroirt31 HOdiQ 3* f~^O*— "*<4ro5*o("^CDX'a3 PJ« PJ HroHIp- 3roHp-row oU '(Jrort hj 00 3"ro•-t YJ.aP PJo3OrtP-3OHroPIinro•P'3b'p-ro3ftPp-^•>QdPp-p-rtinft 3PJPM PJin £y* P ro t7*roro3 roinrtPtrp1 P-in3"roPJ H!OhjroPIorrro3p-ininp-O3rt^Oro HIot-^ ^£j*p-o3- 3Prt P-O3P ( — t 0hj inrt Prt CD MP-rtro-.rt0ftPP-mp-rtroro3p-inap-O 3 | — I O <^0>1 — 1 en•* . p 3PJ inp-rtro Y— tro ro[ — i in 01p-3f J-3"rooPwrooHIP3 ro V•aPJ 3inp-O 3 0Hi P3 ro Xp-inrtP-3 ro3p-inMp-O,_>inp-3rt3'roprop tr>< rtvro £ ino in OHI rt ro HId CD in^ Pp-(1iPdPp-p-rt><PJrool-hH,COrort tr••<. p,roPJd rtp-o 3 P-3 tQ PU)roodin onPJ><p-HIrt(D3roPrtp-<;rop-£3 ^OPnrtin 0 rt3*ro h^J (^oi_j.roort d 03 ;•rrtiroooprtPi^iroinod11nCDin £0d.PPJ ^ro Pp.<ro H roi — t ^N P Hi HiroortroPJ .trrtlA.''roinrtPrtroSjp-1-^WrstnO f^>1 0 I/I Wop PJ p 3PJ P-3 P roPin Pti<T>PtnPJ(DCOP-^-0;)PrtroPwPIp-n hOdpPJp-rt gPp- 3rt 3P3 Qro P roPin '0rort^oq^,_iro3p-pPi-1HIop-PJp-rtP-«W in 3"P HJ tr r"£j O |--j 3p-rt rtroPJ p- 3 ,PQJt--<p-rtwrtPr^P.Ptsp.W•*3ro ^ 0 ro X P p.rop. ("^ro p-3ro(•-^ p-roin oH r — .trM3pPJPJp-rtP-O3rt-O 3fDrortp-3 ^ P I — ' P P PJP- Q Ptr ro Pp- H trO {-•d HI3 HIPJ fi)p- 11i PH'x; ro>i P-oW rtro ort 3t-t* i.j.• 3p-3p-Nro Pp.<^ ro H ro p-3 Portin O 3 ind 1 ttiPIPp-p-p.rtIx^p-11WP-n-roPJ(/)oP 01 rt O ^0p, O p-PJ(D Pi indHIHIp- 0p-ro 3rt ro3<^P-(-^O.~J3Q3rtPI — '\->i-<jOTro3inp-rtp-<jro P roPw p3P. „ s U~i* — ' rt ro rtr-j'IDO3'P)f J3roPJMW1 — 'P3PJ(Si O '"i ^P-rtrrp-3 o ^ o •o ^Jf-f H- t^Cj QdL"^ rt.0 Wnjjp-n0HwfDp-in3P-Opp-1pi^ 3f PN P 11 P. Odin PK• rop 03 P3*^C OHi HIPIHro~*, —tfN— **rtrrroHIPoP-i — ip-rt*-*^ p-in 30rt I — * On <tro p- ^3 P rrp- 3-p- PJIT)ro^~j0'03ro3rt5?6dMa,PPJ<^roIT^ tnro 1 — ' k^ PHIHIroprt rt3'ro fddtri — tp-o %ro i HIPtnp-trro>.., — .U)*~~*p-rtp-WHiod 3PJ rt 3'Prt 3 0rt ^-^ro 3p-rtrtp- 3 indo q0)rtj_>roH>HIronpt-tnPro3P-rtp- Vi'3 PrtO PJ rtO rt 3^ro 3PXP-3r- § roXrrro3rt 3Oroo3<^P-f-jo33IDrtPJP1l_ji.^a.PJ3CJ i.Q Pr. O •4.1 j . -— NM» — - PJ QJ<^ro[-^ W 0 C £3<j H-(-^ 0'31 ^P'Prtro3prt<jroj_io(}r.irt.H-0 W C)11ro • £Sort HIroPiffp-f^*f— iro Q ^-J P }-^ O < H,t'- PUl OP- P-O !-•3 P-in rtP-O roHI inrt 33" Op- rtwOPJ rtp- rr< roto -•?;p- P-O 1.1~ o tn Orr o p 3 PJ W M P- Wtr rtro ro3^ rtro H £3 P-P- rtj— *• *~* rtO rtp. ^j*rop-t-^i *o h^O1 mp+-^O-CooXp'T PJo QJ H( roHIp- 3ro p-fDin O t>rort on 3'ro 3p- Op inroort 03 to Ul Ul CTi • P Ooro*"0rtPJtr fD *T!JdHin dPI3rt rt0 rt 3-ro *d Hq p-inp-O3in OHI inroi-;<^ p-pro PtiroP 5;rrp-o 3' 3'P ro trroro PJrorto H 3p- 3rop, rtO trro inp-rtroto P3PJ f-^rop-PJrtrop. f"hp0p- p-rtP-CD'in HIo11 p3 P'd•a\~-*p-o rin Ul oHI inroortp-o3 to Ulen CTi PJ rtrrP3 P< PP-\ — i PJ D' ro P rtro TJPIrt P-< fli ipt-^ T) Pftro (-^ [^roMPnp- ro 3ro J-^ H*rt *TJd ^indPJ3ft rt 0 rt 3'ro *"C) f-(o^ji p-i/>p-o 3 00 3l/lro <^Prt p-03 p)3PJ aro<^ro o*03ro rt no p'*-3 P-ininp-p rt O 3* PIt* ro trroCD 3 PJrottro H 3p-3roPJ <rr P. ro inrtpl_ ro t-j ii;-j ID 11 l-f"J '-^ 'il h'in Ot r (V fi (D U) oopini-tP(~j N O|-jro p- H, ft 3' fD 'O11 0 h^0to IT) O, Oopinrt PIP' inp-1 1fi) ' rP -i/i >xio^5otiPJrt V-J- ^3^Q *T3 M P3rtin 3PJ ^ D'ro no 3 M (t11df-j rtro p' p- 3 rt 3'C'J cn D 0rtp-o t-* (_oo •£» 1 — ' Ut •*« 3O ^Q H ro X>aPI*3P.CD P. ft I"*'* 0)^sDp 1 — • n>i-j ID fi It 11 P- O PJ P- <^P- Ulp- O 3•^ ro Xproi-pj rt tndD'PJp-<j P- UlP-O;:j tft , — ^tr V-* ruupj ^~*o^-^ oHi fcrt <^p-rt ^Ulrt P 3 PJ P- H3vQ 0)r^ ^ 0rt3'roi-^ '0ti0 p-inp-0 3 Otti rt;rp-in inWo • (./Joto(j\ if^>. • f \ (, • if 7* (' I 1 2. Kelly Point: A. Maximum Density-of Development . . .1. • Agricultural Land but no more 'than"'89% of'the acres in cultivation in 'the 19SO tax year shall result in an allowable development intensity of 1 dwelling unit per ten acres. The remaining 20% shall be allowed a maximum intensity of development based on the slopes 'as specified. 2. All slopes greater than 25 percent shall result in an allowable development intensity of 1 dwelling unit per ten acres; 3. All slopes greater than 20 percent but less than 25 percent shall result in a development intensity of 1 dwelling unit per five acres; 4. All slopes greater than 15 percent but less than 20 percept shall result in a development intensity of 1 dwelling unit per acre; 5. All slopes greater than 10 percent -but less than 15 percent shall result in a development intensity of 2 dwelling units per acre; :« 6. All areas with a slope of less than 10 percent shall result in a development intensity of 6 units per acre. B. Agriculture/Planned Development The property shall be developed using the existing planned community zone with the additional requirements contained in the Policies herein. All developments as defined in the Coastal Act, expressly emphasizing land divisions, are conditional uses and require a coastal development permit and master plan. As a condition of approval of any master plan for the entire area, the city shall require that a minimum of Q0% of the existing agricul- tural area as specified above, shall be permanently restricted to agricultural use. C. Drainage, Erosion Control yfjt . Under the P-C requirements and the development intensities established in ikrH-crH-> tne development shall conform to the following additional development standards: 1. Grading, natural vegetation removal, and placement of structures shall be limited to areas of less than 20r^ slope; or whore highly crodible soils are involved, to areas of less th.Vn 10% slope. Upon review to determine the least .environmentally damaging road alignment, exceptions may be made onl^ for roads absolutely /. . .4 J'f\\ <**"*><- necessary to provide access to developable land surrounded by such steep slopes, the placement of underground public utility lines, and fire roads. 2. Drainage and runoff shall 'be controlled so as not to exceed at any time the rate associated with property in its present state, and appropriate measures shall be taken on and/or off site to prevent siltation of lagoons and other environmentally sensitive areas.'; 3. The appropriate measures shall be installed priro to on-site grading. fl. All undevelopable slopes shall be placed in open space easements as a condition of development approval. 