Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-01-28; City Council; ; Overview of the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Update(i) CITY COUNCIL Staff Report Meeting Date: To: Frp m: Staff Contact: Jan.28,2020 Mayor and City Council Scott Chadwick, City Manager Jennifer Jesser, Senior Planner jennifer.jesser@carlsbadca.gov or 760-602-4637 CA Review ~ Subject: Overview of the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Update Project No.: LCPA 15-007 (DEV 15-0061) Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Update Recommended Action Receive a staff presentation introducing the draft Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan update. This is an informational item only; the City Council is not being asked to make any decision on the draft plan at this time. Executive Summary Staff and the c_ity's project consultant, Michael Baker International, have prepared a ' comprehensive draft update to the city's Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan. The draft plan is now available for public review on the city's website (www.carlsbadca.gov/coastalupdate). The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with an overview of the draft plan and outline the next steps in the public and city review process. Discussion I. Introduction The objectives of the LCP Land Use Plan update are to update the document to be consistent with the California Coastal Act and recent guidance from the California Coastal Commission, as well as the Carlsbad Community Vision and the city's General Plan (adopted in 2015). The California Coastal Act of 1976 was approved by a voter initiative to "ensure maximum public access to the coast and public recreation areas." Ever since, cities along the California coast (within the Coastal Zone) have been required to prepare a Local Coastal Program to implementthe act. In Carlsbad, about 37% of the city is in the Coastal Zone (Figure 1-2 of the draft LCP Land Use Plan shows the Coastal Zone boundary in Carlsbad). Jan. 28, 2020 Item #14 Page 1 of 14 The Coastal Act requires that an LCP Land 'Use Plan address the following topics: • Public Access: Protection of public access to the sea, coastal beaches and recreational opportunities • Recreation: Protection of certain water-oriented activities and land for recreational use • Marine Environment: Protection of marine resources, including biological productivity and water quality • Land Resources: Environmentally sensitive habitat areas, agriculture, archaeological and paleontological resources • Development: Location, scenic and visual qualities, maintenance and enhancement of public access, minimization of adverse impacts, public facilities to meet needs of development and priority of coastal-dependent development In December 2017, the City of Carlsbad Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment was completed and is incorporated as Appendix B of the draft LCP Land Use Plan. The update of the LCP Land Use Plan, including the sea level rise assessment, was prepared in consultation with Coastal Commission staff from the San Diego District office and is based, in part, on adopted and draft guidance from the California Coastal Commission: • California Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance; August 2015; revised November 2018 (https://www.coastal.ca.gov/climate/slrguidance.html) • Draft California Coastal Commission Residential Adaptation Policy Guidance - Interpretive Guidelines for Addressing Sea Level Rise in Local Coastal Programs; March 2018 (https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/climate/slr/vulnerability/residential/RevisedD raftResidentialAdaptationGuidance.pdf) • California Coastal Commission Local Coastal Program (LCP) Update Guide Part I - Updating LCP Land Use Plan (LUP) Policies; April 2007; revised July 2013 (https://www.coastal.ca.gov/rflg/lcp-planning.html) 11. Why Update the LCP Land Use Plan? The primary reasons for updating the LCP Land Use Plan are: • California Coastal Commission and Ocean Protection Council grants: In November and December 2014, the Coastal Commission and Ocean Protection Council awarded the city two grants ($228,000 total) to conduct a sea level rise analysis and update the Local Coastal Program. • Current conditions and Coastal Commission guidance -the LCP Land Use Plan has not been comprehensively updated since original adoption in the 1980's and does not adequately address all current topics/requirements -such as sea level-level rise hazards. The Coastal Commission has, in recent years, provided guidance on information to be addressed in a LCP update. Jan. 28, 2020 Item #14 Page 2 of 14 • Consistency with Carlsbad Community Vision and General Plan -in 2015, a comprehensive update to the General Plan was adopted, which incorporates the community vision. Updating the LCP Land Use Plan ensures consistency with the vision and General Plan. • Obsolete/repetitive policies -the existing LCP land use plans contain site-specific policies that have been implemented (through development) or are repeated numerous times for various sites throughout the Coastal Zone (e.g. existing policies related to water quality protection are repeated multiple times on a site-specific basis). The draft LCP Land Use Plan proposes to replace most of these obsolete/repetitive site-specific policies with policies that protect coastal resources and access to the coast on a Coastal Zone-wide basis. However, site/area-specific policies that are still relevant and unique to a site/area are addressed in the draft LCP Land Use Plan. • Improve consistency and user friendliness -the existing LCP is divided into six separate LCP land use plans that apply to six geographic segments of the city's Coastal Zone (Agua Hedionda, East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties, Mello I, Mello II, Village, and West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties). This current segmentation creates inconsistencies between segments, redundancy, and complexity in reviewing and understanding the applicable policies throughout the Coastal Zone. The draft LCP Land Use Plan merges all six segments into one land use plan that applies Coastal Zone-wide, which improves the consistency of policies that protect coastal resources throughout the Coastal Zone and makes the document more user-friendly. Ill. Draft LCP Land Use Plan Description The draft LCP Land Use Plan contains the following chapters: Table 1: Draft LCP Land Use Plan Chapters Description Chapter Description 1 Introduction Introduces and describes the purpose and organization of the LCP Land Use Plan. Describes how land and development are regulated in Carlsbad's 2 Land Use Coastal Zone consistent with the California Coastal Act. It includes the LCP Land Use Map, land use designations, standards for density, and land-use related policies. Describes Carlsbad's existing public recreational resources and 3 Recreation and visitor-serving uses and attractions and identifies policies to Visitor-Serving Uses ensure that community members have continued access to coastal recreational opportunities and accommodations. Describes Carlsbad's existing and future coastal access network 4 Coastal Access and provides policies that ensure coastal access is protected and enhanced, consistent with the Coastal Act. Jan. 28, 2020 Item #14 Page 3 of 14 Table 1: Draft LCP Land Use Plan Chapters Description {continued) Chapter Description Agricultural, Cultural Describes the agricultural, cultural, and scenic resources found in 5 Carlsbad's Coastal Zone and provides policies that guide the city and Scenic Resources in the protection of such resources. Environmentally Describes the natural coastal resources found in Carlsbad's Coastal Zone, which include environmentally sensitive habitat Sensitive Habitat 6 Areas a·nd Water area (ESHA) and marine and coastal water quality. It also Quality provides policies that guide the city in the protection of such resources. Identifies the coastal hazards (sea level rise, flood, geologic, and 7 Coastal Hazards fire) and provides policies that guide new development to reduce risks to life and property and to avoid substantial changes to natural landforms. 8 Glossary Defines terms used in the LCP Land Use Plan that are technical or specialized, or that may not reflect common usage. Carlsbad's portion of the North Coast Corridor Public Works Appendix A Plan/Transportation and Resource Enhancement Program (NCC North Coast Corridor PWP/TREP), which is a plan prepared by Caltrans and SANDAG to Public Works Plan authorize transportation, community and resource Overlay enhancement along the 1-5 and railroad corridor from La Jolla to 9 Oceanside. Appendix B City of Carlsbad Sea A Carlsbad-specific sea level rise analysis that evaluates the Level Rise degree to which community assets are susceptible to Vulnerability accommodate adverse effects of projected sea level rise. Assessment IV. Draft LCP Land Use Plan Highlights Exhibit 1 highlights some of the key topics addressed in the draft LCP Land Use Plan. V. Past Public Planning Processes that Informs the Draft LCP Land Use Plan As of the date of this report, community members have submitted comments asking for more time to review and comment on the draft plan. In response to these requests, the public review period has been extended to Jan. 31, 2020 (original comment period began October 8, 2019, and was to end Nov. 29, 2019). Exhibit 2 summarizes the primary public planning efforts that inform the draft LCP policies. VI. Summary of LCP Land Use Plan Update Process The following summarizes the phases of the LCP Land Use Plan update process: Jan. 28, 2020 Item #14 Page 4 of 14 Table 2: Summary of LCP Land Use Plan Update Process Phase Description The draft LCP Land Use Plan was drafted by city staff and consultant, Michael Baker International, and reflects their professional recommendations to ensure consistency with the California Coastal Act and recent guidance from the California Coastal Commission, as well as the Carlsbad Community Vision and the city's General Plan. Part of this phase included preparation of the Carlsbad Sea Level Rise October 2015 -Vulnerability Assessment, the purpose of which was to inform the October 2019 development of draft sea level rise hazard policies in the draft LCP Land Preparation/ Use Plan. Drafting Phase The sea level rise assessment included outreach to and input from the community: • Two public workshops (May and October 2016) • Stakeholder and community group presentations • Stakeholder interviews • Survey of owners of the property identified as vulnerable to sea level rise This phase is the community's opportunity to review and comment on the . draft plan; the Planning Commission and City Council will consider community input during the public hearing phase. • Oct. 8, 2019 -the draft plan was made available for public review on the city's website • Oct. 29, 2019 -an informational public meeting was held to give October 2019 -attendees an overview of the draft plan and answer questions Early 2020 • October -early 2020 -city staff meetings with various community Public Review groups and stakeholders to inform them about the plan and answer Phase questions • Jan. 31, 2019 -public written comments are requested to be submitted by this date; this enables staff to evaluate the comments and incorporate them in staff reports to the Planning Commission and City Council. Comments may be submitted after this date; however, they may not be included with the staff reports to Planning Commission and City Council but will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Early 2020 Early 2020 -Planning Commission and City Council public hearings will be scheduled. The Planning Commission and City Council will consider staff's City Public recommendations and public comments and make a decision regarding Hearing Phase approval of the plan, which may include revisions to the draft plan. Jan. 28, 2020 Item #14 Page 5 of 14 2020- Coastal Commission Review and Certification Phase Fiscal Analysis Following City Council approval of the draft LCP Land Use Plan, the plan will be submitted to the Coastal Commission for review and certification. The plan will not be effective until certified by the Coastal Commission, which may involve suggested modifications that the City Council would need to consider and approve before the plan becomes effective. Receiving this informational report has no fiscal impact. Next Steps The draft LCP Land Use Plan will be scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission in early 2020. The Planning Commission's recommendation on the draft plan will then be scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council. Environmental Evaluation (CEQA) The activities associated with receiving an informational report will not involve or result in any disturbance to the environment and is categorically exempt from CEQA. CEQA Section 15306 describes the following activities as being exempt from the environmental review: " ... basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. These may be strictly for information gathering purposes, or as part of a study leading to an action which a public agency has not yet approved, adopted or funded." Public Notification This item was noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and was available for public review at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting date. Exhibits 1. Highlights of Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Update 2. Past Public Planning Processes that Inform the Draft LCP Land Use Plan Jan. 28, 2020 Item #14 Page 6 of 14 Exhibit 1 Highlights of Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Update CHAPTER 1-INTRODUCTION Chapter Description Highlight The introduction describes the history of Carlsbad's LCP, which resulted in six separate LCP land use plans that applied to six geographic segments of the city's Coastal Zone. History The six segments are proposed to be merged into one single LCP land use plan that applies Coastal Zone-wide. Site/area-specific policies, which are still relevant, are reflected in the proposed draft LCP. Coastal Act This chapter describes the purpose and components of a local coastal program, as Requirements required by the Coastal Act. Also, information and maps are included that clarify the and Permitting areas where the city has the authority to issue coastal development permits and where Authority the Coastal Commission has permit authority. Implementation The documents that implement the policies of the LCP Land Use Plan are listed. CHAPTER 2 -LAND USE Chapter Description Highlight General Plan Most changes to LCP land use policies are proposed to.make the LCP consistent with Consistency the General Plan land use policies. Consistent with the General Plan, the LCP Land Use Plan includes policies for areas with "special planning considerations," which include: • Cannon Road Open Space, Farming, and Public Use Corridor • Carlsbad Boulevard/Agua Hedionda Center Special Planning • Village and Barrio Considerations • Ponto/Southern Waterfront • Murphy See the draft LCP Land Use Plan for figures showing the location of these areas - Figures 2-2A, 2-28 and 2-2C. Coastal-Consistent with the Coastal Act, new policies are added to the LCP that support coastal- Dependent Uses dependent uses, which include fishing, marinas/boating, aquaculture, and water desalination facilities. Ponto Consistent with the General Plan and Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan, policies are Beachfront Village Vision included that incorporate the land use related guidelines from the Ponto Beachfront Plan Village Vision Plan. Jan. 28, 2020 Item #14 Page 7 of 14 Highlights of Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Update CHAPTER 2 -LAND USE (continued) Chapter Description Highlight In 2015, a development application for the site was submitted for review; since that time, some residents (People for Ponto; and San Pacifico neighbors east of the site) have submitted comments to the city expressing concerns about the proposed development, as well as the amount of open space and parks in the southwest portion of the city. The most recent comments urge the city to designate the site as a park. The property is currently designated R-23 (Residential 15-23 dwellings per acre) and GC (General Commercial) on the General Plan and LCP land use maps. There is an existing LCP policy that identifies the site as "Planning Area F" (per the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan). The policy states the following: Planning Area Fis located at the far northwest corner of the Master Plan area west of the AT&SF Railway right-of-way. This Planning Area has a gross area of 11 acres and a net developable area of 10. 7 acres. Planning Area F carries a Non-Residential Reserve {NRR) General Plan designation. Planning Area Fis an "unplanned" area, for which land uses will be determined at a later date when more specific planning is carried out for areas west of the railroad right-of-way. A future Major Master Plan Amendment will be required prior to further development approvals for Planning Area F and shall include an LCP Amendment with associated environmental review, if determined necessary. The intent of the NRR designation is not to limit the range of potential future uses entirely to non-residential, however, since the City's current general plan does not contain an Ponto -"unplanned" designation, NRR was determined to be appropriate at this time. In the . Northeast future, if the Local Coastal Program Amendment has not been processed, and the City Corner of develops an "unplanned" General Plan designation, then this site would likely be Carlsbad redesignated as "unplanned." Future uses could include, but are not limited to: Boulevard commercial, residential, office, and other uses, subject to future review and approval. and Avenida As part of any future planning effort, the City and Developer must consider and document Encinas the need for the provision of lower cost visitor accommodations or recreational facilities (i.e. public park) on the west side of the railroad. The policy referenced above became part of the LCP in the 1990's with the adoption of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. Since then, several public planning processes evaluated the use of the site (see staff report Exhibit 2 for a description of those planning processes), which resulted in the current General Plan and LCP land use map designations of R-23 and GC. The existing LCP policy does not reflect the City Council's approved land use map designations. The draft LCP Land Use Plan includes an update to this policy to make it consistent with the approved land use map designations. The last sentence of the policy, above, states that the city is to consider and document the need for low cost visitor accommodations or recreation facilities, such as a public park, west of 1-5. The need for recreation/parks has been evaluated pursuant to the city's Growth Management Plan and the General Plan update; and the need for low cost visitor accommodations has been evaluated as part of this LCP update. Documentation of staff's evaluation will be included as part of the public hearing staff reports to Planning Commission and City Council for the LCP Land Use Plan update. Regarding the residential land use designation on this site, state legislation (SB 330 Housing Crisis Act of 2019) may preclude the city from changing the residential designation, unless the planned number of dwellings and density can be accommodated on another site-there can be no net loss of planned housing units. 2 Jan. 28, 2020 Item #14 Page 8 of 14 Highlights of Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Update CHAPTER 3 -RECREATION AND VISITOR-SERVING USES Chapter Description Highlight The Coastal Act addresses the protection of recreational uses, including water-oriented Recreation activities, fishing, boating, and recreational facilities. The policies ofthis chapter support the protection of these uses. A new policy is added to the LCP that prohibits new timeshares (or similar limited-use Timeshares accommodations) on land designated as VC (Visitor Commercial). This prohibition is proposed in response to Coastal Commission concerns that such uses may be considered more of a residential use and limit the general public's access to the coast. In response to Coastal Commission guidance, new policies are proposed that protect existing lower-cost visitor accommodations. "Lower-cost overnight accommodations" Low-Cost Visitor is defined, and any proposal to remove existing lower-cost accommodations is Accommodations required to mitigate the loss of the accommodations at a 1:1 ratio. The .draft policies do not include. a requirement for new hotels to provide lower-cost accommodations unless the new hotel replaces existing lower-cost accommodations. CHAPTER 4 -COASTAL ACCESS Chapter Description Highlight Access to the Consistent with the Coastal Act, policies address the provision and protection of Coast accessways to the coast -pedestrian access, bicycle and vehicle access, including parking. Trails Consistent with the recently adopted city Trails Master Plan, a trails map and design guidelines are added to the LCP. Livable Streets Consistent with the General Plan, livable streets policies are added to the LCP, which address a balanced, multi-modal transportation system. CHAPTER 5 -AGRICULTURAL, CULTURAL, AND SCENIC RESOURCES Chapter Description Highlight The highlight regarding agriculture, is that no change is proposed to existing policies Agriculture and requirements that address the protection and conversion of agriculture. Additional information is added to clarify the various past city and state actions that apply to agriculture in Carlsbad. Cultural Policies are updated consistent with the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Resources Guidelines, adopted by the city in 2017. Consistent with Coastal Commission guidance, new policies are added to the LCP that address the protection of public coastal views. The draft plan includes maps that clarify what coastal views are to be protected and from which public viewing points. Scenic Resources On some properties, particularly those between the ocean/lagoon and a public street, park or trail, the draft policies specify restrictions on building location, landscaping, signs, and lighting. These restrictions are intended to protect public coastal views consistent with Coastal Commission guidance (public views of the coast are a means of public access to the coast per the Coastal Act). 4 Jan. 28, 2020 Item #14 Page 10 of 14 Highlights of Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Update CHAPTER 6-ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREAS AND WATER QUALITY Chapter Description Highlight The highlight regarding protection of environmentally sensitive habitat, is that no change is proposed to the city's current policies, which consist primarily of the city's Protection of Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Sensitive Habitat Additional policies are proposed that clarify how to protect sensitive habitat that is not within the boundaries of the HMP, consistent with Coastal Act resource protection policies. Water Quality Policies are updated to be consistent with current regional and city water quality protection standards. CHAPTER 7 -COASTAL HAZARDS Chapter Description Highlight New information and policies are added to the LCP that address sea level rise hazards and adaptation. The new policies are based on Coastal Commission guidance and the results of the Carlsbad Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment. Sea level rise policies address the following: Siting new A new development is required to be located and designed to development minimize risks from hazards (erosion, flooding, inundation), ensure Sea Level Rise structural stability and protection of coastal resources. Hazards Consistent with the Coastal Act, draft policies clarify the limited Shoreline circumstances when shoreline armoring could be permitted in Armoring Carlsbad, and the requirements to minimize impacts to coastal resources. Moving Policies are included in the draft LCP that identify the circumstances Development when development must be removed or modified to avoid risks to Away from public health and safety, and to avoid impacts to public trust Hazards resources. Policies are updated to reflect current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) FEMA requirements. Also, consistent with Coastal Commission guidance, the policies clarify Flood Hazards that the development of permanent structures is prohibited in the 1-percent-annual- chance-flood area (100-year flood area). Geologic Hazards Policies updated consistent with the General Plan and Coastal Commission guidance. Fire Hazards Policies updated consistent with the General Plan; also, the city's "fuel modification zones" maps have been included in the chapter to clarify fire safety requirements. 5 Jan. 28, 2020 Item #14 Page 11 of 14 Highlights of Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Update CHAPTER 8 -GLOSSARY Chapter Description Highlight Definition of This is a new section of the LCP, which defines terms used throughout the ' terms document. APPENDIX A-NORTH COAST CORRIDOR PWP OVERLAY Chapter Description Highlight No changes are proposed to the existing LCP Appendix A, which is incorporated as Appendix A in the draft LCP update. Appendix A consists of Carlsbad's portion of No Change the North Coast Corridor Public Works Plan/Transportation and Resource Enhancement Program (NCC PWP/TREP), which is a plan prepared by Caltrans and SAN DAG to authorize transportation, community and resource enhancement along the 1-5 and railroad corridor from La Jolla to Oceanside. APPENDIX 8-CITY OF CARLSBAD SEA LEVEL RISE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Chapter Description Highlight Policies in Chapter 7 (Coastal Hazards) apply to lands located in sea level rise hazard areas identified in the City of Carlsbad Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Informs policies Assessment. The vulnerapility assessment includes maps that show the hazard in Chapter 7 areas (flood, inundation and erosion) that are projected in the years 2050 and 2100. These hazard areas indicate when properties are subject to the sea level rise hazard policies in Chapter 7. 6 Jan. 28, 2020 Item #14 Page 12 of 14 Exhibit 2 Past Public Planning Processes that Inform the Draft LCP Land Use Plan Public Planning Process 2005-2010 Housing Element 2007 Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan How it Informs the Draft LCP Land Use Plan The housing sites identified in the 2005-2010 Housing Element were incorporated in the General Plan update and designated on the General Plan and Local Coastal Program land use maps. Regarding comments on the draft LCP Land Use Plan update about the Ponto site at the northeast corner of Carlsbad Boulevard and Avenida Encinas, this site was identified as a site that is needed to meet the city's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Program 2.1 of the 2005-2010 Housing Element required the city to amend the General Plan to designate the Ponto site for high density residential use at a minimum density of 20 dwellings per acre (128 units minimum). The required General Plan amendment was completed as part of the General Plan update. The public was involved in the 2005-2010 Housing Element process: • Three public workshops • Stakeholder meetings • Public hearings The draft LCP Land Use Plan updates policies applicable to the Ponto area consistent with the Ponto Heachfront Village Vision Plan. The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan applies to land located between Carlsbad Boulevard and the railroad tracks, and between Ponto Drive and Batiquitos Lagoon. The vision plan identifies a land use vision for the area that consists of "a balanced and cohesive mix of local and tourist serving commercial, medium-and high-density residential, mixed use, live/work, and open space land use opportunities." Regarding comments on the draft LCP Land Use Plan update about the Ponto site at the northeast corner of Carlsbad Boulevard and Avenida Encinas, the vision plan identifies this site as a "townhouse neighborhood" -"a compact, high density neighborhood (19 dwellings per acre)," and a "mixed-use center" -"a variety of small specialty shops, services, restaurants, offices, housing, and a central community amenity." The vision for the mixed-use center includes a "wetland interpretive park." The public was involved in the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan process: • One community workshop • Two property owner workshops • Public hearings Jan. 28, 2020 Item #14 Page 13 of 14 Exhibit 2 Past Public Planning Processes that Inform the Draft LCP Land Use Plan (continued) Public Planning Process 2015 General Plan Update (including 2013- 2021 Housing Element) How it Informs the Draft LCP Land Use Plan The draft LCP Land Use Plan update is a continuation of the General Plan update work. A primary objective of the draft LCP update is to ensure consistency between General Plan and LCP policies. During the General Plan update, significant analysis and public outreach were conducted regarding land use planning throughout the city. The draft LCP update is informed by the General Plan land use planning work. Public comments on the draft LCP Land Use Plan include concerns about the land uses planned on three sites -the Ponto site (described above), power plant and strawberry fields. During the General Plan update, these sites were identified as "opportunity . sites" and various land use alternatives were considered by the community: • Two community workshops • 349 feedback forms completed by community members • 19-member citizens committee reviewed alternatives and community feedback and made recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council • Public hearings Ponto site -the General Plan and draft LCP policies reflect the community participation described above, as well as the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan and the 2005-2010 and 2013-2021 Housing Elements. Power plant site -the General Plan and draft LCP policies reflect the community participation described above, as well as the agreement between the city, Cabrillo Power, Carlsbad Energy Center, and SDG&E. Strawberry fields -the Visitor Commercial (VC) land use designation on the 49 acres at the northeast corner of Cannon Road and 1-5 reflects the community participation described above. Also, the existing LCP (Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan) identifies the site for travel services; the existing LCP recognizes the existing agricultural use of the site and allows for future commercial development provided the remaining agriculture east of the site is preserved as open space. The General Plan and draft LCP policies are consistent with the existing LCP designation of this site; the land east of this site is designated for open space, subject to policies for the Cannon Road Open Space, Farming and Public Use Corridor (which was established as a result of "Proposition D - Preserve the Flower and Strawberry Fields and Save Carlsbad Taxpayers' Money"). Jan. 28, 2020 Item #14 Page 14 of 14 V' - SURFRIDER FOUNDATION SAN DIEGO COUNTY City of Carlsbad Attn: Mr. Scott Chadwick, City Manager 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 schadwick@carslbadca.gov Dear City Manager Chadwick, All Receive - Agenda Item # it/ For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL pate ?a CA X- CC ›c CM Y- COO DCM (3) P\--- The Surfrider Foundation's San Diego Chapter (Surfrider San Diego) appreciates this opportunity to provide comments on the proposed amendment of the Land Use Plan (LUP) element of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) for Carlsbad. Surfrider Foundation (Surfrider) is a nonprofit environmental organization that engages a vast volunteer network of ocean users to protect the ocean, waves, and beaches. Surfrider San Diego represents thousands of ocean recreation users — from surfing to seabird watching and beachgoing — as well as the coastal communities and economies that rely on them throughout the region. Background Surfrider is very pleased to see that the LUP considers science-based Sea Level Rise (SLR) predictions and incorporates realistic adaptation strategies. As is made clear in Carlsbad's Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment (Vulnerability Assessment), local sea levels are rising. Recognizing the potential need for a range of adaptation options allows the city the best chance at minimizing threats to health, safety, and property. We appreciate the city's incorporation of language and findings from the Vulnerability Assessment in this LUP. We also applaud the city's development of policies regarding the potential future need to manage relocation of vulnerable assets and infrastructure. Lastly, we appreciate the LUP's recognition that there will be an ongoing need to update city policies and planning documents based on best science and evolving conditions. Surfrider recognizes the extent to which the LUP adheres to and incorporates a breadth of Coastal Act policies that ensure the plan's long-term viability and its ability to protect coastal resources that exist in the public trust (i.e., the beach.) According to the Coastal Act, the LUP must be "sufficiently detailed to indicate the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses, the applicable resource protection and development policies, and, where necessary, a listing of implementing actions" (Coastal Act Section 30108.5). To ensure "sufficient detail" is provided in the LCP, we outline our comments below with the understanding and expectation that some of these details may be further clarified by the LCP's implementation component. Definition of existing development We are highly concerned that the LUP attempts to change the definition of 'existing development' as defined by the Coastal Act. LCP-7-P.20 directs the city to: Permit shoreline protective devices, pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30235, including revetments, breakwaters, groins, seawalls, bluff retaining walls, and other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes, only when all the following criteria are met... The protective device is required to serve coastal-dependent uses or protect public beaches in danger from erosion or protect existing principal structures. "Existing" in the context of this policy refers to structures that existed prior to Coastal Commission certification of this policy ([insert date after certification]). Existing development refers to the date the Coastal Act was enacted in 1976. This definition is consistent with Coastal Act Sections 30235 and 30253, as well as the Coastal Commission's SLR Policy Guidance Document (page 166): "...going forward, the Commission recommends the rebuttable presumption that structures built after 1976 pursuant to a coastal development permit are not "existing" as that term was originally intended relative to applications for shoreline protective devices" (California Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance) Section 30235 of the Coastal Act defines existing development: Revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, and other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall be permitted when required to serve coastal- dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion, and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. (Coastal Act Section 30235) Section 30253 of the Coastal Act denies new development the right to future armoring: New development shall.. .