Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 93-02; Residential Density Increases; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (7)*ATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Gowmor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO COAST AREA 31 11 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725 (619) 521-8036 City of Carl sbad Chri s DeCerbo 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 RE: City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program November 28, Amendment #1-94(C) 1 Dear Mr. DeCerbo, This letter is In referonce tc! the status of the above local coastal program amendment (LCPA). As you may recall, at the Commission's April 1994 hearing, pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30517, the Commission waived the applicable time limits upon which to act on LCPA #1-94 for a period not to exceed one year. The City had individually submitted three separate amendment requests; and, then it requested all three elements be reviewed at the next meeting in May as one amendment package. However, the portion of LCPA #1-94 which would allow residential density bonuses to enable the development of lower income affordable housing had been continued by staff pending consul tation with the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to clarify the Department's position with respect to this amendment request. In the interim, pending this consul tation, the other two amendment requests (Poinsettia Shores Master Plan and Aviara Phase 111 revisions) have been conditionally approved by the Coastal Commission. The remaining amendment is a proposed amendment to all six LCP segments (Mello I, Me1 lo 11, Vi 1 lage Redevelopment, Agua Hedionda, East Batiqui tos LagoonIHunt Properties and West Batiqui tos Lagoon/Sammis Properties) to include residential density bonuses to enable the development of lower income affordable housing. As you know, the proposed amendment would add a new land use policy which would allow residential density increases above the maximum residential densities permitted by the above LCP segments. Consul tation with HCD regarding their position on this amendment request has been initiated and remains on-geing. During this time, the Commission has also reviewed LCP measures from both the Cities of Imperial Beach and Encini tas which also addressed density bonus provisions. We can provide you with copies of those reports if you are interested; and, those actions have also precipitated further discussion with HCD representatives. However, as we have continued to review this amendment request, it has become more evident the amendment is lacking an implementation component. any implementation measures, which would identify how and under what circumstances density bonuses would occur, staff cannot really begin to evaluate or recommend approval of the amendment to the Commission. Without Specifically, we believe two ordinances, NS-207 - amending and adding to various chapters of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to allow consideration of standards for affordable housing projects, and ordinance NS-233 - the addition Chris DeCerbo November 28, 1994 Page 2 of Chapter 21.86 to the Municipal Code (Residential Density Bonus Or In-Lieu Incentives), should be submitted as implementing measures to the proposed amendment. Although they have been approved at the local level, they were not formally submitted as part of the local coastal program amendment package and were not publicly noticed as LCP implementing measures to the proposed LUP amendment. In addition, your transmittal references ZCA 92-02 and changes to Chapter 21.06 as implementation measures. These revisions should also be submitted; and, at my request, you did forward ZCA 92-02 over to our office. However, since they were not formally reviewed and adopted at the City as LCP amendments, they would not constitute legally binding measures upon which the Commission could evaluate the accompanying LUP revisions. Based on this, we believe it would be prudent for the City to withdraw the amendment request at this time. Based on your discussions with other City staff, you indicated the City's willingness to proceed in this manner. To document this approach, we would appreciate receiving a 1 etter of wi thdrawal at your earl i est conveni ence. Upon withdrawal of LCPA #1-94(C), the City would then recirculate the implementation measures/ordinance changes as LCP amendments. the City Council, the amendment package would then be resubmitted to this office for Commission review. Because the proposed amendment, including the cited ordinances, has already been approved at the local level , a timely resubmittal of the amendment package to this office is important. addition, we need to address the outstanding coastal issues related to density bonus projects before the City brings forward another specific project. Therefore, it is important to process the resubmittal in a timely fashion and I do not want this delay to be perceived as a lack of interest on our staff's part. but the only way I can see us being able to reconcile the issues in a mutually satisfactory manner is to have the complete package before us. Upon adoption by In Just the opposite, I think it's very important to resolve this matter Given that we initial ly asked the City to submit this package after dealing with the Villas proposal, I do apologize for the complications at this time. However, a time delay now and resubmittal is better than trying to deal with the issues raised in the present package alone. As Bill Ponder discussed with you, given the circumstances, the resubmittal would not be considered as a new amendment request to be counted against the limit of three major amendments identified in the Coastal Act. Please don't hesitate to call Bill Ponder or me if you have any questions. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, /. 'beborah N. Lee Assistant District Director DNL:bp(9874A)