5. Modification of these standards and criteria may be granted to portions of properties where strict applica- tion of the standards and criteria would, even after application of clustering and other innovative development techniques, result in less than one-half of the develop- ment potential that would be attainable under the slope density formula. . Such modification shall be limited to the standards and criteria expressed in (1) (2) (3),' (4) above, and shall not exceed that necessary to the attainment.,©? said one-half of the development potential. Where such modification must Involve grading or other disruption of l.-.nds of 20% slope or greater,, such • grading or disruption shall be limited t* not more than one-fourth of the land area of the property which is of 20% slope or greater. In selectin areas within the property of 20% slope or greater which will be subject to modification of standards and criteria, Ir.nds with the following characteristics shall receive perference.• - Land with the lowest relative degree of environmental sensitivity. • - Land with the relatively gentler slopes. - Land which will require the least amount of cut and fill, and upon which runoff and erosion can be most effectively controlled. - .Land with the least amount of visual impact when viewed from a circulation element road or public vista point. - Land which, when graded and developed, would have the least environmental and visual impact on the steep- sloped land form upon which such grading or development 1s to take place. A'site specific technical report shall be required addressing the cumulative, effects of developing each subwatershed and recommending measures to mitigate both increased runoff and sedimentation. It shall be reviewed and prepared according to•tho'Hodel Erosion Control Ordinance contained.in the Master.Drainage Plan, with the additions and changes adopted herein, such that a natural drainage system is preserved. Mitigation measures tailored to project impacts and consistent with the control of cumulative development shall be implemented prior to development in accordance with the following additional criteria: (a) Submittal of a runoff control plan designed by a licensed engineer qualified in hydrology and hydraulics, which would assure no increase in peak runoff rate from the developed site over the greatest .discharge expected from the existing undeveloped site as a result of a 10-year frequency storm. Runoff control shall be accomplished by a. variety of measures, including, but limited to, on-site catchment basins, detention basins, siltation traps and energy dissipators and shall not be concentrated in one area or.a few locations. (b) Detailed maintenance arrangements and various alternatives for providing the on-going repair and maintenance of any approved drain/ujq and erosion control facilities. •' (c) All permanent runoff and erosion control devices shall.be developed and installed prior to or con- current with any on-site grading activities. (d) All grading activities shall be prohibited within the period from November 1st to March 31st of each year. (e) All areas disturbed by grading, but n9t completed during the construction period, including graded pads, shall be planted and stabilized prior to November 1st with temporary or permanent (in the case of finished slopes) erosion control measures and native vegetation. The use of temporary erosion control measures, such as berms', interceptor ditches, sand- bagging, filtered inlets, debris basins and silt traps, shall be utilized in conjunction with plantings to minimize soil loss from the construction site. Said planting shall be accomplished under the supervision of a licensed landscaped architect and shall consist of seeding, mulching, fertilization and irrigation adequate to provide 90 percent coverage within 90 days. Planting shall be repeated, if the required level of coverage is not established. This requirement shall apply (° ^11 disturbed soils, including stock- piles. carlsbad local coastal program LOW MEDIUM DENSITY (O 4 ffu act -2 units a &1POPUM DENSITY (4 10 du.,i<:l -7 MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY HIGH DENSITY (2G-3Otfu/iic)-25 uni GENERAL COMMERCIAL. VISITOR COMMERCIAL PLAWNCD (MDUSTRIAL OPEN SPACE PARKS AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE AGRICULTURE RESIDENTIAL (2 du'ac) SCHOOLS 'PUBLIC USES SLOPES - 25% AMD QVKR BUFFER zorte COASTAL ZONE BOUNPAHY HHELLOBILL .,„.,, ,PROPERTIES -'•-"- CARLSBAD CITY LIMITS AGUA MEDIONDA SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY MAJOR ARTERIAL SECONDARY ARTERIAL coastal commission I j 631 howitrd street, 4th floor I 4 san irancisco, California 94x05 . CKXX>Q<><X>x<x;^^ \; x v v^x x x, x x x Xx x xXX x X x xV • •.,f-vn/:^. ii%^^fcfi*..r!."*^.'.»..^.>.»Ok^.u-*i*«*£«*L"te.-i'™*.'-«H*^A^1x1<^"-v:-v '^ legend ^88 * r- '"•^"-:,";-..:::-?--:-;V!"-^".. «•"'-""-'- .'': -xxXXXH | 1 •o.^/rc?.*',r.r^i- ^rV^V-'^Lj/-C<*r- "cx»5Xl L—J ^w^^-^-^i-« fe^r~"^r^?^^>>^i-.^^3 rp3 /^?cv^5^<a-....""..•-"•••• '-•-"• • X''vV V - •••"^. .•-- ^irXXI t:;vi'';;! A^yi£UL:rUR2L- ?. &U£>&IP>Y CffSPfT9 '...-.., ^vrv^scsxa ^^' >"C*^>ol "'-,XNXXV" -." *" -""'"'-••£ '••"''"jT* *-"'"•' *->*-*""•"V,''V,\:-^"N-v^^?^T"y't"-'vsvE f^sr m^mm^^;m11 • ml h>. V w..-: ... - -.: ••*•. - - •: •-- : .- .-•••;';..- *• •• - - ,.: ^i ^5>; I >>> \/?(Mif> " •"•• -""-, '•;*'.."J:^X__-- "—-J/'" .. "^. "",F^=Tift<'- *-.:.'•. '-. 5SSf5c"T'*>i'i ••-' ••"•- •" h- ll-j ^'': -'X:->;^^-.-jJ-^-.'1'i.:' * r^ A ''x^-c-ppV^is fll'S^'^^WI^^^'^^ff^ ? ^Bi^'&'^i^lrc :^'f |:":^~:> :x>5r iHigess^s i /K-•>^/:;"- :~ ?r-"-"i'VJvS'VxV''• i^^ rO/j /fe^ii^i^ • A» </^ r-^:A$Si^<:6>^ )^?Mix|^^S;^22xS888?WS?SS?!ft«.. / ^-^/••••-x:::^-~t:;/r;^>^x;<5-;-- 1 V"wF:*''i'^Jl»ri|.