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. (Coastal Act Section 30253) Structures that were built any time after 1976 are not entitled to seawalls and were, at the time of 1976, denied the future right to armor by the Coastal Act. In addition, the definition of "redevelopment" needs to be established in the LUP. Scenario-based planning We appreciate policies in the plan that allow the city to monitor sea level rise impacts in Carlsbad, particularly policy LCP-7-P.34, which directs the city to "monitor sea level rise impacts to beaches, bluffs, natural resources, and shoreline and public trust migration" and LCP-7-P.7, which requires the city to update its Vulnerability Assessment, including sea level rise hazard maps, approximately every 10 years. Additionally we appreciate LCP-7-P.27, LCP-7-P.30, and LCP-7-P.28, which direct the city to seek funding opportunities for an SLR adaptation plan, prioritize development and implementation of adaptation plans for critical infrastructure, and implement a sea level rise hazard shoreline development standards as part of the Zoning Ordinance. None of these policies guarantee the creation of an SLR Adaptation Plan. Surfrider strongly recommends including a commitment to creating an SLR Adaptation plan to serve as a long-range planning guide to addressing future sea-level rise and its effects on storm surge, coastal flooding, and erosion. The Adaptation Plan should include a framework for the City to manage risks and take actions based on specific scenarios and monitoring of sea-level rise and its effects. A multi-phased adaptation strategy will save the city millions of dollars, as outlined in "Comparing Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategies in San Diego," the benefit-cost analysis in which Carlsbad participated in 2017. Scenario- based planning helps avoid unplanned reactions to disasters, protecting the beach as a public trust resource. Mitigation of impacts from seawalls We appreciate that the LUP demonstrates the need to mitigate the use of new shoreline protective devices, particularly in LCP-7-P.23, which: Require(s) that new shoreline protective devices, when permitted pursuant to Policy LCP-7-P 20, are sited and designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply, and to avoid impacts to other coastal resources and public access to the maximum extent feasible. If such impacts cannot be avoided, they shall be mitigated through options such as providing equivalent new public access or recreational facilities or undertaking restoration of nearby beach habitat. Mitigation of impacts to coastal resources and public coastal access shall ensure equitable public access to and benefits from coastal resources. We encourage the city to establish a process for ensuring that this mitigation is accounted for, especially when new public access or recreational facility opportunities may not be readily available. The City of Solana Beach has implemented Sand Mitigation Fees and Public Recreation Fees. Flood maps and flood preparation We support the creation of flood overlay zones, but request that the City of Carlsbad incorporate local sea level rise projections into flood planning, since The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps fail to account for sea level rise. The city should update LCP-7-P.39 below as indicated to include sea level rise: LCP-7-P.39: Comply with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements to identify and regulate flood hazard areas. Cooperate with FEMA on shoreline flooding hazards and other mapping efforts, supplementing this data with the most recent local sea level rise projections. Geologic setbacks Geologic setbacks are mentioned in Chapter 7 and consider erosion, including erosion due to sea level rise.LCP-7-P .14B states: The geologic setback is the location on the blufftop inland of which stability can be reasonably assured for the anticipated duration of the development without need for shoreline protective devices. The geologic setback line shall account for the erosion, including erosion due to sea level rise, anticipated during the duration of the development." Surfrider maintains that a coastal bluff setback should be calculated by incorporating 1) A 1.5 factor of safety (the industry standard for new development) or greater, and 2) erosion — including erosion caused by sea level rise. This will ensure that the setback assures safety from landsliding or block failure as well as from long-term bluff retreat. Methods for calculating a proper setback with these inputs are described in "Establishing development setbacks from coastal bluffs,1" a 2003 memorandum to the Coastal Commission completed by a staff geologist. Land use and sea level rise Surfrider would like to remind the City of Carlsbad that sea levels are rising and opportunities for relocation are likely to only become more limited. We join other stakeholder groups in requesting that Planning Area F be considered for use as a public park, given the inconsistency of land-use designations for this area in Carlsbad's approved LCP and the proposed General Plan. Carlsbad's original LCP states: "As part of any future planning effort, the City and Developer must consider and document the need for the provision of lower cost visitor accommodations or recreational facilities (i.e. public park) on the west side of the railroad." (Carlsbad Local Coastal Program) Because this need has not been sufficiently documented; and in the context of accelerating sea level rise, inconsistencies across city planning documents, and potential impacts to recreational beach use, we urge the city to work with the community to resolve the confusion around the competing land use designations for this coastal area. 1 https://www.coastal.ca.gov/W-11.5-2mm3.pdf Conclusion In closing, we acknowledge the thoughtful work that has been done in Carlsbad to put forth a Land Use Plan that takes meaningful steps to include the best science on sea level rise in the planning process. We strongly urge the City to remove the proposed re-definition of 'existing development'. The City should also clarify how scenario-based planning will be achieved, either in this plan or through the implementation plan. Sincerely, ,7"7 weLe5 Laura Walsh Policy Manager San Diego Chapter, Surfrider Foundation All Receive -Agenda Item ff / '1 For the Information of the: CITY' COUNCIL Date l.J7t/'l<i CA_){ CC )< CM ,k_ coo Y DCM l3) .:::;L Council Memorandum {city of Carlsbad January 28, 2020 To: From: Via: Re: Honorable Mayor Hall and Members of the City Council Gary Barberio, Deputy City Manager t;' . Elaine Lu key, Chief Operations Officer Additional Materials Related to Staff eport Item No. 14 -Overview of Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Update Attached are copies of written comments from California Coastal Commission staff in relation to the city's Draft Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. The attached comments include: • A letter from Deborah Lee, California Coastal Commission District Manager, dated January 24, 2020, acknowledging the important work accomplished to update the city's Local Coastal Program and thanking the city for its commitment to this effort. • Eleven letters, dated from December 2016 to February 2019, providing Coastal Commission staff comments on the first drafts of each chapter of the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan update. o During the process to update the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, city and Coastal Commission staff met monthly to discuss the draft plan. The majority of comments, questions and concerns raised in the attached letters were resolved through discussions between city and Coastal Commission staff, and the Draft Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan reflects those discussions and resolutions. Attachment: A. Letter from California Coastal Commission, Re: City of Carlsbad LCP Planning and Sea Level Rise Grant, January 24, 2020 B. City of Carlsbad October 2016 Draft Ch. 2 Land Use CCC Comments, December 15,2016 C. City of Carlsbad May 2017 Draft Ch. 3 Recreation, Visitor-Serving, and Coastal Dependent Uses CCC Comments, July 3, 2017 D. Letter from California Coastal Commission, Re: City of Carlsbad Draft LUP Ch. 4 Public Coastal Access, November 3, 2017 Community Services Branch Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-4600 t Honorable Mayor Hall and Members of the City Council January 28, 2020 Page 2 E. Letter from California Coastal Commission, Re: City of Carlsbad Draft LUP Ch. 5 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas and Water Quality, April 27, 2018 F. Letter from California Coastal Commission, Re: City of Carlsbad Draft LUP Ch. 6 Agricultural, Cultural and Scenic Resources, June 20, 2018 G. Letter from California Coastal Commission, Re: City of Carlsbad Draft LUP Ch. 5 Water Quality, August 22, 2018 H. Letter from California Coastal Commission, Re: City of Carlsbad Draft LUP Ch. 6 Scenic and Visual Resources, August 27, 2018 I. Letter from California Coastal Commission, Re: City of Carlsbad Draft LUP Ch. 7 Coastal Hazards, November 19, 2018 J. Letter from California Coastal Commission, Re: City of Carlsbad Draft LUP Ch. 7 Sea Level Rise, January 11, 2019 K. Letter from California Coastal Commission, Re: City of Carlsbad Draft LUP Ch. 3 Recreation, Visitor-Serving, and Coastal Dependent Uses, February 27, 2019 L. Letter from California Coastal Commission, Re: City of Carlsbad Draft LUP Ch. 1 Introduction, February 27, 2019 cc: Scott Chadwick, City Manager Celia Brewer, City Attorney Jeff Murphy, Community Development Director Mike Peterson, Assistant Community Development Director Don Neu, City Planner Jennifer Jesser, Senior Planner Attachment A STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Goilsmor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO AREA 7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-4421 (619) 767-2370 Don Neu City Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 January 24, 2020 Re: City of Carlsbad LCP Planning and Sea Level Rise Grant Dear Mr. Neu, In our coordination meeting last week, you mentioned that City staff would be reporting to your City Council on the status of the Planning Department's work on the update to the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP). As you are aware, the City of Carlsbad received an LCP Grant in 2015 to complete an update to its certified LCP, including both the land use plan and implementation plan components. The planning grant also provided for work on the City's sea level rise adaptation planning efforts. In addition, a key outcome of the planning update would support the City's desire to obtain coastal development permit authority for all current areas of deferred certification, including the Agua Hedionda LCP · segment. As I hope you and your colleagues will acknowledge, our offices have been working closely on this important work. Since the initiation of the planning grant, we have conducted monthly coordination meetings with the Pl~g Department, providing feedback and direction on this important work. To date, we have provided comments on the draft Land Use Plan provisions and are now reviewing the City's updated public draft. At this time, we are also reviewing sections of the ·clraft implementation plan and preparing written comments for it as well. We are pleased with the progress of this critical work to update the City's land use and implementation policies. Such work is necessary in order to ensure that the City's LCP is responsive to emerging issues and protects critical coastal resources. Thank you for your commitment to this effort. Grl~ District Manager Attachment B City of Carlsbad October 2016 Draft Ch. 2 Land Use CCC Comments December 15, 2016 Specific comments on the October 2016 Draft Land Use Plan Chapter 2 are described below. Please note that we may have additional comments on this chapter once we review the other draft chapters and the comparative analysis of existing land use policies and certified Master or Specific Plan policies that you believe adequately reflect those existing land use policies requested in our comments below. 1. Page 2-2 Section 2.2 Existing Coastal Zone Land Uses: The first sentence of the second paragraph of this section should reference sensitive habitat because the Open Space designation is used for habitat areas protected pursuant to the HMP. 2. Page 2-3 Land Use Designc:ttions: The last sentence of the first paragraph suggests that the Open Space designation will continue to allow public facilities, including community centers and libraries. There should be an additional Open Space Habitat designation that restricts development, even of public facilities, in favor of conservation of sensitive habitat or protected species. 3. Page 2-4 Nomesidential and Mixed Use Designations: Identify visitor commercial nodes where residential uses are not permitted on the ground level to maintain visitor use priority and pedestrian character. 4. Page 2-5: The description of the Visitor Commercial (VC) designation does not include any reference to mixed use. Is the City no longer interested in allowing mixed use development within the Commercial Tourist (CT) zone? 5. Page 2-10: In the discussion of Sea Level Rise, the LUP should reference the results of the vulnerability assessment for 2100. 6. Pages 2-10 to 2-11 Cannon Road Open Space, Farming, and Public Use Corridor: The mix ofland uses on the south shore of Agua Hedionda Lagoon was never fully implemented as originally intended. As a result, the extent and intensity of an visitor commercial and other land uses should be carefully evaluated as part of this LCP update. 7. Page 2-12 Ponto/Southern Waterfront and Page 2-18 LCP-2-P.21: These pages reference the Ponto Beach:front Village Vision Plan. The Table of Existing and Draft LCP Land Use Policies suggests that the City would like the Commission to certify the Vision Plan through this update process. The Commission denied LCP Amendment No. 3-07B (Ponto Beach:front Vision Plan) on July 9, 2009 for seven reasons: (1) Vision Plan identified specific development types on parcels that were designated as unplanned areas; (2) failure to assess the need for lower cost overnight accommodations on the parcels designated as unplanned areas; (3) potential adverse impacts to wetlands; (4) failure to address mass transit facilities; (5) potential adverse impacts to sensitive vegetation; (6) potential adverse impacts to geological stability; and (7) failure to provide sufficient detail related to upgrading infrastructure, utilities, and traffic flow. The proposed Vision Plan should be revised to address these concerns. In addition, the Table of Existing and Draft LCP Land Use Policies states that the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan should be revised to remove Planning Areas F, G, and H so that they fall solely within the boundaries of the proposed Vision Page 1 of 3 City of Carlsbad October 2016 Draft Ch. 2 Land Use CCC Comments December 15, 2016 Plan. The Vision Plan should also be revised to reflect the policies from the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan applicable to these Planning Areas. 8. Page 2-BMurphy: The southern parcel is designated R-8. Should this read "(4~~ dwelling units per acre)"? 9. Page 2-14 Figure 2-2: The bluff hazard zone, flood hazard area, and inundation hazard areas on this figure are not visible due to the scale of the image. The figure should be divided into regions to better show these hazard areas. 10. Page 2-15 LCP-2-P.4: This policy should specify key hillside/slope development standards that should be adhered to, not simply cross-reference to the zoning code. 11. Page 2-15 LCP-2-P.5: This policy is unclear and could lead to problems with implementation (e.g., double counting of mitigation credits). Please clarify the language. 12. Page 2-15 LCP-2-P.6: This policy states that "[r]egional, general and local shopping center uses may be adjacent to or, as a secondary use, integrated into a visitor commercial center to also serve the daily convenience needs of tourists, visitors and residents." This implies that a shopping center use could not be the primary use of a property designated for VC. Please clarify what this policy is trying to achieve and how this policy would be implemented. 13. Page 2-15 LCP-2-P.9: This should reference the City's vulnerability assessment and a timeline for updating that vulnerability assessment. For example, "Use the current best available sea level rise information, including the 2016 City of Carlsbad vulnerability assessment and other resources that are peer-reviewed, widely accepted within the scientific community, and locally relevant, to monitor and update land use policy. The vulnerability assessment should be updated every 10 years with the best available science as identified through Coastal Commission guidance." 14. Page 2-16 LCP-2-P.12.d: This policy allows "Active and passive parks, recreation and similar public and private use facilities ( except on the existing Flower Fields)." What are "private use facilities" that would be allowed here? 15. Page 2-17 LCP-2-P.18: This policy requires that applicable agricultural conversion policies be defined in the specific plan for any development of this site. Policy 1.10 of the Agua Hedionda L UP calls for a specific plan for any future development and compliance with the agricultural conversion policies in Part 2 of the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan. Is the City proposing to change the agricultural conversion policies? Those conversion policies should be included in this LUP, not deferred to a future specific plan. 16. Where will existing agriculture policies and urban agriculture policies go in the updated LUP? Are there any remaining mitigation fees to be paid or have all parcels subject to the mitigation fees already paid them? 17. Page 2-17 LCP-2-P.19.b: This subsection references an open space buffer between the lagoon's south shore and the proposed peaker plant. How big would that buffer be? What uses would be allowed (e.g., public trails)? Page 2 of3 City of Carlsbad October 2016 Draft Ch. 2 Land Use CCC Comments December 15, 2016 18. Page 2-18 LCP-2-P.20: No other policies in the LCP will apply to the Village and Barrio Gust the Village and Barrio Master Plan)? 19. It appears that the City intends to keep all existing Specific Plans and Master Plans. Please clarify in this chapter what documents and policies are controlling for each area with a specific plan or master plan. 20. Page 2-18 LCP-2-P.23 through P.25: The Murphy parcels are identified as Site IV on Map X and are subject to the Mello II agriculture mitigation policies. Has any required mitigation fee been paid? 21. Page 2-19: Please provide proposals regarding use of the state-owned parcel northerly of the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Carlsbad Boulevard for discussion. 22. Please complete an inventory of existing visitor serving designated lands and assessment of future visitor serving needs in support of this LCP update and redesignation of the Power Plant site and the Measure A site. Additional detail regarding application of the visitor serving designation to these two sites is also necessary. 23. Most of the community and parcel specific policies in the currently certified Land Use Plan are proposed to be removed. The Table of Existing and Draft Land Use Policies states that these policies are being eliminated because they have been implemented and, in some cases, certified Master or Specific Plans adequately address the policies. Please provide a table comparing existing Land Use Plan policies to certified Master or Specific Plan policies that you believe adequately reflect the existing Land Use Plan policies so that we can evaluate them. In general, we want to be sure that when properties are redeveloped in the future, the Land Use Plan identifies any key development guidance that was intended to protect coastal resources and public access. 24. Because the City is retaining certified Master and Specific Plans, the Land Use Plan should include a list of those other plans that are certified as part of the Local Coastal Program and indicate via a map the geographic boundaries of each plan. 25. Will visual, archeological, and paleontological resources be addressed in the Coastal Resource Protection Chapter? If not, they should be addressed here. Page 3 of3 Attachment C City of Carlsbad May 2017 Draft Ch. 3 Recreation, Visitor-Serving, and Coastal Dependent Uses CCC Comments July 3, 2017 Specific comments on the May 2017 Draft Land Use Plan Chapter 3, and the table of Existing and Draft Carlsbad Local Coastal Program -Recreation, Visitor-Serving and Coastal-Dependent Policies are described below. Please note that we may have additional comments on this chapter once we review the other draft chapters (e.g., public access and sea level rise/hazards) and receive updated policies related to lower cost visitor and recreational facilities. General Comments 1. Relevant Coastal Act policies should be reproduced in each chapter of the LUP. For example, in Chapter 3 the Introduction on page 3-2 references relevant Coastal Act policies. Please reproduce those policies in their entirety here to ensure that all language in the Coastal Act is captured in the LUP. 2. Consider reorganizing the chapters to locate relevant LUP policies below narrative descriptions ( e.g., recreation policies follow discussion of beaches, lagoons, parks/trails; visitor-serving policies follow discussion of visitor-serving uses; and coastal-dependent policies follow discussion of coastal-dependent uses). 3. The level of detail about future changes or projects varies in this chapter. Please keep in mind that if the LUP does not provide sufficient specificity regarding future projects, LUP amendments will be required in order to permit projects (for example, see comments below regarding the description of the Encina Power Station). 4. Where will agriculture policies be located in the new LUP? There does not appear to be a chapter devoted to agriculture. 5. Note that the LUP should include policies to deal with all coastal recreational facilities threatened by sea level rise. This chapter only mentions sea level rise in Policy CZ-3-P-16 regarding threats to the campground. As we review the coastal hazards chapter, we may recommend that this chapter be revised to cross reference relevant hazards policies or to add new policies here. Chapter 3 Recreation, Visitor-Serving, and Coastal-Dependent Uses 1. Beaches (page 3-3): For each beach area, please include a summary of key facilities available (public parking, restrooms, showers, picnic areas, etc.). 2. Lagoons (pages 3-3 to 3-4): For each lagoon, provide detail about whether and where fishing is allowed. For example, fishing in the middle and inner basins of Agua Hedionda Lagoon is never addressed. 3. Buena Vista Lagoon: Identify that future restoration of the lagoon could include public access improvements. Page 1 of7 City of Carlsbad May 2017 Draft Ch. 3 Recreation, Visitor-Serving, and Coastal Dependent Uses CCC Comments July 3, 2017 4. Agua Hedionda Lagoon: a. The description should highlight the fact that Agua Hedionda Lagoon is the only lagoon in San Diego County where recreational boating is permitted. b. Fishing should be addressed in this description of Agua Hedionda Lagoon, including explicit detail about where fishing is or is not permitted. For example, it is not clear in this document whether fishing is allowed within the inner or middle lagoon. c. Include description of existing and planned trails around the lagoon. 5. Batiquitos Lagoon (page 3-4): Remove the second sentence in this paragraph: "It is oH:e of the few remainiHg tidal vretlaH:ds OH: the Southern California Coast." 6. Boardwalk/Seawall (page 3-4): Revise the final sentence as follows: "A walkway/seawall also extends the boardwalk beyond Tamarack A venue, past Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the power plant just south of Cannon Road, for additional oceanfront walking opportunities." 7. Public Parks and Trails (page 3-4): a. The second paragraph of this subsection refers to the Trails Master Plan as a component of the LCP. As we previously advised in discussions regarding the Trails Master Plan, we recommend that you do not incorporate the entire Trails Master Plan into the LCP because that document applies to areas both within and outside of the coastal zone and if incorporated in its entirety, an LCP amendment would be required every time a change is made to the Master Plan even when the changes only apply outside the coastal zone. Instead, we recommend that you include key maps and figures from the Trails Master Plan in the LCP focusing on the trail segments located within the coastal zone. Please see our prior comments on the Trails Master Plan, dated May 5, 2017 for recommendations regarding key components of and figures from the Trails Master Plan that should be included in the LCP. b. Add the City's Park Standard to this section. 8. Figure 3-1 Coastal Recreation (page 3-5): a. What are "special resource areas"? If they are included on this figure, they should be defined in the narrative description of Public Parks and Trails. b. Is all of the other open space accessible for public recreation? Does it represent habitat areas that are conserved (i.e., not suitable for public recreation)? How much of this will also be represented in the chapters dealing with public access and biological resources? c. The various shades of green are difficult to differentiate. Please replace with other colors or hatching that can be used to distinguish these different land use types? 9. Visitor Accommodations (page 3-7): Add the number of rooms currently available within the city's coastal zone to this section. Page 2 of7 City of Carlsbad May 2017 Draft Ch. 3 Recreation, Visitor-Serving, and Coastal Dependent Uses CCC Comments July 3, 2017 10. Figure 3-2 Visitor Serving Uses and Areas (page 3-9): a. Use a different color (not purple or any other color already used in this figure) to identify Other Existing Visitor Serving Commercial. b. The figure identifies a parcel located on the north side of Cannon Road between the rail corridor and A venida Encinas as existing visitor accommodations. The site is developed as a narrow pocket park, not visitor accommodations. In addition, on the current LCP Land Use Map this site looks like it is designated for Public (P) land use -will it remain designated for P? Why is it identified on this figure as accommodations? Should it be identified on Figure 3-1 Coastal Recreation instead as an existing park or as other open space? c. The Hyatt House San Diego/Carlsbad (located on the south side of Cannon Road and identified as an existing visitor accommodation on this figure) site is designated for Planned Industrial (PI) land uses. Are there other plans for development of this site? If not, this site should be redesignated for Visitor Commercial. d. The figure appears to show the Beach Terrace Inn at 2775 Ocean Street as an existing visitor accommodation, however, this parcel is designated for R-23 land use. This site should be redesignated for Visitor Commercial. e. Are there any other hotels/motels in the coastal zone that are not currently designated for Visitor Commercial? If so, those should be redesignated. f. Are the existing visitor accommodations in this figure consistent with the hotels identified in the City's inventory? g. This figure includes all parcels within the Village segment. Will the proposed Village and Barrio Master Plan continue to require that all properties within the Village LCP segment provide visitor serving commercial uses on the ground floor? 11. Marinas (page 3-11): Add discussion of Bristol Cove. If South Carlsbad State Beach is used to launch small boats, add description to this section. 12. Fishing and Aquaculture (page 3-11): a. Fishing and Aquaculture should be separate sections. b. The Fishing section should note that fishing is allowed along the beach. c. Is the entire shoreline of the 66-acre outer portion of Agua Hedionda Lagoon accessible for fishing ( does aquaculture lease close off any of the shoreline for fishing)? Are there any limitations on hours of access? Describe the Fishing Beach Parcel here. Is the Fishing Beach Parcel the entire 66-acre outer portion of Agua Hedionda Lagoon that is open to shore fishing or just a portion of that area? d. Mention that fishing is allowed at the rock jetties at the mouth ofBatiquitos Lagoon and under the I-5 here. e. Mention fishing in Buena Vista Lagoon from Coast Highway here. f. Are there any other fishing locations in Carlsbad ( other jetties)? g. Remove the last sentence of the paragraph describing the capacity at Hubbs- Sea World. Page 3 of7 City of Carlsbad May 2017 Draft Ch. 3 Recreation, Visitor-Serving, and Coastal Dependent Uses CCC Comments July 3, 2017 13. Energy Facilities and Coastal-Related Industries (page 3-11): a. Is the depiction of the current and future condition of the Encina Power Station consistent with the General Plan description? If this is the extent of the description, an LCP amendment will be required for any future land use change or permitting of development. The planned decommissioning and proposed change to VC/OS should be included here. b. Are there any plans for expansion of the desalination plant that should be included here? 14. CZ-3-P-3 only includes two of the four allowable uses of Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Fees that are specified in the current Mello II Policy 2-1 Option 3. Are the other two allowable uses being retained? If so, what chapters will those appear in? 15. State Parks is the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Please update the agency name in policies CZ-3-P-4, 5, 6, and 16. 