> • _ C1IL7) class IV soils [IZZD class V-YllI .soils note: no class I soils occur In Hie ninpjH-d nn-« . ^li^^^£-f )M\N ^ NV v^4?J f i^.*>--^^;^v^:j;^;: j-'^^v ^-v1.'; .'.'•','••'••/•.'.'.':,•,•O\A ^ \\ •••><•-> '-H J ^"^ ^sS5»i'!i>:>*i£i?r*«:£,> v ..',/.•..',.'••-> ••,;.OW ^fts*^5\xl ^-i^^A " R^WVT** •' •' •'; 'V*.»V>.v" '-^ ':','/••'/.: • $?:• •||: 1 •»>.,-•;: --..u'-..-^"---f •p|%?cS^il;v}l -S^? &!f * '" 'ri*» J'-^ V //•-;.;.• • '--^ ?r' X'','.''','•• *--../ '^// . •"ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft 4•''•'•:.v'v. <?> ft ft ft ft 0 Q ft 15 s*5.':•:;• •.'•-'•>-:--0 "^ '0. 4. 0. $ $. '?!:::>:';->^ ^ ft •* ft ft ft 4 ft ft! :>>'•!"ft 'ft 'ft 'ft-'ft ft ft ft "!'v.; •* 'A ".* ",*. A A A A ^: •v> ft ft 0. ft ft 4.' •INT © i '"^S^^fiX'^'fi^^^^^^^^"^'^^**^^^^] ^f^^^^^^^*^^S^v^Se^&^3^f^K!r>^:>'iM if'Vv''-"! \^4TN;ti!-';"tru"v"^nv:-- ^j^«^|fefvv^v~^^^l^^ WSI^^'O^X1,^;/'^"--'^'^' ^u^^l-^iX^^-Al'^'V-^^J^^^^ -^^^iA.to c~if \ ^pa I I I/T.T "'fV 1 V*I r.' 11 ' M '\ i ".!",-•'•' \r.'-' •\ " 1T,: • • <V .*.• , , fnV '• .. < T( 'i, v < "• <• ,.... ,-' ' ;'.;'•{ ',V/y;V.V :>,"/;. 1 DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES D Assistant City Manager (714)438-5595 D Building Department (714) 438-5525 D Engineering Department (714) 438-5541 D Housing & Redevelopment Department (714)438-5511 D Planning Department (714) 438-5591 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 DATE: March 2, 1981 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Agricultural Advisory Committee SUBJECT: AGRICULTURAL 7VND THE LOCAL COASTAL PLAN The Agricultural Advisory Committee is pleased to transmit their report on the Local Coastal Plan. The Committee has been meeting weekly since the beginning of January and has formulated their objections to the plan PRC Toups has pro- posed. The report also contains the concept of an alter- native agricultural program which the Committee believes could be successful. The Committee will be at the meeting on March 10th to present the report and to answer any questions the Council might have. PETER MACKAUF Chairman V Enclosure AT TAG MEMORANDUM DATE: March 10, 1981 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Agricultural Advisory Committee SUBJECT: AGRICULTURE AND THE LOCAL COASTAL PLAN The Agricultural Advisory Committee was directed by the City Council to investigate' the status of agriculture in Carlsbad. Their first task was to review and to comment on the proposed Local Coastal Plan. Summary Any agricultural policy proposed must be city-wide. It cannot be limited to the coastal .zone and still be effective. The concept of agricultural land as a resource and the concept of continued agricultural production must be clearly separated in any policy. The retention of agricultural lands must include production. Therefore the policy adopted must be tied to economics. It must recognize the fragile nature of the agricultural economy. It must also guarantee a fair and equitable compensation to the owner based on current market prices. Land recommended for agricultural use must have suitable soils. The Williamson Act definition of prime agricultural land is no longer appropriate for defining agricultural land. The Williamson Act was originally designed as a voluntary program to give farmers tax relief. Using the criterion of the Williamson Act to define agricultural land (i.e., if land has produced $200 in gross income or has been in production 3 out of 5 years) is no longer valid due to changing tax situations and to the special nature of farming in Carlsbad. Using those criterion has stopped much farming in the coastal zone. The Committee believes that a definition of agricultural land for Carlsbad should be based on soil classifications and on climate. The city should do everything it can to encourage farming and to promote a favorable atmosphere for its continuance. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO THE LCP 1. THE CONCEPT OF TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDK) IS TOO NEW AND CONTROVERSIAL TO ASSESS ITS POTENTIAL TO BE EFFECTIVE. A program based on the use of TDK'S might, not be effective 'if agriculture were no longer economically viable. The administrative mechanism for TDR1s might not prove feasible. There are questions of the legal- ity of TDR'S which must also be solved. 2. THE BASIC PREMISE OF THE LCP IS THAT THE AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY IS HEALTHY; HOWEVER, CURRENT FACTS SUGGEST THAT FARMING IS ECONOMICALLY FRAGILE. The steep rise in water and labor costs are severe determinants to a healthy agricultural economy. The markets for San Diego County products have shrunk; the products have lost their off-season advantage. For these reasons any agricultural preservation program needs a mechanism to frequently review current cir- cumstances and status. 3. THE LCP PLAN DOES NOT RECOMMEND LANDS THAT ARE AVAILABLE OR HAVE SUITABLE SOILS FOR PRESERVATION. a. The bulk of lands recommended for preservation south of Palomar Airport are marginal due to steep slopes, high erosion potential, aggravation and increase of sedimentation in lagoons, and a lack of access. b. The lands west of the first coastal ridge are preferred for preservation because of their soil and flatter terrain. Those lands have better yields and are more economically feasible. 4. A VIABLE AGRICULTURAL PLAN SHOULD INCLUDE ALL OF CARLSBAD'S AGRICULTURAL LAND AND NOT JUST THE COASTAL ZONE. 5. COMPENSATION FOR LAND OWNERS. a. Purchasing lands from farmers at less than market price weakens the farming industry by not encour- aging farmers to continue. b. The purchase of farm land at less than market price is inequitable and will not be acceptable to land owners. 