16. Combine policies CZ-3-P-9 and CZ-3-P-15 regarding recreational boating facilities. 17. Combine policies CZ-3-P-10 and CZ-3-P-11 regarding recreational fishing activities. Who owns the "Fishing Beach Parcel"? Are there any other popular fishing locations in the city that should be maintained? 18. CZ-3-P-13: What is the City's "park standard" and where is that located (i.e., Muni Code)? If you reference it here, the standard will need to be certified as part of the LCP. Alternatively, please incorporate the key requirements of the park standard in the LCP to avoid referencing it. A different version of this policy appears in the table of existing vs. proposed policies regarding Mello II Policy 6-1 (see page 5 of table). That version describes the geographic and population-based park standard without requiring cross-reference to a document outside of the LCP. 19. CZ-3-P-14: a. Revise this policy to identify where boat docks, boat storage, and launching facilities will be permitted ( e.g., all coastal and lagoon areas, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, or just Bristol Cove). b. What is the current planning and permitting process for new or replacement facilities? Which agencies should the City and applicants consult with (Army Corps, NMFS, etc.)? c. Once the LCP is certified for this area, the Commission will retain permitting authority over docks, boat launches and other facilities that are located beyond the MHTL or on other public trust lands, but would not have permitting authority over facilities that are located inland of that. This policy should be revised to reflect the process and authorities of all relevant agencies. d. Please note that the City should develop design standards for docks in Bristol Cove. Page 4 of7 City of Carlsbad May 2017 Draft Ch. 3 Recreation, Visitor-Serving, and Coastal Dependent Uses CCC Comments July 3, 2017 20. CZ-3-P-15 directs the City to consider opportunities to develop additional boating/launch facilities along Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The City's inventory of visitor-serving uses should include an evaluation of current and future demand for recreational boating to assess how much land should be designated for visitor-serving and recreational facilities and how best to meet that future need. 21. Move policies CZ-3-P-8, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15 to the Coastal Dependent Use Policies section. 22. Revise CZ-3-P-16 as follows: Workwith the California Parks Department to enhance recreation, public access, visitor-commercial services, and activity in the Carlsbad Boulevard coastal corridor_. Lend ceuld he me-de aw1ikJ.hl-e by real-igning the southbound lanes of Car/shad Boule·,;ard tmd by reconfigiwitig the Paiemtlr Airport Road/ Carlsbad Boulevard intersection. The principal objecti•,1es ere to create additional recreational opportunities, waterfront amenities and services, including modernization and expansion of the campgrounds to serve as lower-cost visitor and recreational facilities; improve coastal access for all; conserve coastal resources; and enhance public safety, including addressing threats to the campground from bluff erosion and sea level rise. 23. Delete the phrase "to the extent feasible" in Policy CZ-3-P-17. Please note that details regarding parking fees and any hours of use restrictions (i.e., beach curfews, time-lock gates on public access ways, etc.) should be included in the public access chapter. 24. Coastal Act section 30213 requires that lower cost visitor and recreational facilities be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. It also prioritizes developments providing public recreational opportunities. Please add a policy consistent with this lower cost mandate related to visitor and recreational facilities that are not overnight accommodations. 25. Please provide the acreage of land currently committed to open space (for recreational use vs. habitat conservation), visitor serving, agriculture, and coastal dependent land uses within the City's coastal zone. The acreage of land committed to these priority uses should include land with both conforming and non-conforming uses on the ground (i.e., The Hyatt House and Beach Terrace Inn should be included as lands that are currently committed to visitor serving uses despite the existing land use designations). This inventory should identify acreages where designated visitor commercial parcels are currently occupied with non visitor serving uses (i.e., the two churches and parochial school located off of Tamarack A venue just east of I-5). This analysis will assist in supporting future proposed land use changes (e.g., Encina Power Station site resignation for VC/OS) and to understand how Carlsbad's existing land uses compare to other similarly sized cities. Page 5 of 7 City of Carlsbad May 2017 Draft Ch. 3 Recreation, Visitor-Serving, and Coastal Dependent Uses CCC Comments July 3, 2017 Existing and Draft Carlsbad Local Coastal Program -Recreation, Visitor-Serving and Coastal-Dependent Policies 1. Agua Hedionda LUP Policy 6.1 designates Whitey's Landing and Snug Harbor for recreational use. The City's comments on this policy on page 1 of the Table suggest changing the designation of Whitey's Landing to residential and states that the redesignation of the power plant site to VC/OS would make up for the loss of visitor commercial land along the lagoon. Commission staff has significant concerns about the proposed redesignation of the Whitey's Landing site. Additional analysis is required for any change in visitor serving designations within the City. For example, an assessment of current and future demand for visitor serving and recreational facilities throughout the City would be required. In addition, the proposed redesignation of the power plant site would not necessarily provide an equivalent replacement because the desalination plant will remain along the lagoon frontage thereby preventing the development of some of the water-related visitor serving uses that Whitey's Landing currently provides. 2. Agua Hedionda LUP Policy 6.3 designates the SDG&E agricultural conversion property for visitor-serving commercial uses. The City has proposed to redesignate this site from TS to VC, however, that change should be a part of the above mentioned inventory of visitor serving uses within the City's Coastal Zone, and must be supported by an analysis of existing and future demand for visitor serving and recreational facilities throughout the City. 3. Agua Hedionda LUP Policy 6.7 requires protection of existing recreational uses of the lagoon. Please add this policy to the new LUP chapter. 4. Mello II LUP Policy 6-1 calls for additional city parks at Altamira Park (12 acres) and North La Costa Park (5 acres). Were these parks built? If not, why is the proposed park standard equivalent? 5. Mello II LUP Policy 6-4 calls for additional camping facilities and suggests potential to site them at "an eventual Batiquitos Park, [or] within the Agua Hedionda Specific Plan area." Please describe the history of this policy, the areas identified as potential future regional parks, and why those regional parks were never developed. Given the threat to existing campgrounds posed by sea level rise, are other opportunities/locations for additional campgrounds in the City's coastal zone? 6. West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties Segment: The existing LUP includes policies that require certain visitor-serving developments and/or studies relevant to the Ponto/Southern Waterfront area. For example, Planning Area F requires the city and developer to "consider and document the need for the provision of lower cost visitor accommodations or recreational facilities (i.e., public park) on the west side of the railroad." This is an issue that the San Pacifico HOA community group is raising in regards to the Shopoff/Ponto development proposal, and this study should be undertaken as a part of the visitor serving use inventory analysis described above. If this analysis determines that there is a deficit of low cost visitor accommodations or recreation facilities in this area, then Page 6 of7 City of Carlsbad May 2017 Draft Ch. 3 Recreation, Visitor-Serving, and Coastal Dependent Uses CCC Comments July 3, 2017 Planning Area F should be considered as a site where these types of uses could be developed. Planning Area G specifies a max number of hotel rooms or timeshare units onsite. Planning Area H requires a hotel and conference center. As indicated in Commission staff comments on the draft Chapter 2 (Land Use) policies, we need to be sure that when properties are developed or redeveloped in the future, the Land Use Plan identifies any key development guidance that was intended to protect coastal resources, public access, and provision of visitor-serving and recreational facilities. Therefore, Chapter 3 should retain the existing policies that describe visitor-serving and recreational facilities in any future development of the Ponto/Southern Waterfront Special Planning Area. Page 7 of 7 Attachment D STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO AREA 7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-4421 (619) 767-2370 City of Carlsbad Attn: Jennifer lesser 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 November 3, 2017 Re: City of Carlsbad Draft LUP Ch. 4 Public Coastal Access Dear Ms. lesser: Commission staff appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the City's Draft Land Use Plan Chapter 4 and the companion table of Existing and Draft Carlsbad Local Coastal Program Public Access Policies. Specific comments on the draft and companion table are described below. As we have noted previously, Commission staff may have additional comments on this chapter once we review the other draft chapters ( e.g., coastal hazards, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, etc.). General Comments 1. Note that the LUP should include policies related to adaptive management of all public access and accessory facilities (including parking) threatened by sea level rise and how these public facilities will be re-routed/replaced to ensure continued connectivity and recreational amenities. This chapter does not include any policies addressing sea level rise. As we review the coastal hazards chapter, we may recommend that this chapter be revised to cross reference relevant hazards policies or to add new policies here. 2. The figure references in the discussions ofregional trails projects (page 4-12), bikeways (page 4-14 ), and coastal visitor parking (page 4-16) are incorrectly numbered. 3. The figures should be much more detailed. Please include higher resolution images and break them down into smaller geographic segments so that access points, trails, and parking facilities are visible. These figures should enable visitors and residents to clearly identify existing and planned public access opportunities within the City. The subarea approach used in the Trails Master Plan would be helpful here. The La Jolla Community Plan provides another good example of the level of detail that should be included in figures (see Appendix G Coastal Access Subarea Maps in the La Jolla Community Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan: https://www.sandiego.gov/planning/community/profiles/lajolla/plan). 4. Are there any areas of the City with encroachments on, or disincentives to use of, public beaches or accessways (e.g., illegal no parking signs, red curbs or barriers, November 3, 2017 Page2 private development or landscaping on beaches)? If so, those should be identified and measures to remove them should be included in this chapter. If there are areas the City wishes to allow encroachments into public spaces, we should discuss further. 5. This chapter should more clearly describe ownership of the various access opportunities in the City. For example, there is very little discussion of California Department of Parks and Recreation owning and operating several public parking lots and access points. In addition, some residential properties extend onto sandy beach areas, but have existing lateral access easements allowing public use of the beach. Chapter 4 Public Coastal Access 1. California Coastal Act (page 4-2 and 4-3): Coastal Act Policies 30212.5 and 30213 are missing from this section. Please add the text of these policies here. 2. Vertical and Lateral Pedestrian Coastal Access (page 4-4): Are there any existing closures or curfews on beaches, parking lots, or accessways in the City? The LUP should include a policy clarifying that such restrictions on public access are prohibited and that adoption of any restrictions will require an LCP amendment and coastal development permit. 3. Vertical Pedestrian Access to the Coast (page 4-4): a. Describe any time restrictions/ gates on vertical public accessways. For example, the vertical access points at Cypress and Christiansen have timelock gates. Other than these authorized timelock gates, this chapter should include provisions to ensure that all existing public accessways remain open to the general public without restrictions or interference. b. Existing and future planned vertical public access points should be quantified and clearly described or named in this section and should correspond to the access points included on Figure 4-1. 4. Figure 4-1 Vertical and Lateral Pedestrian Coastal Access (page 4-6): a. It is difficult to see where exactly some of the vertical access points are located on this figure because of the size/resolution of the figure. The figure should be broken into several figures showing regional segments to provide more detail about existing and proposed access points. The figures and the narrative descriptions should provide a guide for residents and visitors to access these locations. b. Do the blue arrows indicate only existing, improved vertical pedestrian ramps and stairs ( or does it also include informal goat trails like at the bluff top lot north of Cannon Road and immediately north of the Terramar neighborhood)? c. This figure should include proposed future access points. For example, Policy CZ-4-P-4 calls for an improved vertical accessway from the parcel north of the Terramar neighborhood. November 3, 2017 Page 3 d. Areas with potential prescriptive rights should be included on this figure and this chapter should include a policy calling for and prioritizing improvement of any areas with potential prescriptive rights. 5. Table 4-1 Existing and Future Proposed Trails in Carlsbad's Coastal Zone (page 4-9): a. There are 4 notes at the end of the table. Where are Notes 1 and 2 referenced in the Table? b. Note 4 indicates that Reach 3 of the Coastal Rail Trail (70) would not need to be constructed if a public easement is granted for the proposed segment from 1-5 around the south shore of Agua Hedionda Lagoon to Carlsbad Blvd (7 A). Reach 3 of the Coastal Rail Trail is a required trail segment identified in the North Coast Corridor Public Works Plan (NCC PWP). Please note that removing or replacing Segment 70 would require a PWP amendment and would only be supported if Segment 7 A provides an equivalent public access opportunity and a linkage back to the Coastal Rail Trail is provided. c. All trails mentioned in the current LCP should be represented in Table 4-1 and Figure 4-2. For example, the existing public access trail on the Pannonia property and a future access trail on the south shore of Buena Vista Lagoon should be represented. In addition, the public access easement along the Levy property should be depicted. 6. Coastal Rail Trail (page 4-12): This description should reference Figure 4-2 and the NCC PWP Coastal Rail Trail segments represented on that figure (segments 70, 8B, and l0B). 7. California Coastal Trail (page 4-12): a. Have any existing trail segments have been officially designated and/or signed as part of the California Coastal Trail (CCT)? b. Has the City done any coordination with the State Coastal Conservancy regarding CCT planning? c. This description should specifically address east/west trail connections between existing or planned trail systems and the CCT. Figure 4-3 only shows north/south trails. Please clarify that the CCT does/will connect to the trails shown on Figure 4-2. d. This chapter should include detailed policies regarding future planning for the CCT. Please see comment below regarding Policy CZ-4-P-20 for model policies. e. This description of the CCT should be expanded. The following description of the CCT could be modified for this section: November 3, 2017 Page4 The California Coastal Trail: Vision and Concept The vision for the California Coastal Trail (CCT) is a continuous interconnected public trail system along the California coastline from Oregon to Mexico. The Commission and its sister agency, the Coastal Conservancy, have long supported the trail to foster appreciation and stewardship of the scenic and natural resources of the coast as well as to implement Coastal Act policies promoting non-motorized transportation. The trail system is located on a variety of terrains, including the beach, bluff edge, hillsides providing scenic vantage points, and within the highway right-of-way. It can take many forms, including informal footpaths, paved sidewalks, and separated bicycle paths. When no other alternative exists, it sometimes connects along the shoulder of the road. While primarily for pedestrians, the trail network also accommodates a variety of user groups including bicyclists, wheelchair users, equestrians, and others as opportunities allow. As articulated in the Coastal Conservancy's 2003 report to the Legislature, "Completing the California Coastal Trail," the CCT system is to be designed and implemented to achieve the following goals and objectives: • Provide a continuous walking and hiking trail as close to the ocean as possible. • Provide maximum access for a variety of non-motorized uses by utilizing parallel trail segments where feasible. • Maximize connections to existing and proposed local trail systems. • Ensure that the trail has connections to trailheads, parking areas, transit stops, inland trail segments, etc. at reasonable intervals. • Maximize ocean views and scenic coastal vistas. • Provide an educational experience where feasible through interpretive programs, kiosks, and other facilities. 8. Figure 4-4 Bicycle Network (page 4-15): a. I-5 is missing from the figure. b. Future bike access should be shown on the final stretch of Poinsettia Lane. 9. Coastal Visitor Parking (page 4-16): This chapter should describe the status of any existing parking fees or other restrictions that could impact public access. There should also be a policy clarifying that the adoption and implementation of any new parking fees, residential permit program, and/or time restrictions are discouraged and would require a coastal development permit and possibly a LCP amendment. 10. Public Off-Street Parking (page 4-16): a. Are there fees for public off-street parking? If so, please describe them here. November 3, 2017 Page5 b. Are there any time restrictions for these spaces? If so, please describe them here. c. Please describe who operates the public off-street parking. For example, are the 127 spaces at Tamarack and 245 spaces at South Ponto managed by State Parks? d. Are public parking facilities associated with the campground ( e.g., day use parking spaces) addressed here? If there are day use parking spaces . available at the State Parks campground, please include them in the parking count. However, parking spaces for the campsites should not be included. e. Where are the "90 spaces at Palomar Airport Road"? Is that the parking lot south of Palomar Airport Road and north of Island Way? Looking at aerial photos, there do not appear to be 90 spaces there. 11. Public On-Street Parking (page 4-16): a. Are there any fees or time restrictions for these spaces? If so, describe them here. b. There appears to be some on-street parking on the seaward side of southbound Carlsbad Blvd, south of the mouth of Batiquitos Lagoon. Is that parking included here? 12. Special Events (page 4-21): a. The LUP should include a policy clarifying that temporary events staged on or adjacent to beaches or shoreline areas will protect public access to and along the shoreline and protect sensitive coastal resources during the entire event. · b. How does the City currently review and/or permit special events? Does the Implementation Plan (Zoning Ordinance) currently include any provisions related to temporary events? See the attached Commission Memorandum related to regulation of temporary events in the coastal zone. 13. CZ-4-P-1 (page 4-22): This policy should be revised as follows: "Require that new development, as defined by Coastal Act Section 30212, which is located on property fronting the ocean or a lagoon shoreline, provide direct dedication or irrevocable offers to dedicate vertical and lateral public access ... Direct dedications or oQffers of dedication shall be made to the City of Carlsbad, California Coastal Conservancy or another appropriate public agency, or other suitable entity." These changes will make this policy consistent with the language in Policy CZ-4-P- l 1 referencing private associations and the language in Policy CZ-4-P-18 relating to permanent easements. 14. Add a policy requiring the City to accept offers of dedication, where feasible. November 3, 2017 Page 6 15. CZ-4-P-4 (page 4-23): Who owns this parcel now? As noted previously.in these comments, this proposed vertical accessway should be represented on Figure 4-1. 16. CZ-4-P-5 (page 4-23): Why is this policy limited to State agencies? There are also private property owners along each of these lagoons. The final sentence should be revised as follows: "The provision of lateral access along the lagoons shall minimize grading and avoid an&or minimize impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat areas." 17. Add a policy requiring that lateral access easements along coastal shorelines shall extend from the MHTL to the toe of coastal bluffs, as is currently required by Mello II LUP Policy 7-3. 18. CZ-4-P-8 (page 4-23): We should discuss this policy further. The policy should specify a minimum width for lateral access easements. In addition, the Commission has historically required that lateral access easements along Agua Hedionda Lagoon be measured from the MHTL and be ambulatory. The access easement area should also be easily identifiable through the use of reference points. 19. CZ-4-P-9 (page 4-23): How has the City implemented this policy on slopes? Use the lowest finished grade? The max height of the structure? 20. CZ-5-P-12 (page 4-33): This policy should address the sizing and spacing of vertical accessways. Vertical accessways should be a minimum of 10 feet. 21. CZ-4-P-13 (page 4-23): Please explain what concern this policy is addressing. 22. CZ-4-P-15 (page 4-24): Areas of potential prescriptive rights should be identified. 23. CZ-4-P-17 (page 4-24): This policy should be revised to clarify the types of development that can be allowed on beaches and that such permitted development must be consistent with other policies of the LCP. Please provide a more detailed list of the types of development that could be appropriate on the sand. For example, "Prohibit private the-developm~nt of structures on beaches, unless the development consists of structures that are coastal dependent~, or otherwise important for p-E_ublic development for limited public access, and recreation or safety facilities may also be appropriate on beaches. All permitted development on beaches shall be and 1Nhich are sited and designed to minimize encroachment onto the beach and be consistent with all other policies of the LCP, including policies related to avoiding development in hazardous locations." As you identify which public assets may need to be located on beaches, we should discuss to fine tune this policy. 24. CZ-4-P-20 (page 4-24): This policy should be strengthened and expanded to detail a planning process and phasing for establishment and construction of the CCT. A good example of such policies is available in the County of San Mateo LCP Amendment · November 3, 2017 Page 7 No. SMC-MAJ-1-07 (Midcoast LCP Update), Suggested Modification No. 48, page 72, at: https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2009/12/Th 18a-12-2009.pdf. 25. CZ-4-P-21 (page 4-24): Please revise as follows: "Ensure that the design, location, construction and operation of trails and bikeways avoids or minimizes adverse impacts to coastal resources, including sensitive habitats and species, as 1.vell as other sensitive surrounding land uses, sueh as residenees." Note that impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) must generally be avoided. We may have further comments on this policy once we review the draft policies related to ESHA. 26. CZ-4-P-30 (page 4-25): The projects mentioned here would require additional detail before they could be authorized. We should discuss this further. 27. CZ-4-P-32 (pages 4-24 to 4-25): This policy is vague. What specific projects are you contemplating? We should discuss this further. 28. CZ-4-P-34 (page 4-25): Coastal Act Section 30212.5 applies to public access and recreational facilities generally and is not restricted to parking. The LCP should include a policy related to distribution of access and recreational facilities more generally. 29. CZ-4-P-36 (page 4-26): Why does this policy eliminate the 1,500 parking space requirement in Mello II LUP Policy 7-9? Why is that number of spaces no longer appropriate? Existing and Draft Carlsbad Local Coastal Program -Public Access Policies 1. Agua Hedionda LUP Policy 7.3 (page 2): Key trail standards should be included in the LUP. At a minimum, this should include the width, allowable uses, signage, amenities, and materials for trail construction. 2. Agua Hedionda LUP Policy 7.9 (page 5): The last sentence of this policy prohibits the use of signs or other devices on public or private property that might deter use of public access areas. This type of prohibition should be included in the Access chapter. 3. Agua Hedionda LUP Policy 7.10 (page 5): Should this policy be retained for future redevelopment of parcels within Bristol Cove? 4. Agua Hedionda LUP Policy 7.1 ·1 (page 5): Is the existing public pedestrian/bicycle access easement/trail on the Pannonia property represented on Figure 4-2 and in the Trails Master Plan? 5. Mello II LUP Policies 3-3(d), 3-5(j) and (k), 3-7(e) and (f) are not included in this table. Are these policies addressed in the proposed Access chapter? Do the trails November 3, 2017 Page 8 referenced in these policies appear on Figure 4-2? Where will vista points be identified in the LUP? 6. Mello II LUP Policy 7-3 (page 9): This policy requires offers of dedication for lateral access easements between the MHTL and the base of coastal bluffs. This requirement on bluff-backed beaches should be included in the Acc~ss chapter. 7. Mello II LUP Policies 7-4 and 7-5 (page 9), 7-11 (page 13): Are there locations where additional beach access along South Carlsbad State Beach could be identified as. future access points in the LUP? Have you had any discussions with State Parks regarding their access plans for South Carlsbad State Beach? 8. Mello II LUP Policy 7-9 (page 12): As noted in the prior comment regarding Policy CZ-4-P-36, why is the 1,500 parking space requirement eliminated in CZ-4-P-36? Why is that number of spaces no longer appropriate? 9. Mello II LUP Policy 7-12 (page 13): We should discuss the appropriate location for the Ocean Street setback policy within the LUP and the methodology once you have developed a proposal. 10. Mello II LUP Policy 7-15 (page 14): I am pulling the relevant Coastal Commission files regarding the McMahon property referenced in this policy from archives to understand the history here and whether any further policy is necessary in the LUP. 11. West Batiquitos LUP Policy F (pages 15-18) and East Batiquitos LUP Policy 7 (pages 19-20): Please provide a table comparing existing Land Use Plan policies to certified Master or Specific Plan policies that you believe adequately reflect the existing Land Use Plan policies so that we can evaluate them to ensure that key development guidance intended to protect coastal resources and public access will continue to be protected when properties are redeveloped. We look forward to continuing to collaborate on the City's comprehensive Local Coastal Program update. Please contact me if you have any questions about these comments. Sincerely, {U- Erin Prahler Coastal Program Analyst Enclosure STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETI: WILSON, Go.,.,._ CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 46 FREMONT , SUITE 2000 SA ~CISCO, CA 94105-2219 VO O TDD (415) 904-5200 January 23, 1998 To: From: Planning Directors of Coastal Ci~ Counti Peter Douglas, Executive DiiecJr 1/fa Re: · REGULATION OF TEMPORARY EVENTS IN THE COASTAL ZONE Over the past several years, temporary events on California's beaches and adjacent areas . have become a subject of substantial concern. The concerns relate to the nature and frequency of such events, their impact on coastal resources and nearby residential neighborhoods, and the general public's ability to get to and utilize coastal recreational lands during such events. Temporary events, such as volleyball tournaments, visual arts and music festivals, surfing contests, boat and auto races, fanners markets, etc. have a long-standing tradition and history in California's coastal communities. As the State's population grows and competition for limited coastal space intensifies and fiscally strapped local governments search for supplemental sources of revenue, conflicts among different coastal users and uses become more significant Exacerbating the problem is the fact that many event sponsors, whether for profit or charitable purposes, seek to charge entrance fees that, by their nature, result in the exclusion from the event site non-paying members of the public. The Commission recently denied approval of a volleyball tournament that proposed 100% paid seating on the beach in the summer. While some temporary events raise substantial concerns about adverse impacts on coastal resources, most events of this type are de minimis and raise no such concerns. In order to minimize permitting burdens for the vast majority of temporary events that do not raise Coastal Act concerns, the Commission sought and received legislative approval to utilize procedures to exclude such events from coastal permit requirements. Toe attached guidelines were adopted by the Commission in 1993 to identify those types of temporary events which have the potential for significant adverse effect on public access and/or coastal resources and which, as a result, require a coastal development permit. The Commission recently held a workshop and received public testimony on whether the guidelines should be changed. Subsequent to the hearing, Commission staff, based on Commission direction, determined nQt to amend the guidelines at this time. However, testimony at the hearing did suggest that the guidelines fail to address the cumulative impacts these kinds of events are having on public access to and recreational use of the shoreline. Concerns were raised about the number and size of events, impacts on public parking, noise, advertising, etc. The Commission heard from citizens that these concerns are not being adequately addressed at the local level and that there may be inadequate opportunities for the public to raise these concerns through a public hearing process. Q . . Regulation of Temporary Events in the Coastal Zone January 23, 1998 Page2 The Coastal Act gives both the Coastal Commission and local governments the responsibility to implement coastal protection policies through the planning and regulatory processes established by the Act. The Commission believes that most of the concerns raised in connection with the impacts of temporary events can best be addressed at the local government level. Obviously in doing so, Coastal Act policies designed to protect coastal resources need to be addressed. The Commission-adopted guidelines relative to temporary events m apply to Meas where the Coastal Commission retains pennit authority, including public trust lands and areas for which there is no certified Local Coastal Program (LCP). The Commission has asked that staff contact its local government partners in coastal stewardship to request that you review your local regulations affecting temporary events. The intent is to ensure that every LCP contains implementable land use policies that specifically address the protection of coastal resources consistent with Coastal Act policies. These policies should, for example, deal with potential impacts on parking and traffic affecting public beach access, visual amenities, the recreational and free use of public beaches, impacts on environmentally sensitive habitat, and the cumulative affects of multiple events, especially during the high-use summer season. Coastal development permits should be required for those temporary events having the potential of significant adverse effects on coastal resomces. In addition to the range of issues your jurisdiction deals with as a matter of primanly local concern , Coastal Act policies and the Commission's guidelines should be used to help shape your approach. We realize that many local governments have dealt with temporary events long before the Coastal Act was enacted. It is our intent to work in cooperation and coordination with you so as to avoid duplication of effort, to reduce regulatory burdens for event sponsors, and to minimize conflicts in policy direction. As you consider our request, we would also appreciate it if you would assist the Commission in meeting its responsibilities by notifying promoters of temporary events that a coastal development permit may be required from the. Commission for certain types of events, and that they should contact the appropriate Commission office for guidance on whether a coastal permit or permit exemption is required. To the extent possible, Commission staff is available to provide any assistance you may deem helpful and appropriate. If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to contact either myself at the above number or Sherilyn Sarb in our San Diego office at (619) 521-8036. TempEven.doc 51'.A.Te OF CAUFORNIA-fHE RESOURCES AOENCY CA.LIFORNIA COAST AL COMMISSION fl!MONT, SUITE 2000 I FRANClSCO, CA 9410.S-2219 • ..JICE ANO TOD (.tl.5) 904S200 TO: Local Governments and Interested Persons FROM: Coastal Conmission Staff SUBJECT: Guidelines For the Exclusion of Temporary Events from Coastal Commission Pennit Requirements -Adapted 5/12/93 I. Purpose and Authority. The purpose of these guidelines is to identify the standards the Coastal Commission staff. under the direction of the Executive Director. will use in determining whether a temporary event is excluded from coastal development permit requirements pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 30610 (i) (as amended by SB 1578, Ch. 1088, Stats. 