6. THE LCP FAILS TO PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR LAND OWNERS TO LEASE LAND. 80% of the local farm land is leased; therefore, any effective agricultural preservation program should pro- vide incentives for land owners to lease land or, mini- mally, to remove any barriers for leasing. -2- 7. THE LCP DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE Z\BILITY OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY AGRICULTURE TO CO-EXIST WITH DEVELOPMENT. Local agriculture is compatible with existing coastal property development. Agriculture does not present undue hardships to neighbors because of local agri- cultural practices, such as hand spraying. ALTERNATIVES The committee members recommended several possible alterna- tives to the PRC Toups Plan. It was suggested that if city permanently rezones the land as agricultural then the city should buy the land. This would provide fair compensation to the owner and would allow the city to ensure permanent agricultural production. It was also suggested that if the land is limited to agri- culture the city should pay the owner's property taxes and should pay the owner 12% of the market price annually as a holding rent. Another possibility was to allow development on portions of agricultural land and to ?.one the remainder as open space or agriculture. Those owners who develop their land in this manner would receive a density bonus. It was also stated that agricultural land is a resource and should be preserved as such. This could be accomplished through a program of purchasing development rights or through clustering dwelling units. A final alternative was to propose nothing and to refuse to implement the Local Coastal Plan. The committee discussed all the possible solutions and decided to recommend the following alternative to the Local Coastal Plan. It is only an alternative in concept; the details for implementing it.will be worked out later. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE The agri.cultu.ral policy favored by the committee would include the following: 1. A RIGHT-TO-FARM ORDIN?\NCE A farm operation, having been in operation for at least a year.and not creating a nuisance when it began and not being operated negligently or improperly, shall not become a nuisance due to changing local conditions alone. -3- BUFFERS Buffers would be the responsibility of lands developing around agriculture, • not the responsibility of current farming operations. CC&R's should also include this. A buffer could be defined as a wall, physical distance, or fences . CONTINUED PRIORITY OF WATER PATES AND SUPPLY TO AGRI- CULTURE . A PREFERRED PRIORITY FOR AGRICULTURE FOR ANY RECLAIMED WATER. Staff is currently researching regulations concerning the use of reclaimed water for agriculture. . ENDORSEMENT OF POLICY 64 OF THE SAN DIEGUITO LCP . The Coastal Commission staff proposed the following policy for impacted agriculture. The committee en- dorses it on lands with suitable soils and with less than 100 contiguous acres which do not have to be under the same ownership. The policy states: Encourage continued agriculture, but allow conversion when renewed use nt feassaJble. * 2) 3) 4) 5) Detailed conversion criteria to be developed, considering the following: 1) encroaching development; surrounding densities impacts of conversion on other agricultural lands . diseased soil and/or poor drainage occurence of deteriorating/depreciated structures profitability of operation declining in relation to prior years, uncertainty concerning reversal of trend. CLUSTERING OF DWELLING UNITS ON AGRICULTURAL LAND WITH SUITABLE SOILS AND WITH 100 CONTIGUOUS ACRES OR MORE. .The density allowed by the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance could be developed at one time on a portion of the property (the remainder would be left as agriculture or open space) or the property could be developed on phases over a number of years with agriculture continuing on the undeveloped portions. Participation in the pro- gram would be voluntary and could be accomplished through a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zone. FAIR MARKET VALUE COMPENSATION TO OWNERS. Any agricultural preservation plan must include this item, if the land is totally restricted to agriculture. This is necessary because the money from a fair market price constitutes the capital against which owners can borrow. * The committee believes economics are the major reason renewed use is not feasible, 8. ENCOURAGEMENT OF AGRICULTURAL LEASING ON LANDS SLATED FOR DEVELOPMENT. Leasing of lands could be made a condition of approval for tentative maps. The leasing would continue until grading began. 9. SUPPORT FOR AGRICULTURAL POWER RATES IN OFF-PEAK PERIODS. 10. AN ANNUAL REVIEW AND REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE ECONOMICS OF FARMING IN CARLSBAD. This report would inform the Council and educate the public. It would.be prepared by a committee whose makeup would be similar to the current Agricultural Advisory Committee. It would meet only long enough each year to prepare the report. 11. SUPPORT FOR TAX INCENTIVES FOR AGRICULTURAL LANDS THROUGH THE STATE AND COUNTY. 12. COORDINATION OF DEVELOPMENT WITH CONTINUED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. A timetable for development should be established and should emphasize development on those lands least suitable for agriculture. 