1992). The guidelines are for use in areas where the Coastal Commission retains coastal development penn1t authority. These guidelines may be utilized by local governments for reference in developing Local Coastal Programs or in processing LCP amendments, if required, to address coastal de•,elopment permit jurisdiction over temporary events. IL Criteria for Exclusion from Permit Requirements. Except as provided in Section rrr. below, the Executive Director shall exclude from coastal development permit requirements all temporary events except those which meet all of the following criteria: a) Are held between Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day; and, b) Occupy all or a portion of a sandy beach area; and, c) Involve a charge for general public admission or seating where no fee is currently charged for use of the same area (not including booth or entry fees). Only temoorary events meeting all of the above criteria shall reauire coastal development permit review, however, The Executive Director may also exclude from permit requirements temporary events meeting all of the above criteria when; d) The Fee is for preferred seating only and more than 75% of the provided seating capacity is available free of charge for general public use; or. -209 - Guidelines -Temporary Events Adopted 5/12/93 Page 2 e) The event is held on sandy beach area in a remote location with minimal demand for public use, and there is no potential for adverse effect on sensitive coastal resources; or, r) The event is less than one· day in duration; or, g) The event has previously received a coastal development permit and will be held in the same location, at a similar seas-0n, and for the same duration, with operating and environmental conditions substantially the same as those associated with the previously-approved event. II I. Executhe Director or Cammi ss ion Qi scretion to Reoui re a Permit. The Executive Direct'or, or the Convnission through direction to the Executive· Director. rnay determine that a temporary event shall be subject to Commission coastal development permit review, e'len if the criteria in Section II. are not met, if the Executive Director or the Commission determines that unique or changing circumstances exist relative to a pa-rticular temporary event that have the potential for significant adverse impacts on coastal resources. Such circumstances may include the following: a) The e•,ent, either individually or together •tJith other temporary events schedu1ed before or after the particular event, precludes the general ;>Ublic from use of a public recreational area for a significant period of time; b) The event and its associated activities or access requirements will either directly or indirectly impact environmentally sensitive habitat areas, rare or endangered species, significant scenic resources, or other coastal resources as defined in Section 'I. of these guidelines; c) ihe e•,ent is sc!iedu led between Memoria 1 0ay •,,1eekend and Labor Day and wouid restrict pubiic use of roadways or parking areas or othertJise significantly impact public use or access to coastal waters; d) The event ~as historically required a coastal development ~ermit ~o address and ~on1tor associated impacts to coastal resources. r·1. l-1odifications to Guidelines .bv the Commission. The Commission may amend these guidelines at any time if it is determined such modification is necessary to more effectively implement Section 3O610(i) of the Coastal Act, and provide Coastal Commission coastal de'lelopment permit r!view of any category of temporary events ha'ling t:ie potential for significant impacts to coastal resources; or, eliminate such review of any cate9ory of temporary e'lents having no such potential. -210 - Guidelines -Temporary Events Adopted 5/1 2/93 Page 3 V. Definitions. For purposes of these guidelines, the following definitions shall apply: a) "Temporary event(s) '' means an activity or use that constitutes development as defined in Section 30106 of the Coastal Act; and is an activity or function of limited duration; and involves the placement of non-permanent structures; and/or involves exclusive use of a sandy beach, parkland, filled tidelands, water, streets or parking area which is otherwise open and available for general public use; b) "Limited duration" means a period of time which does not exceed a two week period on a continual basis, or does not exceed a consecutive four month period on an intermittent basis; c) "Non-permanent structures" include, but are not limited to, bleachers, perimeter fencing, vendor tents/canopies, judging stands, trailers. portable toilets, sound/video equipment, stages, platforms, movie/film sets, etc., which do not involve grading or landform alteration for installation. d) "Exclusive use" means a use that precludes use in the area of the event for public recreation, beach access or access to coastal waters other than for or-through the event itself. e) "Coastal resources" include, but are not iimited to, public access opportunities, visitor and recreational facilities, water-oriented activities, marine resources. biological resources, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, agricultural lands, and archaeological or paleontological resources. f) "Sandy beach aread includes publicly owned and privately owned sandy areas fronting on coastal waters, regardless of the existence of potential prescriptive rights or a public trust interest. (8499A) -211 - Attachment E STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO AREA 7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-4421 (619) 767-2370 City of Carlsbad Attn: Jennifer Jesser 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 April 27, 2018 Re: City of Carlsbad Draft LUP Ch. 5 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas and Water Quality Dear Ms. J esser: Commission staff appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the City's Draft Land Use Plan Chapter 5 and the companion table of Existing and Draft Carlsbad Local Coastal Program ESHA and Water Quality Protection Policies. Specific comments on the draft and companion table are .described below. As we have noted previously, Commission staff may have additional comments on this chapter once we review the other draft chapters (e.g., coastal hazards, etc.). We recognize that this chapter does not yet include water quality policies. Once you have a draft of those additional policies, we will review them. General Comments 1. Note that the LUP should include policies related-to the effects on ESHA by sea level rise and climate change. As sea level rises, sensitive habitats located landward of coastal and lagoon waters will have to migrate inland or will drown. Steep topography or existing development can prevent habitats from moving inland away from rising waters, resulting in the loss of these sensitive habitats. This chapter does not include any policies addressing sea level rise. As we review the coastal hazards chapter, we may recommend that this chapter be revised to cross reference relevant hazards policies or to add new policies here. 2. Please include higher resolution images in this chapter. Chapter 5 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas and Water Quality I. Introduction (p. 5-2 to 5-3): Add Coastal Act Section 30250 to the list ofrelevant Coastal Act policies. In particular, subsection (a) specifies that development shall be sited in areas "where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources." April 27, 2018 Page2 2. Wetlands (p. 5-5): a. The first sentence of the second paragraph in this subsection should be revised as follows: "California Code of Regulations Section 13577@ defines ... " b. The final sentence should be revised as follows: "In addition, the condition of a wetland (whether it is pristine or degraded) does not affect its classification as a wetland. or the degree of regulatory protections afforded to it. status as a ·.vetland." c. The reference to "light-footed clapper rail" in the fourth paragraph should be replaced with "Ridgway's rail" because this species was reclassified. d. The first sentence of the final paragraph in this subsection should be revised as follows: "Estuarine habitat ... and is almost alwa-ys can be surrounded by freshwater marsh, salt marsh, or riparian habitat areas." 3. Riparian Habitat (p. 5-5): Remove the second sentence regarding agricultural runoff. Agricultural runoff can also contribute to development of a wetland, rather than a riparian area. 4. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad (p. 5-6 and 5-7): the final paragraph on page 5-6 and Table 5-1 on page 5-7 indicate that as bf July 2017, the city had preserved 95% ofits conservation target within the coastal zone, leaving 112 acres to be preserved. Does this inventory of preserved lands include standards areas and proposed hardline areas identified in the Habitat Management Plan? If these numbers have changed (e.g., Poinsettia 61 project) by the time the draft is completed, this should be updated. 5. The final sentence of the first paragraph following Table 5-1 (page 5-7) references to Figure 5-2. Should this reference Figure 5-1 or Table 5-2? 6. Figure 5-1 2017 Habitat Management Plan Hard line Preserves and Standards Areas (p. 5-8): a. Please include a higher resolution image. b. There should be a statement in the text preceding this figure that this map is not an exhaustive compilation of the habitat areas that meet the ESRA definition. c. What is the pink area northeast ofBatiquitos Lagoon labeled "Outside- Conserved"? d. Are all of the areas identified in this map as proposed hard line or standards areas still proposed hardline and standards areas? If any of these areas have converted to hardline they should be represented as hardline here. For example, APN 215-020-06 (RWSB) located south of Cassia Road and north of the Poinsettia 61 project area is shown as a standards area. However, on October 11, 2007, the Commission approved LCP Amendment No. 3-06 (Poinsettia Place) modifying the land use designation and zoning on this property to identify the developable area consistent with Policy 7-14.a of the Habitat Management Plan. The April 27, 2018 Page3 residential development facilitated by LCP Amendment No. 3-06 appears to have been constructed. The preserved area, designated for Open Space, should be represented as existing hardline on this figure. e. The LUP update should include updated habitat mapping to identify other properties with sensitive habitat that are not currently identified in the HMP as existing or proposed hardline or standards areas. For example, on the north shore of Agua Hedionda, the parcel located immediately east of the standards parcels also has significant coastal sage scrub habitat; Planning Areas G and Hof the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan located between south of Avenida Encinas, north ofBatiquitos Lagoon, and between Carlsbad Boulevard and the rail corridor similarly appears to have coastal sage scrub habitat. 7. The Habitat Management Plan and the Coastal Act (p. 5-9): The footnote incorrectly references revised findings for CDP No. 5-03-013 related to the Marblehead development in San Clemente. This should cite to the Coastal Commission's certification of the HMP. Use: California Coastal Commission Staff Report LCP Major Amendment No. l-03B (Habitat Management Plan), approved June 12, 2003. 8. Buena Vista Lagoon (p. 5-10): This section should describe the weir system currently in place and SANDAG's proposed restoration under consideration. Any native habitat within the lagoon should also be described here. 9. Agua Hedionda Lagoon (p. 5-10): This section should describe eelgrass as occurring within the lagoon and reference the history of caulerpa taxifolia infestation and eradication in the lagoon. 10. Policy LCP-5-P.2 (p. 5-13): This policy or another policy in this chapter should capture subsection (b) of Coastal Act Section 30240 which states "Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shaJI be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitats and recreation areas." Because Coastal Act Section 30240(6) applies to both ESHA and parks and recreation areas, a similar policy may be appropriate for Chapter 3 Recreation, Visitor-Serving, and Coastal-Dependent Uses. 11. Policy LCP-5-P.3 (p. 5-13): Add reference to the Adjacency Standards in Section F.3 of the HMP in this policy. The Adjacency Standards further address fire management, erosion control, landscaping, and fencing, signs and lighting issues that affect properties that may not contain sensitive habitat onsite, but are located adjacent to preserve or habitat areas. 12. Add the following policies from the HMP in this chapter: 7-1, 7-2, 7-7, 7-8, 7-9, 7-10, and 7-11. Including these policies in this chapter will ensure that readers know what standards will apply to their development. April 27, 2018 Page4 13. Policy LCP-5-P.6 (p. 5-13): Land identified as open space for its habitat value should be subject to both an appropriate recorded easement or deed restriction and land use and zoning designation focused on resource protection. As we have previously discussed, there should be a conservation-focused open space zone for preserved lands. 14. Policy LCP-5-P.7 (p. 5-13): As currently drafted, this policy requires a site-specific biological report only in cases where ESHA could be directly or indirectly impacted. Not all habitat that qualifies for protection under the HMP rises to the level of ESHA. Fmther, an ESHA determination cannot be made without sufficient biological information about a site. 15. Please add a policy requiring historical analysis of disturbed areas adjacent to or within ESHA to determine if these areas were cleared or disturbed pursuant to a valid local or Coastal Commission coastal development permit. 16. Policy LCP-5-P.9 (p. 5-14): As currently drafted, this policy requires the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to monitor eelgrass beds in the inner basin of Agua Hedionda Lagoon prior to dredging of either the middle or inner basins of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The Coastal Commission requires applicants to undertake pre-and post-construction eelgrass surveys and to mitigate, if necessary, consistent with the October 2014 California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy for impacts associated with projects located within any of the three lagoon basins that include disturbance to the lagoon bottom or additional shading of lagoon bottom (e.g., new, replacement, or expanded docks; revetments; dredging; etc.). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also typically requires pre-and post-construction surveys for any bottom-disturbing activities that they must review. There is also eelgrass in Batiquitos Lagoon. The policy should be revised to call for avoidance and protection of existing eelgrass throughout the lagoons, consultation with and review by relevant state and federal agencies, and where impacts cannot be avoided, mitigation shall be required consistent with the California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. 17. Policy LCP-5-P.10 (p. 5-14): This policy (based on existing Policy 3.5 of the Agua Hedionda LUP) no longer seems consistent with the LCP. Proposed restoration projects should comply with requirement in proposed Policy LCP-5-P.7 for a site- specific biological report. 18. Policy LCP-5-P.11 (p. 5-14): New utility transmission and distribution facilities within wetland areas are not consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act. Maintenance and removal of existing infrastructure may be permitted, but we recommend eliminating this policy. 19. Policy LCP-5-P.12 (p. 5-14): Is the Commission a party to the 1987 "Memorandum of Agreement for the Enhancement ofBatiquitos Lagoon"? Please forward a copy of April 27, 2018 Page 5 this agreement for our review. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife also operates Buena Vista Lagoon as an ecological reserve. Please forward any management plan for Buena Vista Lagoon for our review. 20. Policy LCP-5-P.13 (p. 5-14): Are these access crossings public trails? Or are these wildlife crossings? It's unclear from the wording of the policy. If these are existing or planned public recreational trails/access paths, are they represented in the Trails Master Plan/relevant figure in Chapter 4 Public Coastal Access? Maintenance of all trails and crossings should comply with the requirements of the HMP and LCP. Should this policy require compliance for all trails? 21. Policy LCP-5-P.14 (p. 5-14): Does the city groom beaches now? If so, where, how often, when did such grooming begin, is there any guidance or policy on how the city does grooming? Is mechanized equipment used for beach grooming? Depending on the type of program the City already has in place, we should discuss this policy · further. 22. Policy LCP-5-P.15 and P.16 (p. 5-14): Although these two policies capture most of Coastal Act Section 30230, "Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or economic significance" is not captured in this chapter. 23. Policy LCP-5-P.17 (p. 5-14): Please provide a map of the eastern end of Agua Hedionda Lagoon showing the area where boat access is restricted. 24. Policy LCP-5-P.18 (p. 5-14 and 5-15): Should be revised as follows: Protect and, where feasible, restore the biological productivity and quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lagoons in a manner that maintains optimum populations of marine organisms by minimizing the adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface waterflow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams [related to Coastal Act Section 30231]. 25. There is no policy in this chapter that reflects Section 30233 of the Coastal Act which describes the limited circumstances in which diking, filling or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries and lakes is permitted. However, Policy LCP-5-P.3 (p. 5-13) cross references to the HMP policies applicable to the Coastal Zone. Please note that Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoons are both coastal wetlands identified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife in its report entitled "Acquisition Priorities for the Coastal Wetlands of California" in which diking, filling, or dredging is "limited to very minor incidental public facilities, restorative measures, nature study" under subsection (c) of Section 30233. 26. This chapter should also include policies related to tree trimming and removal, avoiding or minimizing removal of native tree species of special concern, standards April 27, 2018 Page 6 for erecting bird safe buildings, lighting and noise reduction, and, if relevant, wind energy that account for ESHA protection and wildlife movement. 27. Add a policy calling for use of dredged material for beach replenishment where testing using U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contamination and grain size thresholds indicates the material is suitable for use for such purposes on appropriate beaches consistent with any existing Coastal Development Permit issued for sand placement activities. Existing and Draft Carlsbad Local Coastal Program -ESHA and Water Quality Protection Policies 1. Agua Hedionda Policy 3.1.2 (page 1): The first sentence of Policy 3.1.2 references use of landscaping as a visual buffer. Note that this should be carried over to the LUP chapter related to visual resources. 2 .. Agua Hedionda Policy 3.12 (page 4): City staff indicates that Section F.3.C. of the HMP covers this policy related to landscaping. Section F.3.C cross-references to Table 12 "Invasive Exotic Plants Occurring or Potentially Occurring in the City of Carlsbad." Does this list need to be updated as part of the LCP update? 3. Mello I Standard Pacific Policy 5 (page 11) mentions identification ofcultural resources. Note that this should be carried over to the LUP chapter related to cultural resources. This also applies to Mello I Occidental Land, Inc. Policy 4. 4. Mello II Policy 3-6 (page 23): Where is the Seapointe / Ward property located? 5. Mello II Policy 3-8 (page 23): HMP Policy 7-14 with parcel-level development standards for Standards Areas parcels should be revised to eliminate standards for parcels that have already been developed. We look forward to continuing to collaborate on the City's comprehensive Local Coastal Program update. Please contact me if you have any questions about these comments. Sincerely, ~ Erin Prahler Coastal Program Analyst cc: Don Neu, City of Carlsbad David de Cordova, City of Carlsbad Deborah N. Lee, California Coastal Commission Attachment F STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., GovBmor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO AREA 7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-4421 (619) 767-2370 City of Carlsbad Attn: Jennifer Jesser 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 June 20, 2018 Re: City of Carlsbad Draft LUP Ch. 6 Agricultural, Cultural and Scenic Resources Dear Ms. Jesser: Commission staff appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the City's Draft Land Use Plan Chapter 6 and the companion table of Existing and Draft Carlsbad Local Coastal Program Agricultural & Cultural Resource Policies. Specific comments on the draft and companion table are described below. As we have noted previously, Commission staff may have additional comments on this chapter once we review the other draft chapters (e.g., coastal hazards, etc.). We recognize that this chapter does not yet include scenic resources policies. Once you have a draft of those additional policies, we will review them. Chapter 6 Agricultural, Cultural and Scenic Resources 1. Note that the LUP should include policies related to the effects on agriculture and cultural resources by sea level rise and climate change. Are any existing agricultural lands or known cultural resources located in areas that may become subject to flooding associated with sea level rise? This chapter does not include any policies addressing sea level rise. As we review the coastal hazards chapter, we may recommend that this chapter be revised to cross reference relevant hazards policies or to add new policies here. 2. Some of the policies in this and other draft LUP chapters use passive language and reference back to the Coastal Co1mnission unnecessarily. These policies represent the City's Local Coastal Program and how it proposes to fulfill the state mandate. For example, Policy LCP-6-P.1 (p. 6-16) should be revised as follows: "Support the Coastal Commission's objective to p£reserve the maximum amount of prime agricultural land ... " 3. Commission staff is generally concerned about the characterization of the SDG&E property along the south shore of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The Agua Hedionda Lagoon LUP allows the conversion of the 45-acres adjacent to I-5 to convert to visitor-serving uses to preserve the remaining acreage as agricultural and future open space uses. However, in light of the many years that have passed since that mixed-use June 20, 2018 Page2 approach was approved, and given the public response to the Caruso project, this mixed-use approach should be reassessed. It is unclear to staff whether the current configuration of visitor-serving land vs. agricultural and open space is still appropriate. The City's inventory of existing land reserved for visitor-serving recreational uses and future forecasts of needed visitor-serving lands would inform an analysis of the configuration in this area. In addition, the City should add a conservation-based open space land use designation for protection of lands with significant habitat and wildlife value. 4. Figure 6-1 Agriculture in the Coastal Zone (p. 6-9): a. Do the lands shown in dark grey (Lands Where the Agricultural Conversion Fee has been Paid or Conversion to Urban Uses has been otherwise Mitigated) include lands subject to Coastal Act Section 30171.5 or just lands subject to the Carlsbad Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Program (i.e., just Mello I and Mello II)? Should the 100 acres associated with the Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park Plan, Aviara and Green Valley be included here? b. Please provide a list of APNs for the remaining agricultural properties shown on this figure. c. In addition to th.is figure, please break th.is figure down into smaller geographic segments to provide larger depictions of subareas. 5. Policy LCP-6-P.l (p. 6-16): Mello II Policy 2-l(a)(l) only authorizes conversion of designated non-prime coastal agricultural lands depicted .on Map X. This policy allows conversion of all agricultural lands. Are there any agricultural lands identified on Figure 6-1 that were not already designated non-prime coastal agricultural lands onMapX? 6. Policy LCP-6-P.3 (6-16): Calls for support of continued agriculture "by utilizing methods and resources to reduce financial burdens on agricultural land ... " Similarly, Policy LCP-6-P.4 calls for supporting the Flower Fields "by utilizing all available methods and programs." This language is broad. Please identify exactly what types of support the City is considering. We should discuss this further. 7. Policy LCP-6-P.7 (p. 6-16): This policy encourages lower water rates for agricultural uses. However, the City's table comparing Existing and Draft Carlsbad LCP Agricultural & Cultural Resource Policies says that Mello II Policy 2-7 is not proposed as part of the draft LCP because the water district does not provide reduced rates for agricultural use and a reduced water rate encourages water use rather than water conservation. Should Policy LCP-6-P.7 be eliminated? Please note that we reached out to our Statewide Planning Unit to find out if there is any statewide guidance related to water rates and we will forward any additional guidance we may receive. June 20, 2018 Page3 8. Policy LCP-6-P.l 1 (p. 6-17): Note Comment 3 regarding Commission staffs recommendation that the City re-evaluate the appropriate use of the SDG&E property along the south shore of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. If some mixed-use approach continues to be the plan, staff has the following comments: a. Subsection A.3 requires that the owner of Area 1 make a portion of the site available for development as a public recreational use if the city finds that current or future recreational needs require the development of such uses along the south shore of Agua Hediouda Lagoon. The City's table comparing Existing and Draft Carlsbad LCP Agricultural & Cultural Resource Policies says that Agua Hedionda Policy 2.3(c) is outdated and Chapter 4 (Public Access) already shows a future trail on this property. This subsection should be revised to require public viewpoint(s) and continuous trail access overlooking the lagoon, with an appropriate setback from the bluff edge and also address the potential for a lagoon trail along the water. Chapter 4 (Public Coastal Access) only shows one trail along the south shore, but the potential for a second trail along the water should be addressed in that chapter as well. b. Add subsection A.4 as follows: "Prior to development on Area 1, the owner shall provide a written report demonstrating to the satisfaction of the City, that preservation of the site is not necessary to assure reasonable expansion opportunities for the Encina Power Plant in accordance with Coastal Act Section 30413(b). and that future expansion could reasonably be accommodated at the present power plant site." Because NRG will give up the existing power plant site when the plant goes offline and build a new, smaller peaker plant east of the rail corridor, the area available for potential future expansion of the plant has already been significantly reduced. This requirement should remain. 9. Although Section 6.2 Agriculture describes the authorized use of conversion mitigation fees under the Section 30171.5 program (p. 6-6) and the City's Conversion Mitigation Program (p. 6-7), these fees and the City's program should be incorporated as an LUP policy. Policy LCP-6-P.12 (p. 6-18) describes the City's Conversion Mitigation Program as having three options and references to the Implementation Plan for additional detail. The LUP serves as the standard of review for the Implementation Plan. Therefore, the LUP should include more detail, including the fees charged for the mitigation fee option and the allowed use of these fees. 10. Note that the Coastal Commission is in the process of developing a Tribal Consultation Policy. If this process results in any additional recommendations appropriate for development of your LUP policies related to cultural resources, Commission staff will forward those to you. 11. Policy LCP-6-P.14 (p. 6-19): This policy requires evaluation of potential impacts to paleontological and cultural resources. The LUP should include a policy requiring submittal of an archeology plan for development in any area with known or suspected archeological or paleontological resources. June 20, 2018 Page4 12. Policy LCP-6-P.15 (p. 6-19): Rephrase this policy to reflect Section 30244 of the Coastal Act "Where development would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological resources as identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer, reasonable mitigation measures shall be required." 