13. SUPPORT FOR CARLSBAD'S CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION. The Committee believes Carlsbad's current land use plan is adequate and a new agricultural designation need not be developed. COASTAL ACT AND AGRICULTURE Section 30241 of the Coastal Act states that "The maximum amount of prime agricultural land shall be maintained in agricultural production to assure the protection of the areas' agricultural economy..." The Agricultural Advisory Committee believes that the dead- liest blow to agricultural production is mandatory agricultural preservation. The amount of land in Carlsbad removed from production due to Coastal Commission policies is proof. The agricultural economy is, at best, fragile; mandating agri- cultural preservcition will destroy what remains. The land presreved will be in open space not in agriculture. However, if agricultural preservation is a political reality the owners' must be compensated at a fair market price. The committee also has grave doubts about the definition of prime agricultural lands. According to the USDA soil survey, Carlsbad has no_ prime soils. The definition of prime agricultural Tand is based upon the Williamson Act, and is no longer accurate or useful. The Coastal Act also states that conflicts with urban areas shall be minimized through all of the following: a. "...stable boundaries separating urban and rural areas..." The committee believes that local agricultural practices diminish the need for buffers. However, the responsibility for buffers would rest with development. The farms would be protected through a right-to-farm ordinance. b. "...by limiting conversions...to the periphery of urban areas ... and to lands where the viability of existing agricultural use is already severely limited..." An agricultural program based upon preferred soils and coordinated with a growth-management program would' assure this condition. c. ..." by developing available lands not suited for agriculture prior to the conversion of agricultural lands." The committee also recommends this. However, the PRC Toups plan recommends lands for development that have soils suitable for agriculture and recommends lands which have less than suitable soils for agricultural preservation, The entire focus of the committee's policy is to encourage lands suitable for agriculture. d. "By assuring that public service and facility expansions... do not impair agricultural viability..." Coordinating growth management and agricultural lands will ensure that public service and facilities do not increase costs or degrade the environment. Section 30242 of the Coastal Act states that: "All other lands suitable for agricultural use shall not be converted to non-agricultural uses unless: (1) continued or renewed agricultural uses is not feasible, or (2) such conversion would preserve prime agricultural land or concentrate development consistent with Section 30250. Any such permitted conversion shall be compatible with continued agricultural use on surrounding lands." -6- The committee believes that continued agricultural use may not be feasible in many areas of Carlsbad in 5-10 years. The Local Coastal Plan must note this. JC: ar 2/19/81 w FEBRUARY 26, 1981 TO: MAYOR ft CITY COUNCIL OF CARLSBAD FROM: G. S. MOORE - MEMBER or AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEE SUBJECT: AGRICULTURAL POLICY REGARDING GREENHOUSE OPERATIONS. FIRST, THE FARMERS AND FLOWER GROWERS IN THE COUNTY ISLANDS SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD (LIST ATTACHED) WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE COUNCIL FOR INCLUDING A REPRESENTATIVE OF THEIR AREA TO PARTICI- PATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CARLSBAD'S AGRICULTURAL PLAN. HOWEVER, MOST PEOPLE INVOLVED IN AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES (MOSTLY FLORICULTURE) FEEL THE ATTACHED REPORT UNDULY FAVORS THE LEASEE OR ITINERANT FARMER AT THE EXPENSE OF THE LAND OWNERS AND GREENHOUSE OPERATORS. IT IS ADDITIONALLY DISTURBING THAT MANY'OF THESE PEOPLE FEEL THE COASTAL COMMISSION'S STAFF PROPOSAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDYS PROGRAM, ALLOCATING IN EXCESS OF 3 MILLION FOR AN AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT FUND, WOULD FURTHER THEIR INTERESTS MORE THAN CARLSBAD'S AGRICULTURAL PLAN. THE MAJORITY OF THESE PEOPLE RESENT THE ClTY N 0 T EXCLUDING GREENHOUSE OPERATIONS FROM AGRICULTURAL L A N D PRESERVATION.- THIS IS A BONE OF CONTENTION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAN DlEGUITO L.C.P. AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THE ATTACHED NEWS-CLIP. |N THE INTEREST OF MAKING CARLSBAD'S AGRICULTURAL ELEMENT MORE COMPATIBLE WITH "GREENHOUSE" INTERESTS I REOUEST THE COUNCIL TO INCLUDE A POLICY STATEMENT OF "EXCEPTING GREENHOUSE FROM AGRICULTUR- AL LAND PRESERVATION." THANKiNG REQUEST. YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR KIND CONSIDERATION OF MY Si ATT :LIST CL i P 'v "./» SAN DHCGO .--. Public testimony is expected to continue Friday when the San Die^o Coast Regional Commission meets to consider adoption of the county's land use plan Tor the San Dic^uito area. The plan'was approved by the county Hoard of Supervisors'in November 1!)?!() and then forwarded to coast commission staff for con- sideration. The staff recommended several changes to the- plan, including one that would treat i'i eeiihonse 'land idetil ically to all other ar.riciillural laud. . . ' o This recommendation met with. considerable opposition from San Dicguifo flower growers at the first coast commission hearing two weeks ago. Growers argued (hat the county had excluded \\\ eenhouses from agricultural land preservation policies hecausO nreenhoiise op- eration wasn't dependent on soil quaiity. The second hearing is scheduled for Id a. in. Friday a! the State Office lUiikliiu;. 13:K) Front St., Room 11- ]()<). .San nief',0. Tatata Brothers P.O. Box 943 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Akira Muroya 221 Prince House Lane Sncinitas, CA 92024 E. P. Schoppe 3754 Balboa Dr. Oceanside, CA 92054 . Robert Parris 1929 Alta Vista Dr. Vista, CA 92083 Joseph A. Rudvalis 1638 Valleda Lane Encinitas, CA 92024 Michael J. Cordosa 1698 Crest Dr. Encinitas, CA 9202A William R. Lujan 6505 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 Prances E. Alvarez 6491 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 George Bolton 6519-E1 Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 Llanuel Hidalgo •6511 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 Miquel Padilla 754 Del Riego Encinitas, CA 92024 Anthony Sons 1124 Blue Sage San Marcos, CA 92069 Guy Moore 6503 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 Steve Martin David B. ThorrnDson7400 Baticmit'as Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Poinsettia Lane Muroya Growers Carlsbad Whslc. Florist P.O. Box 325 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Del Rey Floral Rudvalis Orchids 6517 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 The Flower Patch 6525 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 Sun-Fresh Floral 6515 El Camino. Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 The Flower Peddler 6523 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 Thompson Rose Co. Poinsettia Lane Carlsbad, CA 92008 Produce Farmers Home 438-0280 Business 438-3609 Landscape Nursery Home 753-6625 Business 436-5681 Carnations Home 433-0960 Business 438-1133 Carnations Home 724-4847 Business 438-2266 Orchids Home 436-5665 Business 438-2121 Carnations Home 753-6803 Business 438-1601 Resident • Home 438-1722 Resident Home 438-1128 Resident Home A38-1478 Resident Home 438-1124 Carnations Home 436-9764 Business Hone Roses Home 727-1941 Business 438-1741 Orchids Home 438-1170 Carnations Home 753-7778 Roses Home 438-0518 Business 438-1189 1 , League of Women Voters North Coast San Diego County Statement to the Carlsbad City Council on the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program at a Public Hearing March 10, 1981 COASTAL PLAMMING The California Coastal Commission is in charge of our state's overall coastal zone management program. While the California Constitution and other state laws delegate to cities and counties certain powers to plan and control land use, the state retains the ability to plan, protect resources and even control land use in areas of greater than local concern. The courts have, in recent years, upheld this power in cases involving coastal plan- ning. The principal mission of the Coastal Commission is to see that local governments develop good local plans and implementing ordin- ances that comply with state goals and policies for the coast and that they are accepted and supported at the local level. While most local governments, accustomed to dealing only with their own local constituencies, have wanted to get by with only marginal adjustments in their existing local plans, the state coastal authority has'pushed for more searching review and overhaul where needed to comply with state objectives. Until the coastal law came into effect, state government had never established regulatory agencies or other machinery to monitor the contents of local general plans. The Local Coastal Program is a unique, pioneering effort to bring local plans and regulations and the plans for all public agencies, into conformity with state\^ide policies in the Coastal Act. .. A 1978 Publics Affairs Report, of the UniVersitJr of'California's Institute of Governmental Studies pointed out that our state coastal planning program was enacted in response to certain shortcomings seen in the performance of local governments. The League of Women Voters supported Proposition 20 and the Coastal Act of 1976 because we thought that ...Land must be recognized as a resource-as. well as. a commodity; ...the state should establish guidelines and standards for land areas of more than local concern (such as the coast); ...decisions for such areas should be made at the lowest level of government feasible, but should be subject to state review. P.O. Box 727, Cardiff-by-the-Sea,California,92007 ^^League of Women lerja -2- The League of Women Voters hasn't changed its mind about these matters and doesn't believe the majority of the people in California have either. A public opinion pall, conducted in mid-1980 by the respected Mervin Field organization, showed an overwhelming number of Californians are convinced of the importance of coastal protection, including the need to regulate and manage coastal resources. An extremely high percentage — approximately 80$ of all those surveyed— gave highest priority to public access, protection of scenic views and the regulation of development. Over 2/3 gave the next highest priority to the control of offshore oil drilling, wetland protection and retention of agricultural land. Overall, there was little significant difference in views among different groups of people. AGRICULTURE As stated in the proposed LCP, the basic principle underlying much of the agricultural land use conflict is that market value of vacant land increases as demand for urbanization increases. Or, to put it another way, land values increase as constraints to urbaniza- tion decrease. Factors (many of which are in part or entirely the result of local governmental action) such as improved access, in- creased sewer capacity, residential zoning, and increased water availability can contribute to a decrease in urbanization constraints and to an increase in land values. It is often the anticipation, as much as the realization, of those factors that leads to increased land values. If prospective land purchasers didn't think there was great liklihood of local government's willingness to change zoning, provide more sewers, etc., they probably wouldn't be willing to pay increasingly higher prices for land. It's interesting to note that persons making investments of any kind do so in the hope that future actions of government or the market place will cause the invest- ments to provide good returns. But often it is those with invest- mfents in land on which they expect development to be possible who believe they should be guaranteed a certain return on their invest- ments and cry "foul" when governmental actions don't fulfill their expectations. The following is pointed out on page 12 of the preliminary Coastal Commission staff response to the draft LCP, addressed to Jim Hagaman and dated January 28, 1981: The State Supreme Court has made note that there is no Vested right to zoning and that a reduction in value resulting from (changing) urban. use designations to agricultural use designation does not constitute a com- pensable taking. The possibility of change