13. Policy LCP-6-P .18 (p. 6-19): This policy requires a determination of significance of tribal cultural resources discovered during development. This policy, or a separate policy, should require that when artifacts are discovered, development shall be suspended to avoid destruction of resources until an evaluation of significance occurs. If significant, the site shall be tested and preserved until mitigation measures are identified and implemented. Existing and Draft Carlsbad Local Coastal Program -Agricultural & Cultural Resource Policies 1. AguaHedionda Policy 2.3(b) (p. 1): As noted in Comment 8 on the Draft LUP Chapter, the existing Encina Power Plant will go offline and a new, smaller peaker plant will be constructed east of the railroad. NRG will give up the cun-ent power plant site, limiting future opportunities for expansion. As a result, this requirement for the power plant owner to submit a report demonstrating that the south shore property is not necessary for future expansion of the power plant is still relevant. 2. Mello II Policy 2-4 (p. 19): This policy required certain former agricultural lands to be zoned Rural Residential Estate or Residential Agriculture and restricts further land divisions in areas under cmTent agricultural production. There are a few properties zoned for R-A-10000 along/ near El Camino Real within the coastal zone. Will the R-A zone continue to exist or is the City intending to eliminate this zone? We should discuss this policy further. We look forward to continuing to collaborate on the City's comprehensive Local Coastal Program update. Please contact me if you have any questions about these comments. Sincerely, ~ Coastal Program Analyst cc: Don Neu, City of Carlsbad David de Cordova, City of Carlsbad Deborah N. Lee, California Coastal Commission STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY Attachment G EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMM1ss·1ON SAN DIEGO AREA 7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-4421 (619) 767-2370 City of Carlsbad Attn: Jennifer J esser 163 5 Faraday A venue Carlsbad, CA 92008 August 22, 2018 Re: City of Carlsbad Draft LUP Ch. 5-Water Quality Dear Ms. Jesser: Commission staff appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the water quality portion of the City's Draft Land Use Plan Chapter 5 and the companion table of Existing and Draft Carlsbad Local Coastal Program ESHA and Water Quality Protection Policies. Specific comments on the draft and companion table are described below. In addition, see the attached Ch. 5 with edits and comments from our water · quality staff in track changes. As we have noted previously, Commission staff may have additional comments on this chapter once we review the other draft chapters (e.g., coastal hazards, etc.). General Comments 1. Please include higher resolution images in this chapter. Chapter 5 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas and Water Quality 1. Policy LCP-5-P.15 (p. 5-8): This policy is fine, however, P.15, 16 & 18 (including Commission staff's prior edits) from the first draft of this chapter should remain to ensure consistency with the Coastal Act. · 2. Policy LCP-5-P.16 (p. 5-8): This policy references several other documents. The City's Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance (Ch. 15.16), Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Ch. 15.14} and the Drainage Master Plan appear to be certified as part of the LCP. However, the City's Engineering Standards Volume 4 SWPPP Manual and Volume 5 BMP Design Manual, and Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program (JRMP) do not appear to be certified as part of the existing LCP. Please provide copies of these documents for our review. 3. Policy LCP-5-P.20 (p. 5-8 and 5-9): Subsection D references "redevelopment." Is there a definition of "redevelopment'' within the LUP? This term should be defined. August 22, 2018 Page2 4. Policy LCP-5-P.28 (p. 5-10): This policy would exempt certain minor revisions to the Engineering Standards Volume 4 SWPPP Manual and Volume 5 BMP Design Manual. Although the listed changes appear minor, Commission staff's initial thought is that these changes will require an LCP amendment to be certified as part of the LCP. These types of minor changes may qualify for a de minimis LCP amendment. However, we are discussing this issue with our legal and water quality technical staff and will advise if they have additional input. 5. Policy LCP-5-P.29 (p. 5-10): Please provide a map of the restricted area. Existing and Draft Carlsbad Local Coastal Program-Water Quality Protection Policies 1. Mello I Policy 3 Rancho La Costa (Hunt Property) (p. 14): Comment 3.(7)(d) in the right hand column states that the City is replacing a ban on grading during the rainy season (i.e., after October 1) with a "weather triggered" action plan for construction site protection. Commission wMer quality staff suggests maintaining the seasonal restriction for small projects, like single family residences. Where there is an on-site construction monitor/trained professional for large grading projects, the weather- based plan makes sense. We look forward to continuing to collaborate on the City's comprehensive Local Coastal Program update. Please contact me if you have any questions about these comments. cc: Don Neu, City of Carlsbad David de Cordova, City of Carlsbad Melanie Saucier, City of Carlsbad Sincerely, ~ Erin Prahler Coastal Program Analyst Deborah N. Lee, California Coastal Commission Enclosure: Chapter 5 with edits from California Coastal Commission water quality staff STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY Attachment H EDMUND G. BROWN, JR,, Govornor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO AREA 7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-4421 (619) 767-2370 City of Carlsbad Attn: Jennifer J esser 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 August 27, 2018 Re: City of Carlsbad Draft LUP Ch. 6 -Scenic and Visual Resources Dear Ms. Jesser: Commission staff appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the scenic and visual resources portion of the City's Draft Land Use Plan Chapter 6 and the companion table of Existing and Draft Carlsbad Local Coastal Program -Scenic Resources Policies. Specific comments on the draft and companion table are described· below. As we have noted previously, Commission staff may have additional comments on this chapter once we review the other draft chapters (e.g., coastal hazards, etc.). Chapter 6 Agricultural, Cultural and Scenic Resources 1. Carlsbad's Scenic and Visual Coastal Resources (p. 6-1): The third paragraph under this heading states that these policies require new development to avoid visual impacts to coastal viewsheds, and where avoidance is not feasible, visual impacts must be minimized. Which proposed policy requires avoidance of visual impacts? The policies that follow only address minimizing impacts. 2. All policies should specify that they apply to "public" views. 3. Are there any existing development encroachments on public views and scenic areas? If so, please describe those encroachments and how redevelopment of these sites will be addressed. 4. Are there any special neighborhoods or communities that should be identified for preservation of community character? If so, please desclibe them and add policies related to their preservation. 5. Table 6-4 Scenic Viewing Areas a. Are there other relevant existing and future public trails that provide coastal or other scenic views that should be included here? For example, within the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan area, the pedestrian promenade along the west side of Annada Drive provides views of the Flower Fields and the Pacific Ocean. Interstate 5 offers views of the lagoons and coast. Faraday Avenue provides views of Macario Canyon. The municipal and A viara golf courses August 27, 2018 Page2 provide significant ocean views and could be considered gathering sites. Tamarack A venue offers blue water views between Garfield and Carlsbad Boulevard. b. Commission and city staff should take a closer look at this table and Figure 6- 3 to ensure all public coastal views are identified. 6. Figure 6-3 Coastal Viewsheds and Scenic Viewing Areas (p. 6-4): a. All relevant existing and future access trails should be represented on this figure. For example, within the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan area, the pedestrian promenade along the west side of Armada Drive should be shown as an existing trail. b. Should vertical public access .points be represented on this figure and the policies of this chapter apply to these access points? 7. The policies rely heavily on Figure 6-3 and Table 6-4. The policy text should better reinforce or describe where they apply. For example, clarify whether the General Policies (P .21 through P .25 apply to all coastal zone parcels, including those that also must comply with P .26 through P.31 ). Are there specific policies for parcels located between the first public road and the sea or lagoons? 8. Policy LCP-6-P.21 (p. 6-5): This policy should also recognize important natural land forms or features as scenic resources to be protected and call for alteration of such land forms to be minimized. 9. Policy LCP-6-P.23 (p. 6-5): What does "significant native vegetation" include, other than oak trees? East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties LUP Policy 6(1 )( c) requires preservation of"[ e ]xisting, mature, healthy vegetation such as eucalyptus stands." Should eucalyptus stands be included (they are not native vegetation, but do often support raptors and butterflies)? How is this standard different from HMP standards requiring preservation of existing native vegetation? 10. Policy LCP-6-P.24 (p. 6-5): This policy should include more detail. For example, "On-premises signs should be designed as an integral part of new development. In addition: (a) Each shopping complex shall have directory sign(s) not to exceed 15 feet in height, including mounding; (b) Monument sign height including mounding shall not exceed 8 feet and shall apply where three or fewer commercial establishments exist on a parcel; (c) Tall freestanding and roof signs shall not be allowed: and (e) Off-premises signs and billboards shall not be allowed." 11. Policy LCP-6-P.25 (p. 6-5): This policy calls for an update to the Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone or development of other regulations to implement the scenic resource LUP policies. This should require identification of specific standards for each of the areas listed in Table 6-4 and Figure 6-3. August 27, 2018 Page3 12. Policy LCP-6-P.26 (p. 6-5): a. This policy requires that new development is located and designed to "minimize visual impacts." Coastal Act Section 30251 requires new development to be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas. The policy should require protection of views and then minimize impacts only where protection is infeasible. b. P.26.C. should provide more specificity to ensure that views are not blocked. For example, identify a percentage visibility requirement or specific materials that will allow views. 13. Policy LCP-6-P.27 (p. 6-5): Revise this policy as follows:" ... ; public development of structures for public safety or that enhance limited public access and recreation opportunities may be permitted, provided they are designed and sited to minimize impacts to views of the ocean." 14. Policy LCP-6-P.29 (p. 6-6): Add "should" after the parenthetical. "Exterior lighting ( except street lights, traffic lights, navigational lights, and other similar safety lighting) should be minimized ... " 15. Policy LCP-6-P.30 (p. 6-6 and 6-7): a. P.30.A: Applies to "parcels with an elevation difference of 35 feet or more between the shoreline and an adjacent public street." How is "shoreline" defined for purposes of measuring the elevation? Will this subsection apply to any parcels on the south shore of Buena Vista Lagoon, on the north shore ofBatiquitos Lagoon, or within the Te1Tamar neighborhood? b. P .30.A.1: Requires structures to be built below the centerline elevation of · adjacent streets on certain parcels, "where feasible as determined by the city decision-maker for the proposed project." The standards for determining feasibility should be clearly identified. For example, subsection B of this policy. mentions infeasibility due to physical site constraints or conflicts with other resource protection policies. Are those the standards? We should discuss this further. c. P.30.A3: Requires fences to be set back from the street edge. Is this a larger front yard setback than required by the underlying zone? d. P.30.B.l.b. requires view corridors that are 20% of the site width and allows these view co1Tidors to be split on each side of the prope1ty. Are there many parcels within these areas that are nanower than 50 feet of lineal street frontage? Is there a minimum width at which splitting into two is not permissible? A site analysis should be required for all projects proposing view corridors to substantiate the location of the view corridor(s) and authorize splitting of corridors to ensure that they provide meaningful access to views. 16. Add a policy calling for restoration and enhancement of views in visually degraded areas. August 27, 2018 Page4 17. Are there measures that can be used to permanently protect significant views and views required to remain unobstrncted? For example, Policy LCP-6-P.30.B.l.e. requires the use of deed restrictions or easements to secure view corridors. Several policies from the Mello II LUP describe using open space easements to protect visual resources (e.g., Policies 3-3(e) and 3-S(c)(l)(d)). 18. Add development and design standards for highway and roadway conidors through scenic areas or areas of special character (e.g., Carlsbad Blvd, bridges over the lagoons, etc.). For example, the North Coast Corridor PWP Overlay Appendix A Section 3,8 describes coastal visual resources that should be protected. These policies should be incorporated into the LUP update. Existing and Draft Carlsbad Local Coastal Program -Scenic Resource Policies 1. Mello II Policy 7-lJVisual Access (p.3) describes 80% of the coastline as unobstructed due to public ownership and prohibits public improvements that would obstruct visual access. Is this percentage still accurate? Should the City identify a threshold percentage at which no further view impacting development would be permitted on public property? 2. Will the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan remain in place? It includes development standards to protect visual resources. Will other Master or Specific Plans that may have visual resource policies remain in place? We look forward to continuing to collaborate on the City's comprehensive Local Coastal Program update. Please contact me if you have any questions about these comments. Sincerely, ~~ Erin Prahler Coastal Program Analyst cc: Don Neu, City of Carlsbad David de Cordova, City of Carlsbad Deborah N. Lee, California Coastal Commission STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY Attachment I EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO AREA 7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-4421 (619) 767-2370 Jennifer Jesser City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 November 19, 2018 Re: City of Carlsbad Draft LUP Ch. 7 -Coastal Hazards Dear Ms. Jesser: Commission staff appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the flood, geologic, and fire hazards portions of the City's Draft Land Use Plan Chapter 7 and the companion table of Existing and Draft Carlsbad Local Coastal Program -Coastal Hazards Policies. Specific comments on the draft and companion table are described below. We recognize that this chapter does not yet include policies or discussion related to sea level rise, which makes this review extremely preliminary. Once you have a draft of those additional policies, we will review them. In addition, please note that the Commission's sea level rise staff will review the entire Chapter 7 once the sea level rise policies have been submitted. Chapter 7 Coastal Hazards 1. There should be overview provisions that identify protection of beach resources and public trust lands as important coastal assets, and distinguishes between existing and new development. 2. Section 7.3 Flood Hazards and Figure 7-1 Flood Hazard (pages 6-4 and 6-5): Are the FEMA FIRMs referenced in the narrative and represented on Figure 7-1 the most recent FEMA mapping? 3. Section 7.3 Flood Zones (page 6-4): a. The first sentence defines floodplains, but does not include coastlines. Why are coastlines not included here? b. The last sentence on this page should be revised to add "to": "Pursuant to this Local Coastal Plan, development is restricted within 100-year floodplain areas." c. Please also note that the chapters have used both "Local Coastal Plan" and "Local Coastal Program." Before finalizing the draft Land Use Plan, please use one phrase consistently throughout. November 19, 2018 Page2 4. Tsunami Run-Up (page 6-6): Aren't the coastlines also at risk for tsunami run-up? 5. Section 7.4 Coastal Erosion (page 6-9): The final sentence of the second paragraph should be revised as follows: " ... but such interventions eaH will have adverse impacts on shoreline erosion down shore and on coastal ecosystems and may accelerate sand loss." 6. Figure 7-5 Liquefaction Hazards (page 6-14): The figure shows an area of tidal flats inland of Carlsbad Boulevard. This appears to be where Encinas Creek outlets to the ocean. Where did the mapping for this come from? How was it determined to be tidal flats? Does this imply we should revisit the post- certification mapping for this area if it is tidally influenced? 7. General Policies (page 6-17): Add a policy that reflects Coastal Act Section 30253(b) requiring that new development "[a]ssure 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." 8. Policy LCP-7-P.1 (page 6-17): Revise the policy as follows: "Continue to FRegulate development, including remodeling or structural rehabilitation, to ensufe adequate mitigation of minimize safety hazards on sites having a history or newly identified threat of flooding, erosion, subsidence, or seismic dangers." a. How are "remodeling" and "structural rehabilitation" defined? 9. Policy LCP-7-P.5 (page 6-17): Revise the policy as follows: "Continue to I Implement flood control programs that reduce flood hazards, such as the city's Grading Ordinance, Drainage Master Plan and the Floodplain Management Regulations." 10. Policy LCP-7-P .6 (page 6-17): Revise the policy as follows: "Enforne the Cobey Alquist Floodplain Management Act and the City's Floodplain Management Regulations to pr_rohibit construction of structures in a designated floodway,. •,vhefe such development v;ould endanger life or significantly restrict the carrying capacity of the designated floodvtay; 8fl:d to Fegulate Only development consistent with periodic flooding shall be permitted in other areas of special flood hazard, flood-related erosion hazard, and mudslide hazard to ensure such development does not adversely affect public health and safety due to water and erosion hazards, or result in damaging increases in erosion and flood height or velocities." a. The Coastal Act does not permit new development located in floodways, except to protect existing development where there are no other feasible options and where properly sized and mitigated. Within floodplains, only uses consistent with periodic flooding are permitted (i.e., no habitable structures). The Coastal Act standards are different, and more protective, than the FEMA standards. For recent examples of Commission certified November 19, 2018 Page3 flood hazard policies, please see Special Modifications 19 and 28 in the enclosed letter from Commission staff to Mayor Kevin Faulconer, dated May 24, 2017, re: Certification of City of San Diego LCP Amendment No. LCP-6-TJN-17-0029-1 (San Ysidro Community Plan Update). Also attached are the flood hazard policies (Policies 9.26 through 9.34) excerpted from the County of San Diego Land Use Plan. b. Note also that as currently written, this policy refers to provisions of the IP. However, the LUP policy should serve as the standard ofreview for the IP provisions. 11. Policy LCP-7-P.7 (page 6-18): Revise this policy as follows: "Comply with FEMA requirements to identify flood hazard areas and eontrol prohibit development within the floodway and restrict development within the floodplain to uses that are consistent with periodic flooding. these areas to ensure that permitted de•1elopment qualifies for federal flood insuranee. Cooperate with FEMA on shoreline flooding hazards and other mapping efforts. 12. Policy LCP-7-P.8 (page 6-18): Mello II Policy 4-7(e) requires that property within the 100-year floodplain be zoned for open space, prohibits permanent structures or fill within the floodplain, and only permits uses compatible with periodic flooding. This policy should remain. a. Are all parcels located within the 100-year floodplain identified on Figure 7-1 designated for open space? b. Policy LCP-7-P.8 references to the City's floodplain management ordinance for development restrictions. The LUP should identify those areas where development should be prohibited or restricted due to flood hazards to serve as the standard of review for the IP provisions. Are there any areas within the floodplain that should be identified as too hazardous for development? 13. Will the missing sea level rise policies include policies related to tsunami risks along the coast and around the lagoons (hazard areas identified on Figure 7-3)? Does the City have tsunami evacuation routes, preparation and response plans, requirements that visitor-serving facilities in susceptible areas provide tsunami information and evacuation plans? 14. Should the City develop minimum setbacks required for development in areas subject to flood or geologic hazards? 15. Policy LCP-7-P.11 (page 6-18): Reword this policy to focus on compliance with the Ch. 5 LUP policies addressing erosion and water runoff flow. Again, the LUP policy is intended to serve as the standard of review for the IP provisions. 16. Policy LCP-7-P.12 (page 6-18): Site-specific geotechnical analyses should contain a statement that the project site is suitable for the proposed development November 19, 2018 Page4 and that the development will be safe from geologic hazards for the economic life of the structure. 17. Policy LCP-7-P.13 (page 6-18): a. Add detail regarding site-specific analysis of bluff stability to include erosion rate (including factoring in erosion rate associated with expected future sea level rise) and the minimum required factor of safety (both today and in the future). b. Does the City intend to maintain the existing stringline policy that applies to properties located between the sea and first public road? We should also discuss requiring a minimum bluff setback in place of or in addition to the stringline policy. c. Where a bluff has existing shoreline protection or other bluff stabilization in place, the site-specific geotechnical analysis must demonstrate bluff stability assuming that the protective device does not exist. If not added here, this requirement should be included in the sea level rise policies to be added to this chapter. 18. Policy LCP-7-P.14 (page 6-18): Add waiver of future shoreline protection to this list of requirements for development on lagoon or ocean bluff top lots. 19. Is there an existing policy requiring that development on lots with steep slopes be subject to a stringline or other method to minimize encroachment into steep slope areas and reduce potential fuel modification? 20. Policy LCP-7-P.15 (pages 6-18 and 6-19): When is development on steep slopes permitted? The LUP should clarify what the standard is for allowing development on steep slopes, rather than simply cross reference to the hillside development and coastal resource protection ordinances. For example, currently, Mello I Rancho La Costa Policy 3, Mello II Policy 4-3, and East Batiquitos Lagoon Policy 4 require preservation of slopes of 25% grade and over with endangered plant/animal species or coastal sage scrub and chaparral plant communities, unless such policies would preclude any reasonable use of the property, and then limit development to 10% of the steep slope area. Agua Hedionda Policy 4.4 provides restrictions on what type of development may be permitted within steep slope areas. 21. Policy LCP-7-P.16 (page 6-19): This policy should define when steep slopes are undevelopable without cross reference to the hillside development ordinance. Is a 40% or greater incline the only reason a natural slope would be undevelopable? 22. Policy LCP-7-P.17 (page 6-19): This policy should call for avoidance of impacts to steep slopes, where feasible. Policy P .17 (minimizing impacts to steep slopes) and Policy P .16 (preservation of undevelopable steep slopes) should be moved forward and come before Policy P.15 to clarify that steep slopes should be November 19, 2018 Page5 avoided, where they cannot be developed they must be preserved, and then talk about situations where development on steep slopes may be permitted. 23. Policy LCP-7-P.19 (page 6-19): Rephrase this policy to be consistent with the requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. 24. Policy LCP-7-P.25 (page 6-19): The Habitat Management Plan does not specify the size of zones or thinning/clearing requirements for each zone. The City's Landscape Manual includes fire management guidance, but it does not appear that the Landscape Manual has ever been certified as part of the LCP. Should the Landscape Manual be included in the LCP? At a minimum the fuel modi:qcation zones should be specified in the LCP. We look forward to continuing to.collaborate on the City's comprehensive Local Coastal Program update. Please contact me if you have any questions about these comments.· ., cc: Don Neu, City of Carlsbad David de.Cordova, City of Carlsbad Melanie Saucier, City of Carlsbad. ~~, Erin Prahler Coastal Program Analyst Deborah N. Lee, California Coastal Commission Cort Hitchens, California Coastal Commission Enclosures: (1) Letter from Commission staff to Mayor Kevin Faulconer, dated May 24, 2017, re: · Certification of City of San Diego LCP Amendment No. LCP-6-TJN-17-0029-1 (San Ysidro Community Plan Update). (2) Excerpt of Flood Hazard Policies from County of San Diego Land Use Plan. Attachment J STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO AREA 7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-4421 (619) 767-2370 Jennifer Jesser City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 January 11, 2019 Re: City of Carlsbad Draft LUP Ch. 7 -Sea Level Rise Dear Ms. Jesser: Commission staff appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the sea level rise portions of the City's Draft Land Use Plan Chapter 7 and the companion table of Existing and Draft Carlsbad Local Coastal Program -D Coastal Hazards Policies Related to Sea Level Rise. The following specific comments on the draft described below include comments from the Commission's Sea Level Rise team. Chapter 7 Coastal Hazards 1. Section 7.2 Sea Level Rise (page 6-3): This section begins with a quote from the Coastal Commission's Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance adopted in August 2015. The Commission recently updated the Guidance document, including revisions to this quote to change the projected sea level rise estimates. Please use the most recent version updated on November 7, 2018. See page 14 of the Guidance available here: https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/slr/guidance/2018/0 Full 2018AdoptedS LRGuidanceUpdate.pdf. 2. Best Available Science (page 6-4): Commission staff suggest incorporating the following language to further describe the recommendations included in the State Sea Level Rise Guidance, as well as the Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance at the end of the first full paragraph:" ... report titled "Rising Seas in California: An Update on Sea-Level Science. This report recommends using the lower end of this range to inform projects with high adaptive capacity and little consequences if impacted by sea level rise. The high end of the range should be used for development with less adaptive capacity and higher consequences, including residential and commercial development. The report also contains a set of extreme sea level rise projections with no associated probability (2.8 feet by 2050 and 10.2 feet by 2100), which represents the highest sea level rise amount physically plausible according to the current best available science, and these projections are recommended to inform decisions regarding development that would have extremely high consequences if impacted, such as critical infrastructure. " January 11, 2019 Page2 Commission staff also suggest the following edit to the last paragraph on page 6- 4: " .. .it is important to consider the associated secondary and cumulative impacts ( e.g., loss of beach resulting from the use of seawalls) and trade-offs (i.e., who/what will benefit and who/what will be adversely impacted?)." 3. Table 7-2 General Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategies (page 6-5): Commission staff suggest the following edit to the description of the "Do Nothing" strategy: "Choosing to "do nothing" or following a policy of "non-intervention" considered an adaptive response is one option." Commission also staff suggest adding an sentence to the end describing the lohg term tradeoffs of the strategy, such as: "This approach will likely fail to anticipate and prevent or mitigate long-term consequences of SLR, likely resulting in significant financial costs as well as adverse impacts to coastal resources, development, and the city's economy, as demonstrated in the City of Carlsbad Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment (Appendix B)." 4. Shoreline Protective Devices (Armoring) (page 6-6): Revise the final sentence as follows: "However, to the extent that this Local Coastal Program allows for shoreline armoring, new development must safeguard coastal access, mitigate for all impacts to coastal resources affected by armoring, and protect public trust resources, and ensure equitable access to and benefits from coastal resources." 5. Emergency Coastal Development Permits (page 6-7): Revise the final sentence as follows: "The emergency permit provisions are not intended to allow for construction of permanent shoreline protection, unless the shoreline protection is consistent with the policies of this Local Coastal Program and Coastal i\,ct, and is authorized to remain by issuance of a regular coastal development permit. Requests for emergency coastal development permits for any work to be conducted on tidelands, submerged lands, public trust lands, whether filled or unfilled, or any other area within the Coastal Commission's retained coastal permit jurisdiction shall be referred to the Coastal Commission. " The statement, as originally written, is inconsistent with Policy LCP-7-P.23. 6. Migration of Public Trust Lands (page 6-7): Commission staff suggest the following edit to the last sentence of this section: "The policies of this chapter will help ensure that development does not interfere with the protection and use of public trust boundary land as it migrates inland." 7. Definition of redevelopment. Please include a definition of redevelopment in the LCP. One resource the City may choose to consult during the development of this definition is the Coastal Commission Draft Coastal Adaptation Guidance for Residential Development, which is available on the Commission website: https://www.coastal.ca.gov/climate/slr/vulnerability-adaptation/residential/. Chapter 6 Section B includes a discussion of redevelopment, various considerations that could influence the development of a redevelopment definition and example policy language. The intent of this document is to be an January 11, 2019 Page3 informational resource that the City could choose to use as a starting point in the local processes. 8. Definition of existing development. Please include a definition of existing development in the LCP. The definition will be important for interpretation of policies such as LCP-7-P.18, which implements section 30235 of the Coastal Act. Consistent with the Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance document, staff suggest defining existing development as development in existence prior to January 1, 1977. 9. Policy LCP-7-P.1 (page 6-8): Development and redevelopment should first be sited and designed to avoid hazards before mitigation is considered; but as written, this policy refers only to mitigation of hazards. Therefore, this policy is instead appropriate for repairs and minor improvements to existing development, and staff suggest the following edit: "Cofl:-tifl:ue to r,Regulate developmefl:t, iRcluding remodeliRg and structural rehabilitatiofl: repairs and minor improvements to existing development to ensure adequate mitigation of safety hazards on sites ·withifl: any sea level rise hazard zofl:e, or those having a history or threat of flooding, erosion, subsidence, or seismic dangers." that meet any of the following conditions: 1) is wholly or partially in a sea level rise hazard zone, 2) is an oceanfront parcel, 3) where evidence suggests that the development may be subject to coastal hazards over its anticipated duration, per Policy LCP-7-P.8, or 4) has a history or newly identified threat of flooding, erosion, subsidence, or seismic dangers." 10. Policy LCP-7-P.2 (page 6-8): Suggested edit: "Require fill_new development and redevelopment be sited and designed to avoid hazardous ... " This edit is consistent with other draft policies in Chapter 7. 11. Policy LCP-7-P .3 (page 6-8): Commission staff suggest considering the following sample language, which includes more detail on how sea level rise can constrain approvable subdivisions: "Limit land divisions, including lot line adjustments, in areas vulnerable to coastal hazards, including hazards exacerbated by sea level rise. Prohibit the creation of new lots (including adjusted lots) in such areas, unless it is demonstrated either that: 1) the new lot(s) would be permanently protected for open space, public access, or other similar purposes consistent with the LCP, or 2) resultant parcels contain a buildable area in which development on new lots would comply with LCP policies protecting coastal resources, would remain located on private property despite the foreseeable migration of the public trust boundary, would assure stability and structural integrity despite foreseeable erosion or other coastal hazards, would not require the future construction or augmentation of a shoreline protective device, would be adequately served by public services (e.g., water, sewer, and safe, legal, all-weather access as applicable), and would otherwise be consistent with all LCP policies." Overall, subdivisions should be prohibited in hazardous areas, including areas impacted by sea level rise, unless the resultant parcels would contain a safe, January 11, 2019 Page4 developable building envelope-i.e., a site that would allow for development consistent with the LCP. 12. Use of "minimum" anticipated duration. Policies LCP-7-P.7 through LCP-7-P.12 currently refer to the "minimum" anticipated duration of development (referring to Table 7-1). These policies have to do with analyzing sea level rise hazards and identifying siting, design, and mitigation measures for the proposed development. Because such proposed development should remain safe for its full anticipated duration, Commission staff recommends striking "minimum" from these policies. 13. Sea Level Rise Hazards (page 6-9): The sea level rise hazard zone maps should be represented in this chapter for clarity and ease of reference. In addition, the Vulnerability Assessment includes maps for 2050 and 2100 that show different properties affected. How does an applicant know which map to use to determine if the property is located in the sea level rise hazard zone? 14. Policies LCP-7-P.6 and LCP-7-P.7 Sea Level Rise Hazard Analysis (page 6-9): a. Draft policy LCP-7-P .6 incorporates the maps of SLR hazard zones from the Final City of Carlsbad SLR Vulnerability Assessment into the LCP, and draft Policy LCP-7-P.7 requires site-specific SLR hazard reports to be prepared for any proposed development in a hazard zone. The maps include an inundation hazard zone, a bluff hazard zone, and a flood hazard zone. They were created using COSMOS 3.0 Phase l data, which (unlike the Phase 2 data which has since been released) did not show where the shoreline position (MHHW) would be if development wasn't preventing the inland progress of coastal processes. Therefore, the maps showthe "inundation hazard zone" ( dark blue dotted line in the right hand image below) extending to either the first line of development or the bluff toe, which means it does not capture many oceanfront parcels in the city. (The flood hazard zone captures portions of some of these parcels, but not all.) In contrast, the Phase 2 COSMOS data does show a "no hold the line" scenario-Le., where the shoreline position would be if development did not prevent the inland progress of coastal processes (peach colored line in left hand image below). This area captures more oceanfront parcels, particularly in the northern part of the city. This row of properties is not included in the inundation hazard zone that is currently being proposed by the City for incorporation into the LCP, and not all appear to be within the flood hazard zone and therefore would not do a site-specific SLR hazard report under LCP-7-P.7 as currently drafted. ·-.. ----------~- I ........ :. .. .- •<--o.-. __ ..,, _,,;_-_ I •••• January 11, 2019 Page 5 Elo,_ __ _ Since new development and redevelopment should be sited and designed to be safe without reliance on existing shoreline protection (as reflected in the City's draft policies), the hazard maps should capture all parcels where SLR hazards may exist in the absence of existing shoreline protection and trigger site-specific assessments in those parcels. Therefore, Commission staff suggests that LCP-7 .P. 7 be edited as follows: "Require a site-specific sea level rise hazard report(s) for all development that requires a coastal development permit and is proposed on property that meets any of the following conditions: 1) is wholly or partially in a sea level rise hazard zone, 2) is an oceanfront parcel, or 3) where evidence suggests that the development may be subject to coastal hazards over its anticipated duration, per Policy LCP-7-P.8." b. Also, in many cases, only fractions of certain parcels. fall within hazard zones. We suggest clarifying that site-specific SLR hazard studies are required for development on any parcel which lies wholly or partially within the hazard zones. c. Finally, more detail is needed to describe how SLR should be examined within a site-specific SLR hazard study. More detail should be included in LCP-7-P.7, including: using a high SLR scenario (currently referred to as the medium-high scenario in the OPC Guidance as the scenario appropriate for residential and commercial development), at minimum; identifying threshold SLR amounts that lead to impacts; analyzing tidal inundation, shoreline and/or bluff erosion, storm flooding,' wave runup, and groundwater impacts in an integrated fashion; analyzing project alternatives to minimize exposure to hazards; and.requiring studies to be prepared by a licensed civil engineer. The city may choose to consult the Draft Coastal Adaptation Guidance for Residential Development for additional detail and example policy language (see example policy A.5). 15. Suggested policy: MHTL surveys. In addition to a site-specific SLR study, applications for shoreline development should be required to include a MHTL survey performed in consultation with the State Lands Commission. This survey January 11, 2019 Page6 would establish that the applicant has appropriate legal title over the lahd being developed. Additionally, in areas where the public trust has the potential to migrate inland over time, additional MHTL surveys should be required periodically (such as every 5 years) to provide evidence that the development remains on private property. Such a requirement would provide the information necessary to carry out LCP-7-P.11.B (regarding triggers for removal of development). 16. Policy LCP-7-P.9 (page 6-10): Revise as follows: "Site fill_new development and redevelopment that requires a coastal developmeHt permit to avoid sea level rise hazards ... " 17. Policy LCP-7-P .10 (page 6-10): Please revise as follows: "Ensure that all new development and redevelopment that requires a coastal development permit ... " a. Revise subsection A as follows: "Locate and design development to assure stability and structural integrity for the minimum anticipated duration of the development, without creating or contributing significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of reliooee OH shoreline protective devices that, in combination with sea level rise hazards, will substantially alter natural landforms or e0Htrib1:1te significootly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or s1:1rro1:1nding area." b. Revise subsectiol} C as follows: "Development shall not encroach on a wetland boundary or required buff er and will remain on private land during the minimum anticipated duration of the development. A sea level rise buffer area shall be added to the habitat buffer if necessary to allow for the migration of wetlands and other shoreline habitats caused by sea level rise over the anticipated duration of the development." 18. Policy LCP-7-P.11 (page 6-10): Commission staff suggest deleting the cross references to other policies, both in the first sentence of this policy and part c. In the first sentence, it's possible the wrong policies are listed, but regardless, listing the policies isn't necessary. In part c, there doesn't seem to be a reason for the exemption; rather those LCP policies should be included in the criteria listed in the policy. a. Commission staff suggest including additional detail on design techniques that may be used to minimize hazards to the extent feasible. Revise subsection A as follows: "The proposed development is the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative, and is sited and designed to protect coastal resources and minimize hazards to the extent feasible~ including through the use of adaptive designs such as constructing smaller structures, increasing finished floor elevations, modifying lower levels to be capable of withstanding periodic flooding, and installing wall flood vents, or through the use of foundation designs that can accommodate January 11, 2019 Page 7 removal and/or relocation." The city may choose to include such detail in the IP. b. In order to effectively implement SLR adaptation over time, the conditions described in subsection B should carry with the land even if ownership changes. Therefore, either subsection B of this policy should include "Such a condition shall be recorded on a deed restriction against the subject property." or this policy should be cross-referenced with policy LCP-7-P .15, which requires the recordation of deed restrictions. c. Additionally, this policy should cross reference LCP-7-P.25, which provides specific triggers for removal. We suggest the following edit: "Approval of the development includes a condition that requires removal or other adaptation measures when specific triggers are met, including but not limited to those described in LCP-7-P.25, to ensure that..." 19. Suggested policy: Commission staff suggest adding a policy between LCP-7-P.l 1 and LCP-7-P.12 describing what to do when proposed development does not meet the criteria outlined in LCP-7-P .11, which provides circumstances when development that cannot be sited and designed to avoid hazards can be permitted. Please consider the following example language: Where full adherence with all LCP policies, including LCP-7.P.11 and policies for setbacks and other hazard avoidance measures, would preclude a reasonable economic use of the property as a whole, the city may allow the minimum economic use and/or development of the property necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation. There is no taking that needs to be avoided if the proposed development constitutes a nuisance or is otherwise prohibited pursuant to other background principles of property law {e.g., public trust doctrine). Continued use of an existing structure, including with any permissible repair and maintenance (which may be exempt from permitting requirements), may provide a reasonable economic use. If development is allowed pursuant to this policy, it must be consistent with all LCP policies to the maximum extent feasible. 20. Policy LCP-7.P.12.B (page 6-12): This policy should clarify that the geologic setback is calculated by adding two distances together: 1) bluff recession over the identified project life, considering SLR, and 2) the distance needed to achieve a minimum factor of safety against sliding of 1.5 (static) and 1.1 (pseudostatic, k=0.15 or determined through a quantitative slope stability analysis by a geotechnical engineer). These details should be included either here or in the IP. a. Commission staff would like the City to explain, given SLR, why the string-line distance is acceptable, rather than establishing a minimum standard geologic setback. b. The geologic setback must consider long-term erosion due to SLR. Revise subsection Bas follows: "The geologic setback, whieh is the location on the blufftop inland of which stability can be reasonably assured for the January 11, 2019 Page 8 minimum anticipated duration of the development without need for shoreline protective devices. The geologic setback line shall account for the amount of erosion, including long-term erosion due to sea level rise, anticipated during the duration economic life of the development." 21. Policy LCP-7-P.13 (page 6-12): Repair/maintenance on a bluff face always requires a permit per section 13252 of the California Code of Regulations, so the following phrase should be deleted: "Prohibit structures, grading and other landform alteration on bluff faces, except for the following: maintenanee aetivities that are e:irnluded from eoastal deYelopment permit requirements, restoration of natural resources, public access structures where no feasible alternative means of public access exists, and shoreline protective devices if allowed by this Local Coastal Program and the Coastal Act." 22. Policy LCP-7-P.14 (page 6-12): Either in this policy or elsewhere in the LUP, a policy should state, "Redevelopment of legal nonconforming development must be in conformance with all policies that apply to new development." Please also consider the following additional edit: " ... when the improvements increase the degree of non-conformity by increasing the hazardous condition, such as by developing seaward or in a location that conflicts with the policies of this chapter or by extending the duration that the non-conforming structure will likely remain in non-conforming location." 23. Policy LCP-7-P.15 (page 6-l2): Commission staff have noted the City intends to include in the IP additional detail on "the associated limitations on land use and property rights" to be included in deed restrictions for new development and redevelopment described in LCP-7-P.15. Therefore, the following comments apply to the IP. As stated above, deed restrictions should include any permit conditions imposed per policy LCP-7-P .11 relating to future removal of development. Similarly, Commission staff suggest that the deed restriction include the limitations imposed by policy LCP-7-P.25, which includes acknowledgements that removal of the development may be required if a government agency has ordered it not to be occupied due to hazards, or because essential services can no longer be provided, or because the structure may eventually be located on public lands due to the migration of the public trust. In addition to these points, Commission staff suggests that such deed restrictions acknowledge and agree that no rights exist under Coastal Act Section 30235 (and related LCP policies) to shoreline armoring in the future. 24. Policy LCP-7-P.18 (page 6-13): Commission staff suggest the following edits to this policy: "Permit shoreline protective devices, including revetments, breakwaters, groins, seawalls, bluff retaining walls, and other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes, only as specified below, pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30235, when all of the following criteria are met: January 11, 2019 Page 9 A. The protective device must be required to serve coastal-dependent uses, or protect existing principal structures or public beaches in danger from erosion; and B. The protective device shall be is designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply; and C. There is no less environmentally-damaging alternative; and D. When no waiver of rights to shoreline protective devices applies on the property." These edits would distinguish principal structures requiring protection from other development types, such as minor or ancillary structures, and clarify that all criteria must be met, per Section 30235 of the Coastal Act. The addition of part (D) would complement Commission staffs suggested addition to LCP-7-P.15. 25. Policy LCP-7-P.19 (page 6-13): Commission staff recommend the following edit: "Prohibit the use of shoreline protective devices to protect new development, including_redevelopment, if the proteetive de•,iee will substantially alter natural landforms or natural shoreline proeesses. If new development, including redevelopment, is protected by an existing legally authorized shoreline protective device, the new development/ redevelopment shall be sited and designed in a manner that does not require or rely on the use of a shoreline protective device to ensure geologic stability." 26. _Suggested policy: Shoreline protective device approval duration. Consistent with LCP-7-P .19, which prohibits the use of shoreline protective devices to protect new development, approvable shoreline protective devices should only be authorized until the existing principal structure requiring protection is no longer present, no longer requires armoring, or is redeveloped. Commission staff suggest adding a policy to this effect in the Shoreline Protective Devices (Armoring) section of Chapter 7.2. 27. Policy LCP-7-P .20 (page 6-13): Commission staff suggest the following edit to capture impacts over the duration of the development, consistent with other policies in the draft LUP: "Require, when permitting new develop~ent or redevelopment, removal of existing shoreline protective devices that are under the control of the property owner, only if: a. It is feasible to remove the device and restore affected areas; and b. The device is causing adverse impacts to coastal or public trust resources~ or will cause impacts over the anticipated duration of the proposed development, considering sea level rise expected over that time period; er and January 11, 2019 Page 10 c. The device is no longer necessary to protect the remaining existing principal structures on the property or adjacent properties that are entitled to retain shoreline armoring." 28. Policy LCP-7-P.21 (page 6-13): Commission staff suggest including additional detail on mitigation requirements for unavoidable coastal resource impacts associated with approvable shoreline protective devices either in this policy or in the IP. Mitigation should be required for all relevant coastal resource impacts, including beach area and sand supply, recreational resources, archaeological resources, and scenic and visual resources. Mitigation for impacts to sand supply should account for the device's physical encroachment on a beach, fixing of the back beach, preventing new beach formation in areas where the bluff/shoreline would have otherwise naturally eroded, and losing sand-generating bluff/shoreline materials that would have entered the sand supply system absent the shoreline protective device. If such impacts cannot be avoided, they shall be mitigated through options such as providing equivalent new public access or recreational facilities or undertaking restoration of nearby beach habitat. If such options are not feasible, proportional in-lieu fees that consider the full value of the beach-including with respect to impacts on shoreline sand supply, sandy beaches, public recreational access, public views, natural landforms, beach ecology, and water quality-may be used as a vehicle for impact mitigation. Additionally, the LCP should provide detail on the required mitigation period. Mitigation should be required in 20-year increments, after which the permittee shall apply for a coastal permit amendment proposing mitigation for coastal resource impacts associated with retention of the shoreline protective device beyond the preceding 20-year mitigation period. Such application shall include consideration of alternative feasible mitigation measures in which the permittee can modify or remove the shoreline protective device to lessen its impacts on coastal resources. Periodic monitoring of coastal resource impacts should be required every 5 years ( or another time period the city deems appropriate) for structural damage, excessive scour, or other impacts from coastal hazards and sea level rise, impacts to shoreline processes and beach width (both at the project site and the broader area and/or littoral cell as feasible), and impacts to public access and the availability of public trust lands for public use. Every 5 years ( or other suitable time period), the landowner shall submit a new Mean High Tide Line {MHTL) survey of the subject property based on field data collected within 12 months of the date submitted. Such monitoring is needed to ensure the efficacy ofLCP-7- P.1 I on triggers for removal of development, and in particular, LCP-7-P.1 l.B.3 (removal when development substantially impairs public trust resources). January 11, 2019 Page 11 29. Policy LCP-7-P.25 (page 6-14): Commission staff suggest adding the following elements to the list of triggers described in this draft policy: "the development requires new and/or augmented shoreline protective devices that conflict with LCP; removal is required pursuant to LCP policies for sea level rise adaptation planning." The former will ensure that shoreline protective devices are not installed to protect new development, which would conflictwith LCP-7-P.18, and the latter would ensure that property owners are on notice that the City may develop future programs related to sea level rise adaptation, per LCP-7-P.27. 30. Policy LCP-7-P.26 (page 6-14): Because hazard overlay zones would likely be similar to the hazard zones first referenced in LCP-7-P.6, we suggest the following edit to LCP-7-P.26: " .... and ensure protection of the migrating shoreline. Ensure they complement or are developed in coordination with the hazard zones referenced in LCP-7-P.6." 31. Policy LCP-7-P.27 (page 6-14): Consider adding research into the feasibility of Transfer of Development Rights programs and/or the formation of Geologic Hazard Abatement Districts to fund sea level rise adaptation into the list of possible adaptation planning techniques listed in LCP-7-P.27. 32. Policy LCP-7-P .28 (page 6-15): Minor edit suggested for the last sentence of this policy: "The adaptation plan should consider landward relocation of critical infrastructure where adequate space exists feasible." 33. Policy LCP-7-P.30 (page 6-15): Maximizing public access to the shoreline requires involvement of not only coastal community residents, but also among those who live elsewhere and visit the shoreline. Additionally, : "Continue to build community awareness about sea level rise hazards and future vulnerabilities.,_ with additional focus on community members who have been traditionally underserved or underrepresented, as well as among non-residents who visit the shoreline and therefore have an interest in planning that may have implications for coastal resources." 34. Policy LCP-7-P.31 (page 6-15): Consider adding a statement that the city will seek to align its LCP with its Local Hazard Mitigation Plan as a means to more efficiently implement sea level rise adaptation. 35. Policy LCP-7-P.33 (page 6-15): Commission staff suggest the following edit to clarify that projects that create dredge spoils should only be encouraged when consistent with the LCP, and in particular, the habitat protection policies of the LCP: "When consistent with the other provisions of the LCP, including habitat protection policies, encourage development projects that create dredge spoils to deposit such spoils on the beach if the material is suitable for sand replenishment." January 11, 2019 Page 12 Additional Comments from Commission Sea Level Rise Team on Prior Version of Chapter 7. 36. Coastal Erosion (page 6-9): Commission staff suggest adding the following language to clarify that sea level rise will exacerbate bluff erosion in addition to beach erosion to the final paragraph: "Even with nourishment, the beaches are still affected by erosion damage from flooding and storm events, which will be exacerbated by sea level rise (see Section 7.2 above). Similarly, sea level rise will exacerbate erosion of bluffs, requiring larger setbacks for development to remain safe over its anticipated duration." 37. Policy LCP-7-P.13 (page 6-18). Commission staff suggest cross-referencing LCP- 7-P.13 with revised LCP-7-P.12 from the Sea Level Rise Hazards policies (see comment #20 earlier in this letter), which contains additional detail on incorporating sea level rise into the setback calculation. We look forward to continuing to collaborate on the City's comprehensive Local Coastal Program update. Please contact me if you have any questions about these comments. cc: Don Neu, City of Carlsbad David de Cordova, City of Carlsbad Melanie Saucier, City of Carlsbad Sincerely, Cort Hitchens Coastal Program Analyst Deborah N. Lee, California Coastal Commission Gabe Buhr, California Coastal Commission Erin Prahler, California Coastal Commission Attachment K · STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO AREA 7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-4421 (619) 767-2370 Jennifer Jesser City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday A venue Carlsbad, CA 92008 February 27, 2019, Re: City of Carlsbad Draft LUP Ch. 3 -Recreation, Visitor-Serving, and Coastal Dependent Uses · Dear Ms. Jesser: Commission staff appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the City's Draft Land Use Plan Chapter 3 Recreation, Visitor-Serving, and Coastal Dependent Uses. The following comments on the draft de,scribed below include comments from the Commission's Statewide Planning team. Chapter 3 Recreation, Visitor-Serving, and Coastal Dependent U~es 1. Demand for Visitor Accommodations (page 3-2): a. Based on the current unmet demand, and the forecasted annual 2 percent focrease in hotel demand, please identify if land in the City is available to accommodate the deficiency in overnight accommodations. Please provide discussion as to how land would be able to accommodate such a demand, · and if land is not available, please provide discussion as to how the City plans to meet the unmet and increasing demand for overnight accommodations, including lower-cost.overnight accommodations. b. Please consider including some discussion of providing, or being able to provide, adequate support facilities in and near recreation and visitor- serving areas (e.g. public restrooms, picnic tables, etc.). 2. °Lower-Cost Overnight Accommodations (page 3-3): Please revise as follows: "Carlsbad's high number of accommodations, which includes a high number of economy scale accommodations, sufficiently works toward implements · implementing Coastal Act Section 30213. 3 .. Lower-Cost Overnight Accommodations (page 3-3): Please clarify whether the following includes the campground: "The 2017 annual average daily rate for economy hotels in Carlsbad was $86.29; and in 2018 (January to September), the average daily rate was $87.10.'' 4. Local Permitting Authority (page 1-3): Please revise as follows: "After a local coastal program land use plan and implementation plan are certified by the February 27, 2019 Page 2. California Coastal Commission, the authority to approve or deny coastal development permits is transferred to the local government; however, the Coastal Commission retains permanent authority to approve or deny coastal development permits for development proposed on tidelands, submerged lands, and public trust lands." 5. Table 3-1: Carlsbad Coastal Zone Hotel Inventory (page 3-4): Please consider listing the actual Average Daily Rates (ADRs) of each hotel in Table 3-1, or providing the scale in the "Lower-Cost Overnight Accommodations" section before Table 3-1. 6. Visitor-Serving Use Policies -LCP-3-P.17 (page 3-8): Pleas·e revise as follows: "Protect, encourage and, where feasible, provide lower cost visitor and recreational facilities, and encourage and support developments that provide public recreational opportunities within the Coastal Zone [related to Coastal Act Section 30213]. New visitor serving uses that displace existing lower cost visitor- serving uses shall be allowed only where an equivalent replacement is provided, including as required in LCP-3-P22." ' · 7. Visitor-Serving Use Policies-LCP-3-P21: Please revise as follows: '1Encourage development of lower-cost overnight accommodations, such as through regulatory incentives (e.g. development standards modifications). New overnight accommodations that consist primarily of moderate and/or higher-cost overnight accommodations (e.g., mid-scale, upper-mid-scale; upscale, upper-upscale, and/or luxmy accommodations, as identified by Smith Travel Research) shall be required to provide mitigation as a condition of approval of a Coastal Development Permit. This mitigation is in addition to any mitigation that may be required for displacement, including removal or conversions, of existing lower cost overnight . accommodations. New development, including redevelopment, of higher cost overnight accommodations shall be designed to provide for a component of lower cost overnight accommodations on-site, consisting of25% of the new or redeveloped higher cost overnight accommodations that are approved. If it is not feasible to provide lower cost visitor serving overnight accommodations on-site. according to a feasibility analysis either submitted by the applicant and accepted by the City or performed by the City, such accommodations may be provided off- site within the City's Coastal Zone. These off-site overnight accommodations shall be completed and ready for use prior to occupancy of the new or redeveloped overnight accommodations. If it is not feasible to provide lower cost overnight accommodations on or off-site. such accommodations can be provided through payment of an in-lieu fee pursuant to an in lieu fee program certified by the Coastal Commission. The in-lieu fee payment shall be deposited into a fund established by the City which shall be in an.interest bearing account and shall . only be used for the provision of new lower-cost overnight accommodations to replace lost units at a one-to-one ratio, within the Coastal Zone. Funds may be used for activities including land acquisition, construction, and/or renovation that will result in additional visitor accommodation. as well as permitting costs. The accommodations funded by the in-lieu fee program shall be offered to the general February 27, 2019 Page3 public at lower-cost rates and shall be protected by the City as lower cost accommodations in perpetuity. 8. Visitor-Serving Use Policies -LCP-3-P.22: Please revise as follows: "Require new development, which proposes to remove existing "economy" scale accommodations or replace existing "economy" scale accommodations with moderate or higher cost accommodations (e.g. mid-scale, upper-mid-scale, upscale, upper-upscale, and/or luxury accommodations, as identified by Smith Travel Research), to replaee mitigate the lost existing "economy scale accommodations within Carlsbad's Coastal Zone with new lower-cost visitor accommodations at a 1: 1 ratio. Mitigation shall prioritize providing for lower cost overnight accommodations on-site, where possible. If providing lower cost overnight accommodations on-site is not feasible, according to a feasibility analysis either submitted by the applicant and accepted by the City or performed by the City, then one-to-one replacement off-site but within the City's Coastal Zone shall be required. These off-site overnight accommodations shall be completed and ready for use prior to occupancy of the new overnight accommodations. If providing lower-cost overnight accommodations off-site is not feasible, as demonstrated by a feasibility analysis, such accommodations can be provided through payment of an in-lieu fee pursuant to an in lieu fee program certified by the Coastal Commission. The in-lieu fee payment shall be deposited into a fund established by the City which shall be in an interest bearing account and shall only be used for the provision of new lower-cost overnight accommodations to replace lost units at a one-to-one ratio, within the Coastal Zone. Funds may be used for activities including land acquisition, construction, and/or renovation that will result in additional visitor accommodation, as well as permitting costs. The accommodations funded by the in-lieu fee program shall be offered to the general public at lower-cost rates and shall be protected by the City as lower cost accommodations in perpetuity. 