in zoning to a different use is a calculated risk to buyers of vacant land and that purchase involves varying degrees of specula- tion. The fact that some property owners may have paid a speculative price for agricultural land with the hope it would be zoned and permitted for more intense urban use is not sufficient reason for allowing conversion of suitable agricultural land. The League of Women Voters agrees that economic feasibility of agriculture based solely on purchase price is only one of many means **».League of Women Vcrs -3- of evaluating continued economic feasibility of agricultural lands. What is required is an objective test that can be applied to all lands rather than a subjective test whose results can be predeter- mined by the parties themselves. Prices paid by landowners may reflect speculative values and such speculative values shouldn't be considered the overriding factor in dealing with the questions of feasibility of agriculture. "Feasibility" under the Coastal Act is to take into account not only economic factors but also environmental, social and techno- logical factors. Included in environmental factors are those related to pollution and sedimentation impacts that increase with urbaniza- tion. Among the social factors would be that related to balancing housing need against the regional benefit of continued agriculturaloperations . The League urges you to pay special attention to the quotation from the Mello i Bill properties' Local Coastal Program, beginning at the end of. page 14 of the Coastal Commission staff response to the LCP. It concludes on page 15 by saying ...the speculative price paid by the current landowner does not reflect any. . .inherent values in the land (to produce far in excess of the $200/acre required for prime agriculture designation under the Williamson Act), but rather reflects hopes for development in an area where both public policy decisions and market conditions involve substantial risk. Weighing these two factors, the (Coastal) Commission finds that the price paid for the land under such speculation outweighs the very real and substantial value that the land has in continued production. Therefore, the Commission finds that continued agriculture is feasible. The League of -Women Voters believes that in decisions about land use, public as well as private interests should be respected, with consideration for social, environmental and economic factors. Based on that position and on our often-expressed concern about the need to preserve agricultural land, the League supports a planned zone approach in Carlsbad's LCP that will assure renewed and continued agricultural production and that would allow additional develop- ment incentives in exchange for preservation of agriculture oppor- tunities either through a mixed/supplemental use concept or an agricultural subsidy program. The League endorses the concept of ^cultural subsidy program proposed in the Toups LCP and the refinements suggested by commission staff on pages 16 of their response should be given serious consideration. Finally, the League wants to point out that compensation is riot required to preserve Carlsbad's lands 5or agriculture. A .strong regulatory position alone would be enough to preserve those lands . WETLANDS AMD OTHER ENVIRONMENTALLY-SENSITIVE HABITAT Since the turn of the century, total coastal and estuarine area in California has been reduced by 67%. Wetlands management isn't f*.League of Women '\Wers -4- a natter of wise husbanding of a large and exploitable resource, rather it's a matter of preserving and restoring a very meager and severely threatened resource. Those planning for our coast need to be reminded of the five major natural values of coastal wetlands as *• ..shoreline buffers to reduce the impact of storm tides and wavesj ..natural filters to absorb pollutants; ..areas to absorb flood water; ..sources of nutrients for the coastal ecosystem; and ..important wildlife habitat. Wetlands have additional value as ..outdoor education laboratories and ..areas providing aesthetically-pleasing open space. The League of Women Voters is greatly concerned about the lagoons in the Carlsbad area and has supported recent local activ- ities seeking to restore and maintain Buena Vista Lagoon. We are well aware, as the LCP relates, that filling of the wetland area and shoreline in the eastern part of Buena Vista Lagoon during the past decade has greatly diminished brackish marsh vegetation and that elimination of nesting habitat and waterfowl food sources, along with the encroachment of developed areas, has had an adverse effect on the quality of the wetland environment. Furthermore, removal of the marsh area at the east end of the Buena Vista Lagoon in conjunction with shopping center development has resulted in loss of an important sediment trap. The League of Women Voters endorses Toups LCP's Policy 3-1 on slopes and preservation of vegetation and concurs in coastal commission staff recommendations to strengthen the policy's language by specifying that vegetation on steep slopes shall be maintained. We also favor "the policy stating a development density credit may be provided. The League strongly supports coastal commission staff's sub- stitute Policy 3-2, regulating development and land divisions bor- dering the Buena Vista Lagoon in a manner essential to preservation of that lagoon's values. We also think proposed Policy 3-3 regarding the Batiquitos Lagoon should be strengthened by commission staff's additional paragraph requiring that coastal permits in that area assure that development will be carried out in a way that will protect the water quality of the Lagoon. Additional requirements for clustering of developments and minimum setback are also necessary to achieve the goal of wetland protection. HOUSING The League supports the housing policy recommendations in the Toups LCP, provided the references to 15% inclusion are changed to 25%. The League believes that Section 30213 of the Coastal Act is a recognition that meaningful access to the coast requires housing League of Women Utters -5- ^opportunities as well as access to recreational and visitor facilities. The California Constitution (Sec. 2 of Article XV) guarantees access to the coast to all California residents. •, If the coast is not to exclude the less affluent members of society and become an exclusive enclave of the wealthy, affordable housing must be "protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided." Long before 1976, when we supported the low and moderate income housing requirements in the Coastal Act, the League adopted a posi- tion supporting programs and policies that provide equal access to housing. The very reason that housing costs are so high in the coastal zone—-intense demand—makes it feasible for new developments to provide affordable housing while still allowing developers a reasonable return on investment. Since the coast is itself a public resource which adds to the value of land in the coastal zone, it is appropriate that the public value be dedicated to pub- lic purposes—such as access, through affordable housing. The League has testified in favor of retention of existing coastal commission housing guidelines, including those for medium- size projects of 5-15 units. We support the provision calling for 25% inclusion of low and moderate income housing or a 6% in- lieu fee for such projects and think developers should demonstrate that provision to be economically infeaslble for it not to apply. CONCLUSION The League wants to reemphasize our support for preservation of agricultural land in Carlsbad's coastal zone. We agree with the policy stated in the Open Space and Conservation Element of the Carlsbad General Plan "to regard agricultural land and prime soil as a natural resource and as a significant contrasting land use to the urbanized environment of the City." Agriculture is an essential part of our local and state economy. Loss of agricultural lands is more than an economic issue, however, for that loss deprives us of the continuation of vital ecosystems, wildlife habitats, and environmentally valuable and aesthetically pleasing green and open space. Just as Carlsbad can ill afford to lose its agricultural lands, our City cannot afford any further loss of its wetlands, including what are surely among our community's primary assets: our lagoons. We urge the Council to remember the City's policy stated in the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan is "to preserve natural resources by: protecting fish, wildlife and vegetation habitats; retaining the natural character of waterways, shoreline features, hillsides, and scenic areas; safeguarding areas for scientific and educational research; respecting the limitations of our air and water resources to absorb pollution; encouraging legis- lation that will assist in preserving these resources." For the long term benefit of our pity, as well as our region, state and rialWF1,""lM"""League' of Women Voters urges the City Council to take action that will help assure implementation of the above- stated city policies and the Coastal Act policies. c • -, ' .-11 CITY OP CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PLAN: AGRICULTURE The following outlines the city's proposal relative to the protection and enhancement of coastal agriculture. Policy 1. Agricultural Buffers The need for agricultural buffers should be made on an individual basis; should be the responsibility of encroaching development; and should be "adequate" to mitigate potential land- use conflicts. Policy 2. Protection of Agricultural Resources The city shall develop an "Agricultural Resource Overlay Zone," respecting the current underlying general plan designations, to be applied to those lands generally indicated in the Toups Report as.suitable agricultural lands. A. Class I-III Soils: Lands containing Class I-III soils shall be designated as "most suitable" lands and may be allowed to develop for residential uses subject to a master development plan for the entire property. Such plan may allow'for one-half of the property to develop, while the remainder shall be reserved for agricultural production, subject to appropriate restrictions. B. Class IV-VIII Soils: Shall be considered "impacted" agriculture, shall be encouraged to continue in production as long as feasible', and shall be allowed to convert subject to conversion criteria (Policy 3)• Policy 3. Conversion Criteria The city shall develop detailed conversion criteria to allow conversion of "impacted" agriculture (Class IV to VIII), considering the following: A. Relation to encroaching development and surrounding densities. B. Impacts of adjacent agricultural production. C. Occurance of diseased soils and/or .poor drainage. D. Occurance of deteriorated structures. E. Declining profitability. o Policy 4« Agricultural Incentives The city recognizes the need to protect and encourage agriculture on a city-wide basis, specifically noting the following: The city has formed an Agricultural Advisory Committee to formu- late recommendations regarding the preservation/protection of agriculture on a city-wide basis. The City supports the enhancement of agricultural production through incentive programs including: adopting a Right to Farm .Ordinance; preferred water rates for agricultural lands; develop- ment of a reclaimed water program, giving preference to agricultu- ral lands; encouraging agricultural leasing on Master Plan areas slated for phased development; support tax incentives for agricul- turally designated properties. Policy 5• Utility Extensions The city shall act to protect the premature disruption of agricultural uses by not allowing growth inducing utility extensions into agricultural lands until such lands are designated for urban conversion, and agricultural production has been proven unfeasible, subject to Policy 3-