9. Visitor-Serving Use Policies-LCP-3-P.23: Please revise as follows: "Work collaboratively with the California State Parks and Recreation Department to protect, improve and expand, if where feasible, the state campground facilities and other lower cost visitor serving uses. Work with relevant agencies and organizations to protect, improve and expand, where feasible, other Additional campground facilities and lower cost visitor serving uses (public or private}.. which may include sites uses not connected to the existing state campground system, such as near the lagoons or other recreational areas," 10. Visitor-Serving Use Policies -LCP-3-P.24: Please revise as follows: "Establish. within the Zoning Code/Implementation plan a method to f)gefine and classify new and existing "lower-cost" overnight accommodations as accommodations available at an annual average daily rate that is: ill equal to or less than the annual average daily rate provided by Smith Travel Research for the 1'economy" hotel segment within the Carlsbad hotel market area, or; (2) equal to or less than 75% of the Statewide average annual daily rate: whichever is less. When calculating the average "economy" hotel rate; +:the market area shall include only the hotels in Carlsbad's Coastal Zone. If Smith Travel Research requires more economy hotels than are within Carlsbad's Coastal Zone to identify the annual February 27, 2019 Page4 average daily rate, the market area may be expanded, to the extent necessary, to include economy hotels in Carlsbad outside the Coastal Zone and the nearest . economy hotels in the Coastal Zones of adjacent cities. This method shall be applied to the Coastal Development Permit review process, and shall be updated periodically, at a minimum each time a hotel project is considered. If Smith Travel Research data is no longer available, or the company significantly changes its data monitoring system, the City shall apply for an LCP Amendment to implement a new method for defining lower cost overnight accommodations. The City may prefer to clarify that the applicant is on the hook for providing data or a study to determine whether the project is considered lower cost. 11. Visitor-Serving Use Policies: Please consider the addition as follows: LCP-3-P.25 -Encourage the use ofhqme-sharing and sh.ort-term rentals gf resid,ential q.ousipg in the City's Coastal Zone, includir1,g to protect, encourage, and, where feasible, provide lower cost visitor-serving accommodations. We look forward to continuing to collaborate on the City's comprehensive Local Coastal Program update. Please contact me if you have.any questions about these comments. Sincerely, @ll.,P- Cort Hitchens Coastal Program Analyst cc: Don Neu, City of Carlsbad David de Cordova, City of Carlsbad Melanie Saucier, City of Carlsbad Deborah N. Lee, California Coastal Commission Gabe Buhr, California Coastal Commission Erin Prahler, California Coastal Commission Attachment L STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO AREA 7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 921011-4421 (619) 767-2370 Jennifer Jesser City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 February 27, 2019 Re: City of Carlsbad Draft LUP Ch. 1 -Introduction Dear Ms. J esser: Commission staff appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the City's Draft Land Use Plan Chapter 1 Introduction. Please see our comments below: · Chapter 1 Introduction 1. Carlsbad Setting and Evolution (page 1-2): Please consider revising as follows: "The city today is a major job center, home to several internationally leading companies in high-technology and biotechnology, recreational ·equipment, and other sectors." 2. Components of a Local Coastal Program (page 1-3): Please revise as follows: "A local coastal program land use pianshould '' ... assure thatmaximum public access to the coast and public recreation areas is provided" Coastal Act Section 30500.-.Cru.: . 3. Local Permitting Authority (page 1-3): Please revise as follows: "After a local coastal program land use plan and implementation plan are certified by the · California Coastal Commission, the authority to approve or deny coastal development permits is transferred to the local government; however, the Coastal Commission retains permanent authority to approve or deny coastal development permits for development proposed on tidelands, submerged lands, and public trust lands." Please add a description of the appeals authority to this section; including which projects can be appealed to the Commission, and which parties are able to file an appeal. 4. Carlsbad Community Vision (page 1-4): a. Walking, Biking, Public Transportation, and Connectivity -Please consider the addition of a "rideshare" or "shared mobility opportunity" " . aspect to this core value. 5. 1.4 Plan Organization (page 1-6) February 27, 2019 Page2 a. Coastal Hazards and Sea Level Rise: Please revise as follows: "Managing development to respond to coastal hazards is a key objective of the Coastal Act. Consistent with the Coastal Act, this chapter identifies hazards in Carlsbad (related to sea level rise, flooding, geology; and fire) and provides policies that guide new development to reduce risks to life and property.\ and to avoid substantial changes to natural land forms protect coastal resources and natural landforms. 6. Appendices a. Appendix A: Please write out "PWP" as Public Works Plan. 7. Implementation (page 1~7) a. The Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual is referenced in this section, should this be updated as the Village and Barrio Master Plan? Also, should the Army and Navy Academy be added? Carlsbad By The Sea? We look forward to continuing to collaborate on the City's comprehensive Local Coastal Program update. Please contact me if you have any questions about these comments. cc: Don Neu, City of Carlsbad David de Cordova, City of Carlsbad Melanie Saucier, City of Carlsbad Sincerely, @(~ Cort Hitchens . Coastal Program Analyst Deborah N. Lee, California Coastal Commission Gabe Buhr, California Coastal Commission Erin Prahl er,· California Coastal Commission From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Council Internet Email ~ FW: City Council Meeting Agenda Item #14 Talking Points Tuesday, January 28, 2020 3:26:28 PM Talking Points Dl,(]' -City Council 2020-01-28.pdf From: Sandi and Fred Sandquist Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 3:04 PM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Cc: Elaine Lu key <Elaine.Lukey@carlsbadca.gov>; David Hill Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item #14 Talking Points Attached is a copy of my talking points for tonight's City Council Meeting's agenda item #14 -OVERVIEW OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN UPDATE. Although this is a City Manager's Report and is informational for the council, I plan to speak on the item during public comment. We will be submitting formal comments on this draft LCP on or before Friday, January 31, 2020, the revised due date. Thanks, Fred C. Sandquist President Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation CAUTION: Do not o en attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. TALKING POINTS-Agenda Item 14- Overview of LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN UPDATE (LCP)- (Jennifer Jesser, Community Development) City Council Meeting, Tuesday, January 28, 2020, 6:00 PM • FRED SANDQUIST, PRESIDENT BLF & CARLSBAD RESIDENT, 6408 CROSSBILL CT. • SPEAKING TONIGHT ON THE DRAFT LOCAL PROGRAM UPDATE. • REFERNCE BLF LETTER TO PLANNING COMMISSION OF NOV. 20, 2019 RE: COMMENTS FOR PC DLCP UPATE REPORT PRESENTATION. • WANT TO THANK CITY MANAGER FOR QUICK FOLLOW-UP EXTENDING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FROM NOV. 29, 2019 TO JAN. 31, 2020 TO GIVE EVERYONE MORE TIME TO REVIEW AND PROVIDE COMMENTS. • STRONGLY REQUESTED: (1) CITY PROVIDE REDLINE VERSION TO ASSIST IN COMPARING THE EXISTING 2016 PLAN WITH THE DRAFT PLAN (CITY PLANNER CONFIRMED IT EXISTED, BUT IS NOT USUALLY SHARED WITH THE PUBLIC) -__ __,,, DISAPPOINTED THAT THIS WAS NOli DONE; (2) THAT THE CITY HOLD A . SERIES OF FACILITATED PUBLIC WORKSHOPS TO GARNER PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER INPUT IN A MORE TRANSPARENT MANNER DISAPPOINTED THAT THIS WAS NOT DONE ; AND (3) EXTEND THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR 6-MONTHS - NOT DONE, BUT EXPECT THAT WHEN FORMAL COMMENTS ARE RECEIVE FRIDAY, JANUARY 31, 2020, THAT IT WILL TAKE STAFF AT LEAST 2-3 MONTHS TO ANALYZE COMMENTS ~ ~ND PROVIDE FORMAL FEEDBACK TO ifHE PUBLIC! • REASONS: (1) NO REDLINE VERSION HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC; (2) PREVIOUS WORKSHOPS AND PUBLIC FORUMS WERE MORE PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENTS/Q&A RATHER THAN ACTUAL WORKSHOPS; (3) M_ORE DISCUSSION ARE NEEDED ON AVAILABLE UNDEVELOPED LAND IN THE COASTAL ZONE INCLUDING: AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY SUCH AS THE STRAWBERRY FIELDS AND FLOWER FIELDS; ENCINIA POWER PLANT PROPERTY, ESPECIALLY NEAR THE POINSETTIA COASTER STATION AND WHEN POWERPLANT FOOTPRINT IS REDUCED; THE PONTO/SOUTH CARLSBAD STATE BEACH AREA WITH NEW ADDITIONAL CITY PARK POTENTIAL. (4) THE SIZE OF THE DOCUMENT AND SCOPE OF CHANGES BEING PROPOSED; AND ERROS AND OMISSIONS CONCERNING CARLSB~ WATERSHED MANAGEMENT MS4 .__ WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN ~ND PROTECTIONS OF BATIQUITOS LAGOON RELATED TO TOTALJ '-------~ MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS (TMDLS) AND COMPLIANCE WITH CFR40, CLEAN WATER ACT 303(D) LISTINGS. • WE NEED TO GET THIS UPDATED PLAN RIGHT AS IT WILL AFFECT LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT WELL INTO THE FUTURE. TO PROMOTE TRANSPARIENCY WE NEED TO ENGAGE THE COMMUNITY AND NOT RUSH THIS SIMPLY TO ADHERE TO A PROJECT SCHEDULE. THANKS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Council Internet Email Ci.t¥...Clerk FW: Comments on the Draft Local Coastal Program Tuesday, January 28, 2020 3:35:10 PM image00l.ona Letter of Comment to LCP Update odf Referring to Item #14 From: Bret Schanzenbach <Bret@carlsbad.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 3:31 PM To: Melanie Saucier <Melanie.Saucier@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Comments on the Draft Local Coastal Program Melanie, Attached are our comments for the Draft Local Coastal Program. Thank you, _t;:::>, CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BretJ.Schanzenbach President & CEO I Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce 0: 760.931.8400 Ext. 206 E: bret@carlsbad.om 5934 Priestly Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 carlsbad.org CAUTION: Do not o en attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. January 28, 2020 ~ ~\ CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Via Email: Melanie.Saucier@Carlsbadca.gov Melanie Saucier Associate Planner, City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: Comments to Draft Local Coastal Program Dear Ms. Saucier: The Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce has 1, 100+ members making us the largest in north county and the second largest Chamber in San Diego County. Many of our members are employed in the hospitality and tourism industry, which is the largest industry sector in North San Diego County and brings in nearly $29 million dollars a year in transit occupancy taxes (TOT) to Carlsbad on annual basis. It is safe to say this industry contributes a significant amount of revenue into the City treasury, which adds significantly to the many and varied services offered the community and provides a high-level of quality of life to those who live, work, learn and visit here. Many of our hospitality industry properties offer both hotel accommodations as well as timeshares, fractional ownership, residence clubs and hotel-condo opportunities. These complementary uses within hotel and resort properties provide additional rooms for transient occupants (in addition to owners), generating incremental TOT and contributing to the overall tourism industry in the region. As such, it is critically important that this industry not be categorically disallowed the ability to offer such amenities within the draft Coastal Plan as outlined in Policy LCP -3.P.17, which states "Prohibit new timeshares or other limited-use overnight accommodations on land designated as Visitor Commercial (VC) on Local Coastal Program land-use map". Rather, we strongly believe that these forms of accommodations be evaluated on a case by case basis and not prohibited outright. We strongly believe there is no justification for the prohibition for the future development of these types of accommodations which are enjoyed by many visitors to the City, and surprisingly, to residents on "staycations". We understand the staff of the Coastal Commission is very supportive of the development of affordable visitor accommodations, but this policy will do nothing to encourage the development of affordable accommodations, while prohibiting the development of a very popular visitor accommodation. 5934 Priestly Drive I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760.931.8400 T I 760.931.9153 F www.carlsbad.org As such, we humbly request that Policy LCP -3.P.17 be deleted from Carlsbad's Draft Local Coastal Program as proposed. If this is not supported by staff, we request that wording allowing such accommodations to be considered on a case-by-case basis, based on the justifications provided in the comprehensive plans submitted by applicants. Regarding Policy LCP -3.P.21, we object to the requirement that any "new development and redevelopment proposals that propose to remove, replace or remodel existing 'lower-cost' accommodations to mitigate the loss of any 'lower-cost' accommodations with new lower-cost visitor accommodations at a 1: 1 ratio ... " The four properties specifically named in Table 3-1 as "Economy" will be effectively condemned by this policy if it goes forward. No provision is made for the current or future property owners to get out of the hospitality business altogether on these properties, if they so desire. Under this policy, if they wanted to use these properties for anything else, they would be forced to replace these units on a 1: 1 basis within the Coastal Zone. These onerous restrictions severely limit property owner rights. As such, we humbly request that Policy LCP -3.P.21 be deleted from Carlsbad's Draft Local Coastal Program as proposed. If this is not supported by staff, we request that wording be amended at the minimum to allow existing property owners to exist the hospitality business if desired and only require the "lower-cost" accommodations if the property is remodeled/redeveloped to continue its use as a hotel. On behalf of our hospitality and tourism members, we thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Bret chanzenbach President and CEO Cc: City Manager Scott Chadwick Mayor Matt Hall Mayor Pro Tern Priya Bhat-Patel Council Member Keith Blackburn Council Member Cori Schumacher Hector Gomez From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Importance: Council Internet Email Tuesday, January 28, 2020 4:47 PM City Clerk FW: 2020 Jan 28 Carlsbad City Council meeting -Agenda item #14 citizen testimony - updated information 2020 Jan 28 Carlsbad CC meeting item #14 public testimony1 .pdf High From: Lance Schulte Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 4:29 PM To: info@peopleforponto.com; Matthew Hall <Matt.Hall@carlsbadca.gov>; Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>; Scott Chadwick <Scott.Chadwick@carlsbadca.gov>; Kyle Lancaster <Kyle.Lancaster@carlsbadca.gov>; lisa.urbach@parks.ca.gov; Kathleen@carlsbad.org; Mike Pacheco <Mike.Pacheco@carlsbadca.gov>; gbuhr@coastal.ca.gov; cort.hitchens@coastal.ca.gov; Erin.Prahler@coastal.ca.gov; Don Neu <Don.Neu@carlsbadca.gov>; Gary Barberio <Gary.Barberio@carlsbadca.gov>; Jennifer Jesser <Jennifer.Jesser@carlsbadca.gov> Cc: 'Fred Sandquist' ; 'David Hill' Subject: RE: 2020 Jan 28 Carlsbad City Council meeting -Agenda item #14 citizen testimony -updated information Importance: High Dear City Council: Please replace the prior testimony with the attached file. In the haste to get you comments ASAP before the meeting I forgot to include a correction to the Housing Element data staff provided. The actual Housing Element data is different from tonight's staff report, and the attached updated testimony includes a copy from the City Housing Element to show that correction. Also, People for Ponto would like to request that this email and attached file be part of the official public comments on the proposed Draft LCP Land Use Plan Amendment. Thank you. Sincerely, Lance Schulte From: Lance Schulte Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 2:37 PM To: info@peopleforponto.com; Matt.Hall@carlsbadca.gov; CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov; Scott.Chadwick@carlsbadca.gov; Kyle.Lancaster@carlsbadca.gov; lisa.urbach@parks.ca.gov; Kathleen@carlsbad.org: mike.pacheco@carlsbadca.gov; gbuhr@coastal.ca.gov; cort.hitchens@coastal.ca.gov; Erin.Prahler@coastal.ca.gov; Don.Neu@carlsbadca.gov; Gary.Barberio@carlsbadca.gov; jennifer.jesser@carlsbadca.gov Cc: Fred Sandquist; David Hill Subject: 2020 Jan 28 Carlsbad City Council meeting -Agenda item #14 citizen testimony Importance: High Dear City Council: Please receive the attached information as part of your agenda Item #14 on 1/28/20 meeting. 1 . We ap0logize for the late input, but we were not aware of the agenda item or meeting. The attached notes some critical information that appears missing in the agenda report and attempts to provide more complete information. People for Ponto also asks, like other citizen groups, how we can talk with you to create a better process for the Staff proposed Draft LCP Land Use Plan Amendment. Sincerely, Lance Schulte People for Ponto CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 2 Carlsbad City Council meeting of 1-28-20 agenda item #14 People for Ponto apologize for this late and hastily, review and comments. We just found out about the meeting this morning. We citizens know we can together achieve grate things if you allow us to work with you. Staff Report Page 1 clarification/correction: The LCP Land Use Plan Update is in fact an Amendment to an Existing LCP Land Use Plan. The Existing LCP Land Use Plan is already certified by the CA Coastal Commission as being consistent with the CA Coastal Act, except for some Amendments needed to address Sea Level Rise impacts and some other issues. The LCP Amendment proposes to change the Existing CA Coastal Commission certified LCP Land Use Plan's "Non-residential Reserve" Land Use and Policy on Planning Area F to consider and document the need for "i.e. Public Park" at Ponto. 1 Staff summarizes the CA Coastal Act objectives to "ensure maximum public access to the coast and public recreation areas." • Carlsbad's Adopted Park Service Area/Equity Mapping shows there is no Park Service for the Ponto Area and Ponto Citizens, and no Park Service for the Coastal South Carlsbad area west of lnterstate-5 and the rail corridor. • The City's mapping of land that meets the developer required Growth Management Open Space Standard of 15% Unconstrained land shows about 30-acres of this Open Space is missing at Ponto. This missing Open Space could have provided needed Park facilities that are missing at Ponto. • Citizens in over 2,500 emails to the City Council have cited the need for a Public Park at Ponto as part of the Existing LCP Land Use Plan Amendment proposed at Ponto. These requests area consistent with the CA Coastal Act. 3 2nd bullet: says city staff proposes to replace, amend, or retain various Existing LCP policies, so the Staff has a documented understanding how each Existing LCP policy and how each Existing policy is being treated in the proposed Amendment. Citizens asked in Oct 20, 2019 for this 'red line' version of the Existing LCP Policies and Land Use Maps so citizens can understand what the Amendments are so we as citizens could then provide informed public comment. This 'red line' version is also important for the City Council and Planning and other Commissions so they know what Amendments to Existing City LCP Land Use policy are being proposed. Citizens again request this 'red line' version that it appears the staff already has as they know what Existing LCP Land Use policies are being replaced, amended, or retained. 4 Vis incomplete: the community asked on Oct 20, 2019 for 3 things: 1) a 'redline' version as noted above, 2) true Public Workshops to help inform and resolve community concerns about the proposed LCP land Use Plan Amendments, and 3) more public review time to provide for the above two other requests. All 3 requests should be acknowledge in the staff report. All 3 requests are rational and reasonable considering the proposed Draft LCP Land Use Plan Amendment is the "buildout" plan for Carlsbad's Coastal Zone and there were multiple documented fundamental "planning mistakes" regarding past City public information and participation in the Coastal Land Use planning. Providing such a process would help to correct these documented 'planning mistakes' that have gone on for many years. It is the right thing to do and most productive approach for all concerned. 7 Staff should accurately disclose that in 2010 the CA Coastal Commission in fact rejected the City's proposed Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan for failing to disclose and comply with the then and current LCP Land Use Plan policy for Planning Area Fat Ponto. Carlsbad Public Record Requests confirmed the staff did not disclose to citizens the existence LCP Land Use Plan policy for Planning Area Fat Ponto, so citizens had no idea a Public Park at Planning Area Fat Ponto needed to be considered. How can citizens, provide input if they don't have complete and accurate to review and comment on? 8 Staff should correctly disclose that the 2015 application at Planning Area Fat Ponto is first for a Local Coastal Program Amendment and Master Plan Amendment. These are both applications to change City Land Use Plan Policy and Zoning regulations. The actual applications for 'development' permits can in fact not even be considered by the City the Local Coastal Program Land Use of "Non-residential Reserve" is changed and Master Plan rezoning is approved. Then the 'development' permit application can applied for. The developer abandoned their application to change the LCP and Master Plan and then apply for developer permit review about a year ago. However, the city staff is keeping the application 'alive' even though there has been no progress on the application for over a year. It is unclear if the staff has authority to do this, or if the City Council has authority to withdrawal the application due to non-activity. The City has permit standards that withdraw applications if applicants make no progress on the applications after 6-months: What is troubling is that it appears the city staff proposal is to process the developer's application to change the Existing LCP Land Use Plan for the developer. Staff notes that the Planning Area F sites now designated as Residential R-23 and General Commercial by the Carlsbad General Plan Update. However, staff fails to disclose that until the Existing LCP Land Use Plan Amended is in fact approved by the CA Coastal Commission the Existing LCP Land Use Plan for Planning Area F supersedes the City's General Plan Update. Carlsbad's General Plan Land Use Element clearly states this on page 2-26 ''The city's LCP Land Use Plan will be updated consistent with this General Plan. However, to take effect, the LCP must be certified by the Coastal Commission as well as adopted by the city. Until such time that this occurs, the existing (as of 2013) LCP must be adhered to." So until the City Council adopts the staff's proposed Draft LCP Land Use Plan Amendment, AND the CA Coastal Commission "certifies" that LCP LUP Amendment; the City's General Plan Update Land Use change cannot take effect. The General Plan Land Use at Ponto Planning Area F has in fact not been changed by the General Plan Update, but can only change with staff's proposed Draft LCP Land Use Plan Amendment that the City Council can choose to approve or disapprove. Also official Public Records Requests have documented that the City's General Plan Update planning process was fundamentally flawed at Ponto. Again, like during Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan planning process a few years earlier the city failed to comply with the then and current LCP Land Use Plan policy for Planning Area Fat Ponto. The flawed General Plan Update process at Ponto prevented Citizens from knowing the facts so they could properly participate and provide review and comment during the General Plan Update. The significant citizen comments to the City Council asking for a Ponto Coastal Park is reflective of the fundamental public disclosure and processing flaws that the city is only now acknowledging as one of the repeated 'planning mistakes' at Ponto. This is why citizens are asking for full disclosure of the facts and a complete planning process re-boot at Ponto. It also should be noted that the Existing LCP Land Use Policy for Planning Area F states that "as part of any future planning effort ... consideration of a "Public Park" is required. CA Coastal Commission Staff has indicated the City's proposed land use planning changes at Ponto as part of the General Plan Update are subject to change. At the bottom of the page regarding SB 330, as noted above the "residentail land use designtiaon on the site" is not in effect until the currently proposed LCP Land Use Plan Amendment is both approved the City Coucnil AND also certified byt eh CA Coastral Commission, so SB 330 does not apply. Also SB 330 has specific language that exempts land use in the Coastal Zone. SB 330 (Skinner) Section 13 states: "(2) Nothing in this section supersedes, limits, or otherwise modifies the requirements of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). For a housing development project proposed within the coastal zone, nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an affected county or an affected city from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition necessary to implement or amend a certified local coastal program consistent with the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) ofthe Public Resources Code)." This language is consistent with CA case law, and other housing laws that recognize the obvious -there is very limited amount of Coastal land v. significant land area inland. Limited Coastal Land per the CA Coastal Act is needed for "High-Priority" Coastal Land Uses" -i.e. Coastal Recreation and Low-cost visitor accommodations. The CA Coastal Act identifies both residential and general commercial land uses as "low-priority". So although affordable housing is important there are other more appropriate locations, than on the last remaining vacant Coastal land in Carlsbad will be needed to address the "High-Priority" Coastal Land Uses to serve Carlsbad and California's 'buildout' needs. CA case law recognizes the supremacy of the CA Coastal Act over CA Housing Laws as noted in "Kaine! Gardens, LLC v. City of Los Angeles". This case law data has already been provided to the City Council as part of Staff's housing discussions over the past few years. The staff report should have disclosed the above information, as it appears SB 330 is not a factor at Ponto. 13 2005-2010 Housing Element: As noted above the General Plan Land Use Element states the General Plan Land Use Plan is not effective until the proposed Draft LCP Land Use Plan Amendment is both approved by the City Council AND certified by the CA Coastal Commission. So, the Housing Element Cannot recognizes the proposed residential use change at Ponto until then. Also as noted before there were multiple documented fundamental 'planning mistakes' in public disclosure, participation and process that flawed the Housing Element. It should be noted that these flaws occurred during the time the CA Coastal Commission specifically rejected the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan due to those flaws. The now City acknowledged 'planning mistakes' at Ponto prevented Carlsbad citizens from providing informed participation during the Housing Element. Also, it is unclear why the staff misrepresented the amount of housing proposed in the Housing Element on the Ponto Planning Area F site as "the Ponto site for high density residential use at a minimum density of 20 dwellings per acre (128 units minimum)"; as this is not true. The City's General Plan promises only the minimum 15 dwelling units/acre for the R-23 Land Use designation. See the "Ponto" unit capacity table below from the City of Carlsbad General Plan Housing Element Table B-1 on page B-2 that lists 98 dwellings for the site on the east side of Ponto Road and 11 optional dwellings on the west side of Ponto Road for 109 total units for both sites, v. the 128 units mentioned by staff. Not sure why staff misrepresented the density by 17 to 30%. Table B-1 : Vacant Sites for Lower and Moderate Income Housing Unit Capacity, by Household Site Income General Plan Zoning Size Vr, APN O.slgnatlon1 District (Ac,.s) Low Low Moderate 2090901100(Sunny Creek) R15 (12 du/ac) RD-M 9.6 --115 2161404300 (Ponto) R23 P-C 6.5 --98 GC (Mixed Use)3 P-C 3 --11 ,.. . ,.. ..... ,.. ... ,..,.. ~~ft --.. ft •• - 2007 Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan: As noted several times above there were fundamental public disclosure and participation flaws with this plan. It was rejected by the CA Coastal Commission in 2010 part for those reasons. These flaws are confirmed by the City's own data as a result of multiple Official Carlsbad Public Records Requests. This should be disclosed to the City Council and citizens. 14 2015 General Plan Update: As noted several times above there were fundamental public disclosure and participation flaws with this Update with regards to Ponto. These flaws are confirmed by the City's own data as a result of multiple Official Carlsbad Public Records Requests. This should be disclosed to the City Council and citizens. Citizens are asking the City Staff and City Council: • for honesty, to fully and publicly recognize and disclose the past "planning mistakes" at Ponto, and fundamental flaws from the from those mistakes that prevented citizens from knowing about and participating in the planning process for Ponto. • To keep the Existing LCP Land Use Plan at Ponto until a new open-honest and inclusive Community-based planning process ca n be achieved at Ponto. • To be honest with respect to Park Serve Area and Equity issues at Ponto and Coastal South Carlsbad west of 1-5 and the rail corridor. • Consider the needs for inland South Carlsbad citizens, visitors and business to have their ONLY Coastal Park. • Consider the larger regional Coastal Park need, and the forever 'buildout' Coastal Recreation needs for future generations. • To be true and honest in translating and implementing our Community Vision Sheila Cobian From: Sent: To: Cc: Gary Barberio Wednesday, January 29, 2020 5:39 PM Don Neu; Jennifer Jesser Jeff Murphy; Sheila Cobian Subject: Fwd: Saving Ponto Please provide the requested confirmation to the sender. GTB Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Scott Chadwick <Scott.Chadwick@carlsbadca.gov> Date: January 29, 2020 at 4:53:57 PM PST To: Gary Barberio <Gary.Barberio@carlsbadca.gov> Cc: Celia Brewer <Celia.Brewer@carlsbadca.gov>, Elaine Lukey <Elaine.Lukey@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Saving Ponto Please be sure to take appropriate action related to this. Thanks- Scott Chadwick City Manager City of Carlsbad Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Lance Schulte Date: January 29, 2020 at 4:26:49 PM PST To: Matthew Hall <Matt.Hall@carlsbadca.gov>, Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>, Scott Chadwick <Scott.Chadwick@carlsbadca.gov>, Kyle Lancaster <Kyle.Lancaster@carlsbadca.gov>, "lisa.urbach@parks.ca.gov" <lisa.urbach@parks.ca.gov>, "Kathleen@carlsbad.org" <Kathleen@carlsbad.org>, Mike Pacheco <Mike.Pacheco@carlsbadca.gov>, "gbuhr@coastal.ca.gov" <gbuhr@coastal.ca.gov>, "cort.hitchens@coastal.ca.gov" <cort.hitchens@coastal.ca.gov>, "Erin.Prahler@coastal.ca.gov" <Erin.Prahler@coastal.ca.gov>, Don Neu <Don.Neu@carlsbadca.gov>, Gary Barberio <Gary.Barberio@carlsbadca.gov>, "info@peopleforponto.com" <info@peopleforponto.com> Subject: FW: Saving Ponto Can you kindly confirm via email that Lorraine's email below is included as public comment on the DLCPA. Thanks, Lance -----Original Message----- From: Lorraine Dix 1 Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 3:09 PM To: Peopleforponto Info Subject: Saving Ponto To: The City of Carlsbad To: The Coastal Commission To: Whoever could help People for Ponto Who could look at this beautiful beach area and not want to save it for the people ..... for all of the people ..... the local people and their children, the visitors as they pass by, those who live near-by and enjoy it every time they make a special local drive, just to look at it's beauty. What a shame it would be to have that view blocked off to all of the above, by any tall buildings or walls. I am an older woman, living at Rosalena. We also have a protected view, and cherish it very much. Residents of this southwest corner of Carlsbad would cherish a park for all families. Why not have a Carlsbad City Park? I know this is being considered. It is a perfect, open space! Residents near this Batiquitos Lagoon area would find it a perfect setting for a city park. How could you even CONSIDER spoiling this precious space with a HOTEL??? Very sincerely, Lorraine M. Dix Carlsbad, CA 92011 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 2 Sheila Cobian From: Sent: To: Cc: Gary Barberio Wednesday, January 29, 2020 5:45 PM Jeff Murphy; Don Neu; Jennifer Jesser Sheila Cobian Subject: Fwd: Carlsbad : RE: Ponto Open Space & Local Coastal Programming Impact on Coast Highway 101 & La Costa Ave. FYI Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Scott Chadwick <Scott.Chadwick@carlsbadca.gov> Date: January 29, 2020 at 4:58:54 PM PST To: Elaine Lukey <Elaine.Lukey@carlsbadca.gov>, Gary Barberio <Gary.Barberio@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Carlsbad: RE: Ponto Open Space & Local Coastal Programming Impact on Coast Highway 101 & La Costa Ave. FYI Scott Chadwick City Manager City of Carlsbad Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: KEITH BLACKBURN Date: January 29, 2020 at 12:50:56 PM PST To: Scott Chadwick <Scott.Chadwick@carlsbadca.gov>, Celia Brewer <Celia.Brewer@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Carlsbad : RE: Ponto Open Space & Local Coastal Programming Impact on Coast Highway 101 & La Costa Ave. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Date: January 29, 2020 at 11:26:43 AM PST To: " Subject: Carlsbad : RE: Ponto Open Space & Local Coastal Programming Impact on Coast Highway 101 & La Costa Ave. I am going to drive by today to see what is going on with this area. Thought I would share just in case you might be interested. Saundra From: Mary Anne Penton Subject: AVO ACRES: Ponto Open Space & Local Coastal Programming Impact Date: January 27, 2020 at 9:58:45 AM PST To: Home Hi again Avocado Acres! Again, sorry if this is a duplicate message! Ponto Park is the open space overlooking the lagoon opposite the new in-process hotel at Coast Hwy and La Costa Blvd. It's owned by the City of Carlsbad, but the Coastal Commission has the real decision as to whether it becomes a development or be created into a community park (to me, a positive welcome to Encinitas from the NORTH side!). We have a short timeline -until January 30th -to show support for this land to become a park rather than another development. if interested, read below to see how you can show support to convince the Coastal Commission to direct this land to be a public park. Thanks for listening! Mary Anne P.S. Councilperson Kellie Hinze has connected with both our city and the councilwoman in Carlsbad to see how the city of Encinitas can show support ... Begin forwarded message: From: People for Ponto < i nfo@peopleforponto.com > Subject: Local Coastal Program Impacting Ponto Forever Date: January 23, 2020 at 10:30:21 AM PST To: Happy New Year, Neighbors and Friends People for Ponto! 2 The New Year is off and running and BIG things are happening in January for our favorite piece of remaining Open Space, Ponto. The Local Coastal Plan (LCP) is undergoing revisions and the Public Comment is welcome until January 30, 2020. (the original deadline was Nov 29, 2019 but People for Ponto requested more time for community involvement -YES, it's that important you know what's going on and have a voice!) Currently, Ponto (Planning Area F) is regulated as "nonresidential reserve" in the LCP meaning the City or a developer can't build on it without first considering it for use as a "Public Park". And, as you know, there is no Public Park in all South Carlsbad west of 1-5 but is sorely needed. The City and Coastal Commission are now taking public input on the NEED for a Public Park at Ponto. Their decision will impact the future of our coastline and Ponto forever. The Open Space at Ponto is a precious resource and if not fought for what a loss it will be -there simply isn't another opportunity to Develop Ponto Right! Yes, we know you have heard about this for a while and NOW is definitely the time to act! If the LCP changes, it opens the doors for a developer to pack in well over 100 condos, three stories at heights of 40 feet tall. This is a critical time. Please Protect Ponto by signing the new support letter at: www.people forponto. com/help It will also help to forward this 3 email to everyone you know - they don't have to live in Carlsbad to be part of the conversation because coastal land is for all to enjoy! Please do so before January 30, 2020 Thank you and follow us at: www.facebook.com/qroups/develo ppontoriqht/ www.instaqram.com/developpontor j_g1Af CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 4 Hector Gomez From: Council Internet Email Sent: To: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:29 AM City Clerk Subject: Attachments: FW: LCP Comments TR vs VC memo.pdf I believe LCP was on the agenda last week. From: Vickey Syage Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 9:31 AM To: Melanie Saucier <Melanie.Saucier@carlsbadca.gov> Cc: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>; Scott Chadwick <Scott.Chadwick@carlsbadca.gov>; Celia Brewer <Celia.Brewer@carlsbadca.gov>; Matthew Hall <Matt.Hall@carlsbadca.gov>; Cori Schumacher <Cori.Schumacher@CarlsbadCA.gov>; Keith Blackburn <Keith.Blackburn@carlsbadca.gov>; Priya Bhat-Patel <Priya.Bhat- Patel@CarlsbadCA.gov> Subject: LCP Comments Dear Ms. Saucier, I am very concerned with the new LCP's use of Visitor Commercial (VC) as a land use designation throughout the LCP document, a change from the old Travel Recreation (TR) designation. The City of Carlsbad, in the recent past, has argued to the Coastal Commission that these two terms were "synonymous" and that the change was "not substantive." They are not, as you can see by the attached memo dated April 6, 2016 sent by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department to then City Manager, Kevin Crawford. The memo demonstrates that there are HUGE differences in the land use designations, and outlines those differences very clearly and very definitively in plain English. The VC land designation wipes away the intentions set by the citizens of Carlsbad in the Proposition D voter initiative passed in 2006. Any new land designation MUST retain the definitions, limitations, and intentions of that voter initiative. Anything less is a complete overstep by the City of Carlsbad and another misrepresentation to the Coastal Commission. This LCP may NOT override the will of the Carlsbad voters. Please ensure the VC land use definitions in the LCP are in line with the intentions of Proposition D. Malls (such as the Carlsbad Forum or Carlsbad Premium Outlet Mall) and large hotels are not (see attached letter page 2). Neither is the "Addition of "visitor-attracting/serving retail" and "cinemas and other entertainment" (attached letter page 2) . Residential use (attached letter page 3) is specifically prohibited by Proposition D. The list goes on. As mentioned the opening paragraph of this email, the April 6, 2016 letter does a very good job of outlining the differences in the two land use designations in plain, simple English. Please ensure that the original land use definition of TR remains, regardless of what the new LCP renames it, and that the current City of Carlsbad land use definition of VC is stricken from the Proposition D properties covered by this LCP. I've attached both the April 6, 2016 letter and a link to Proposition D, both of which are to be included with my comment letter. Thank you. Kind Regards, Vickey Syage Attachments: April 6, 2016 letter from Jennifer Jesser, Senior Planner -City of Carlsbad to Kevin Crawford, City Manager -City of Carlsbad City of Carlsbad Proposition D links: 1 https://www.carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?Blob1D=34877 (Link NOT working on City of Carlsbad's website at the time of writing this email). http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07 /ca/sd/prop/D/ -Archived link to original voter material https://www.carlsbadca.gov/cityhall/clerk/summaries/propD.asp City of Carlsbad Proposition Overview Link CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 2 Memorandum April 6, 2016 To: Kevin Crawford, City Manager From: Jennifer Jesser, Senior Planner Via Gary Barberio, Assistant City Manager Re: Visitor Commercial (VC) Land Use Designation {'cityof Carlsbad The attached exhibits (described below) were prepared in response to recent community concerns and questions regarding the new Visitor Commercial (VC) General Plan land use designation applicable to numerous properties, including the property located at the northeast corner of Cannon Road and Interstate 5 (related to the Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan (AHSP) initiative). The information describes the intent of the changes adopted with the General Plan update, which changed the "Travel Recreation Commercial (TR)" land use designation to "Visitor Commercial (VC)", and describes how those changes relate to the AHSP initiative. Exhibits (attached): Exhibit A -Summary of TR to VC land use designation changes This exhibit provides information with answers to questions regarding the land use designation changes that were approved with the General Plan update, as well as how those changes were separate from and unrelated to the AHSP initiative. Exhibit B -Map of TR vs VC designated properties This exhibit shows the properties designated TR (prior to the General Plan update) and the properties designated VC (after the General Plan update). This shows that the TR to VC changes applied to numerous properties citywide, not just the AHSP initiative property. Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-4600 I 760-602-8560 fax EXHIBIT A SUMMARY TRAVEL RECREATION COMMERCIAL (TR) VS. VISITOR COMMERCIAL (VC) LAND USE DESIGNATIONS A. Background -General Plan Update In January 2008, the city initiated a comprehensive update to its General Plan. On September 22, 2015, the Carlsbad City Council approved the comprehensive General Plan update (text and land use map), including, for consistency with the General Plan, amendments to the city's Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Map, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map. The comprehensive General Plan update consisted of numerous changes to General Plan policies and information throughout all elements of the plan, including revisions to the Travel Recreation Commercial (TR) land use designation (part of the Land Use and Community Design Element), as described below. B. Compliance with Coastal Act -visitor serving commercial recreation is a priority land use Section 30222 of the California Coastal Act states: 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. Consistent with the Coastal Act, as part of the city's Local Coastal Program, the city has identified which lands are suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities. Historically, the city has utilized the Travel Recreation Commercial (TR) land use designation (or, prior to the 1994 General Plan update, the Travel Service Commercial (TS) land use designation) to identify the lands intended for visitor-serving commercial recreational land uses. C. What did the GP Update TR to VC land use designation changes include and why where the changes proposed? 1. General Plan text changes a. Land use designation title change The title "Travel Recreation Commercial (TR)" was replaced with "Visitor Commercial (VC)". The title change did not change the primary intent of the land use designation. In fact, the new "Visitor Commercial (VC)" title was intended to be more intuitive and user-friendly by more directly describing the intended land use of the designation. The title change also more directly reflects the expressed Coastal Act land use priority, and more clearly represents how the designation is different than the city's other commercial land use designations (Local Shopping Center (L), General Commercial (G), and Regional Commercial (R)). Whether the designation is titled TR or VC, the primary difference when compared to the other commercial designations is the focus on visitor-serving commercial and recreation uses. b. Minor changes to land use designation description All of the city's commercial designations provide sites for commercial uses that serve residents, as well as visitors. However, VC (or TR) is a designation that provides sites for uses that are more oriented to those that serve the needs of visitors; such as, hotels, visitor- serving retail, restaurants, gas stations, and recreation uses. The General Plan update included minor revisions to the description of the land use designation for reasons of clarity and consistency with the writing style of the updated General Plan; however, those changes did not change the intent of the designation. As shown below, both the "TR" and "VC" designations are intended for commercial uses that serve visitors. Table 1-Descriptions of TR and VC Land Use Designations TR Land Use Designation Description VC Land Use Designation Description (per previous General Plan Land Use Element) (per 2015 General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element) This land use category designates areas for This designation is intended to provide sites for visitor attractions and commercial uses that commercial uses that serve the travel, retail, shopping, serve the travel and recreational needs of entertainment, and recreation needs of visitors, tourists tourists, residents, as well as employees of and residents, as described in Table 2-4. business and industrial centers. c. Refined description of visitor commercial uses In addition to the title and the description of the VC land use designation changes, the General Plan update also refined the description oftypical land uses allowed in the VC land use designation. The changes added "visitor-attracting/serving retail" and "cinemas and other entertainment uses" to the description of the typical land uses allowed within the VC designation. The General Plan update also added the ability to include residential uses in combination with a visitor commercial development, provided the primary use of the property is visitor-serving. Table 2 -Descriptions of TR and VC Land Uses TR: Description of Travel Recreation Land Uses VC: Description of Visitor Commercial Land Uses (per previous General Plan Land Use Element) (per 2015 General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element) ... uses may include, but are not limited to, hotels ... uses may include, but are not limited to hotel/ motel, and motels, restaurants, recreation facilities, restaurant, recreation facilities, museums, travel support museums, travel support services, and specialty uses (e.g. gas station, car rental, grocery, convenience retail uses catering to tourists. store, etc.), visitor-attracting/ serving retail, amusement parks, cinemas and other entertainment uses. • Addition of "visitor-attracting/serving retail" and "cinemas and other entertainment uses" Since the last General Plan update in 1994, it has become evident that the types of uses that serve the travel, recreation and shopping needs of visitors (as well as tourists and residents) has expanded from the uses traditionally thought of as visitor-serving (i.e., hotels, restaurants, gas stations, souvenir shops). Commercial development in Carlsbad since 1994 has shown that visitors are also served (and drawn to the city) by specialty, visitor-serving and attracting retail developments, such as the Carlsbad Premium Outlets and The Forum Carlsbad. Entertainment uses (such as cinemas), like recreation uses, also serve the needs of visitors. The addition of "visitor-attracting/serving retail" and "cinemas and other entertainment uses" provides a more comprehensive and updated description of the types of uses that serve visitors, as well as tourists and residents, in Carlsbad today. 2 • Residential uses The updated General Plan specifies that residential may be permitted in the VC designation (in combination with a visitor commercial use), provided the primary use of the property is visitor-serving. Allowing residential uses in combination with a visitor commercial use: o Allows flexibility in project design o May assist in the viability of a commercial development o Promotes housing close to shopping and jobs (which reduces vehicle miles traveled and vehicle emissions) o Provides an opportunity to meet demands for different housing types o Is consistent with other commercial designations (all other commercial designations allow residential in the form of mixed use). Prior to approving any residential use on a site designated for commercial use, the city must find the proposal consistent with City Council Policy 43 (to allow a dwelling unit allocation from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank) and that the proposal is consistent with the Growth Management Program dwelling unit limitations. The TR to VC land use designation text changes described above were drafted concurrent with revisions to other land use designations that involved similar changes (title change and refined descriptions) -the titles of all residential designations were changed, all public designations (utility, schools, government) were combined into a single new designation titled "Public", and minor description changes were made to most designations. 2. General Plan Land Use Map changes On the Land Use Map, the land use designation title on all properties previously designated TR was changed to VC, which ensures consistency with the changes made to the General Plan text, described above. D. What is the approval status of the GP Update TR to VC land use designation changes? The City Council's approval of the updated General Plan became effective on October 22, 2015; however, the Local Coastal Program Land Use Map changes are not yet effective, as they are pending approval by the California Coastal Commission. Coastal Commission staff is currently reviewing the city's amendment proposal. Until approved by the Coastal Commission, there is inconsistency between the General Plan VC land use designation and Local Coastal Program Land Use Map TR land use designation. E. What properties were/are designated TR vs. VC? The attached Exhibit B shows the properties that were designated TR (prior to the General Plan update) and the properties designated VC after the approval of the General Plan update. Citywide, the General Plan update resulted in a net increase of 21 acres of land designated VC compared to the acres of land designated TR prior to the General Plan update. This increase is primarily due to the power plant site where the land use designation was changed from Utility (U) to Visitor Commercial (VC)/Open Space (OS) on approximately 70 acres. 3 Prior to the General Plan update, there were approximately 25 areas (single properties or contiguous groupings of parcels} designated TR (including sites that were designated TR in combination with other designations}. After the General Plan update, there are approximately 23 areas (single properties or contiguous groupings of parcels) designated VC (only one site is designated VC in combination with another designation -VC/OS on the power plant site}. F. Were the GP Update TR to VC changes proposed to allow for implementation of the Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan (AHSP) initiative? No. The AHSP initiative was a completely separate process from the GP Update. The AHSP Initiative proposed a stand-alone General Plan change that included the creation of a new "Visitor-Serving Commercial (VSC}" land use designation for a specific 203-acre property. The proposed VSC designation was a stand-alone designation for that particular property and was entirely different from and not dependent upon the GP Update TR to VC land use designation changes. The TR to VC land use designation changes were conceived, proposed and approved by the city as part of the General Plan update. The General Plan update was initiated by the city, was completely independent and unrelated to the AHSP initiative, and began nearly seven years prior to the AHSP initiative. The General Plan update was comprehensive, as it addressed the entire city geographically, updated the community's vision for the future and incorporated that vision into every element of the General Plan. The General Plan update involved extensive community involvement, including a 19 member citizens committee, numerous workshops and stakeholder meetings, two citywide surveys, and public hearings, which culminated in the City Council's approval of the comprehensive update in September 2015. G. HSP initiative The AHSP initiative was initiated on May 12, 2015, and culminated in the special election held on February 23, 2016, where Measure A was defeated, and on March 22, 2016 the rescission of the City Council prior approval of the AHSP. The initiative was proposed by Carlsbad residents, with the financial backing of Caruso Affiliated, completely independent of and not reliant upon the city's General Plan update. The AHSP initiative only addressed a specific and limited 203-acre geographic area east of Interstate- s, north of Cannon Road, and south of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The initiative proposed a new, detailed, specific, and unique General Plan land use designation titled "Visitor-Serving Commercial (VSC}", along with unique and specific standards and regulations for development of the property. The VSC designation proposed in the AHSP initiative was not the same as and was completely independent of the new General Plan VC land use designation adopted as a part of the General Plan update. As mentioned above, the initiative's proposed VSC designation was not dependent upon the GP Update TR to VC land use designation changes. The VSC designation is not in effect, as Measure A was defeated on March 22, 2016. Therefore, the General Plan VC land use designation applies to the property where the AHSP initiative was proposed. The property was designated TR prior to the General Plan update, and along with the numerous other TR properties, is now designated VC. 4 Prior to General Plan Update a Travel / Recreation Commercial Coastal Zone "1 _1 \ General Plan Update (Current) -Current Visitor Commercial Coastal Zone ( City of Previous Travel / Recreation Commercial and Carlsbad Current Visitor Commercial Land Use EXHIBIT B /' Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Update Jennifer Jesser, Senior Planner January 28, 2020 Tonight’s Objective •Introduce draft LCP Land Use Plan •Highlight key topics •Answer questions •Information item only 2 Other Implementing Documents Zoning Ordinance Update 2019-2020 LCP Land Use Plan 2017 Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment 2015 General Plan 2010 Community Vision We are here What is a Local Coastal Program •Required by California Coastal Act •Local implementation of Coastal Act •Maximize public access to coast and minimize impacts to coastal resources Coastal Act Required Topics •Public access to coast •Recreation •Marine environment •Land resources (ex: sensitive habitat) •Development Map of Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone •37% (14.4 sq. mi) within coastal zone •7 miles of coastline Why Update the Local Coastal Program •State grants •No comprehensive update since adoption •Updates needed to reflect current conditions •General Plan consistency Contents of the LCP1.Introduction 2.Land Use 3.Recreation/Visitor Serving Uses 4.Coastal Access 5.Agricultural, Cultural, Scenic Resources 6.Environmentally Sensitive Habitat & Water Quality 7.Coastal Hazards 8.Glossary Ch. 1 -Introduction•History of LCP segments •Coastal Commission permit authority •Implementation •Identifies core values of Carlsbad Community Vision Community Vision Thousands of community members have participated In the city-sponsored Envision Clrlstuld program to create a community vision for Carlsbad's future. The core values and vision st.tements emerging from this process serve as a guide for city leaden as they carry out their service to 11II who live, work and play ln the City of Clrls~d. e 0 • e e 0 I • Small town feel, beach community character and connectedness Enhance Carlsbad's defining attributes-its small town reel and beach community character. Build on the city's culture of civic engagement, volunteerism and philanthropy. Open space and the natural environment Prioritize protection and enhancement of open space and the natural environment. Support and protect Carlsbad's unique open space and agrlcultural heritage. Access to recreation and active, healthy lifestyles Promote active Ufestytes and community health by furthering access to trails, parks, beaches and other recreation opportunities. The local economy, business diversity and tourism Strengthen the city's strong and diverse economy and its position as an employment hub In north San Diego County. Promote business diversity, increased specialty retail and dining opportunities, and Carlsbad's tourism. Walking. biking, public transportation and connectivity Increase travel options through enhanced walking. bicycling and public transportaUon systems. Enhance mobility through Increased connectivity and intelligent transportation managemenL Sustainability Solid on the city's sustainability initiatives to emerge as a leader in green development and sustainability. Pursue public/ private partnerships, particutariy on sustainable water, energy, recycling and foods. History, the arts and cultural resources EmphaSi.Ze the arts by promoting a multitude of events and producttons ~ar-round, cuning-edge ~ues to host world· class performances. and ce4ebrate Cartsbad's cultural heritage in dedicated facilities and programs. High quality education and community services Support quality, comprehensive education and life·long learning opportunities, provide housing aOO community services for a changing population, and maintain a high staOOard for citywide public safety. Neighborhood revitalization, community design and livability Revitalize neighborhoods and enhance citywide community design and livabllity. Promote a greater mh< of uses citywide, more activities along the coastline and link density to public transportation. Revitalize the downtown VIiiage as a community focal point and a unique and memorable center for visitors, and rejuvenate the historic Barrio neighborhood. Ch. 2 –Land Use•Policies & land use designations updated consistent with General Plan Ch. 2 –Land Use•Areas with “special planning considerations” Carlsbad Boulevard/ d. nda Agua He ,o Ce_nter Cannon Road Open Space Farming & Public U se , Cor,ridor \ ' \ \ \ '- '- PontofSouthcrn , Waterfront A \ Ch. 2 –Land Use•Policies for Ponto area updated to reflect more recent planning efforts –General Plan –Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Ponto/Southern Waterfront B Ch. 2 –Land Use•Land use designations changed consistent with General Plan Ch. 3 -Recreation/Visitor Serving Uses •Protect recreation uses –Beaches –Parks –Water activities (fishing, boating) Ch. 3 -Recreation/Visitor Serving Uses •New timeshares prohibited in VC •Protection of lower-cost visitor accommodations Ch. 4 -Coastal Access •Protects & requires access to coast –Pedestrian access –Bicycle access –Vehicle access (incl. parking) Ch. 4 -Coastal Access •Incorporate city’s trails plan Ch. 4 -Coastal Access •Livable streets policies –Streets designed to meet needs of all travel modes Ch. 5 -Agriculture/Cultural/Scenic Resources•Agriculture –no change to existing policies •Info added to clarify past actions that regulate how agriculture is protected in Carlsbad Ch. 5 -Agriculture/Cultural/Scenic Resources •Protection of cultural resources –Policies updated with city’s 2017 guidelines Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines Prepared for: The City of Carlsbad, California Prepared by: ECORP Consulting, Inc. with contributions from Cogstone Resource Management September 2017 {cityof Carlsbad California Ch. 5 -Agriculture/Cultural/Scenic Resources •NEW –protect public views of ocean and lagoons –Views from public streets, trails, parks adjacent to ocean and lagoons •Consistent with Coastal Commission guidance Ch. 6 –Environmentally Sensitive Habitat & Water Quality •Carrying forward existing habitat protection policies •New policies clarify how to protect habitat not within HMP boundaries Ch. 6 –Environmentally Sensitive Habitat & Water Quality •Updated water quality policies consistent with regional standards Ch. 7 -Coastal Hazards•NEW -Sea level rise policies –Siting new development –Limited provisions for new seawalls –Move development to avoid public health and safety risks –Need for sea level rise adaptation plan Ch. 7 -Coastal Hazards •Flood hazard policies –Consistent with FEMA •Geologic & fire hazards –Consistent with General Plan Glossary & Appendices •Chapter 8 –Glossary •Appendix A –N. Coast Corridor Public Works Plan Overlay •Appendix B –Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment CITY OF CARLSBAD SEA LEVEL RISE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT December 2017 Public Review •Draft LCP released for public review on October 8, 2019 •Comments due by January 31, 2020 •About 50+ comment letters/emails received so far •Staff currently reviewing comments and will revise draft LCP as needed Next Steps •Planning Commission & City Council Hearings –June/August (tentative) •CA Coastal Commission Review & Hearing Public Review –Ponto •Common comments: –Request for redline version of draft LCP –Request for more workshops to plan use of vacant coastal lands –Request for park at Ponto Request for Redline Version •Redline (strikeout) version of existing plan is not practical to produce –Existing LCP is six separate land use plans –Draft LCP combines all into one land use plan •Comparison of existing policies to new plan will be prepared More Workshops to Plan Land Use •Requests for more workshops to plan the use of three sites: –Powerplant –Strawberry fields –Ponto More Workshops to Plan Land Use •General Plan update evaluated future use of Powerplant, Strawberry fields, Ponto, and many other sites –“opportunity sites” –Two workshops –land use alternatives –Citywide survey –land use alternatives –349 community feedback forms –19-member citizens committee –Public hearings More Workshops to Plan Land Use •In addition to General Plan community outreach: –Two workshops on sea level rise –One community meeting on draft LCP –All owners (12,848) in Coastal Zone notified –Email blast –Website, social media postings –Stakeholder meetings Request for Park at Ponto •Site is privately owned •Designated on land use map –R23 (multi-family residential) –GC (General Commercial) •Housing Element Site Request for Park at Ponto •Difficult to change from residential to open space use •SB 330 –Housing Crisis Act –Jan. 1, 2020 –no net loss of residential density/units •Housing Element update underway –Sites to meet RHNA will be challenge to find Review the Draft Plan www.carlsbadca.gov/ coastalupdate City of Carlsbad Draft Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan lef1@ftfflH=ffiffi INTERNATIONAL