Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 96-01; Hillside Development Ordinance; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (11)StATk OF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS. Oonmor , ALlFORNlA COASTAL COMMISSION AN DIEGO AREA 111 CAMIN0 DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE ZOO 619) 621d03S AN DIEGO, CA 02108-1726 May 18,1999 TO: COMMISSIONERS AND INTERESTED PERSONS FROM: DEBORAH LEE, SOUTH COAST DEPUTY DIRECTOR SHERILYN SARB, DISTRICT MANAGER, SAN DIEGO AREA OFFICE BILL PONDER COASTAL PROGRAM ANALYST, SAN DIEGO AREA OFFICE SUBJECT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON CITY OF CARLSBAD MAJOR AMENDMENT 1 -98D (For Public Hearing and Possible Commission Action at the Meeting of June 8- 1 1,1999) SYNOPSIS SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT REQUEST The subject amendment request revises the City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP) by proposing amendments to the certified implementation plan (Carlsbad Municipal Code). The proposed amendment to the Hillside Development Ordinance would amend and incorporate into the LCP the City’s hillside development regulations which were adopted by the City in 1989, but not adopted by the Coastal Commission. The ordinance has not been submitted for Commission review as a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) until now. The amendment was found suitable for filing in 1998 and was the subject of a time extension request at the Commission’s June, 1998 hearing where the Commission granted the time extension for a period not to exceed one year. Since that time, it has been held in abeyance pending resolution of concerns regarding conformance with the certified Land Use Plans (LUPs). The objectives of the zone code amendment are to streamline the hillside development process, clarify and simplify the hillside development chapter to make it more user friendly, and add new development standards to the hillside development chapter. The submittal also includes an amendment to Section 21 S3.230 (Residential Density Calculations, Residential Development Restrictions on Open Space and Environmentally Sensitive Lands). Section 21.53.230(b)(4) is proposed to be amended to add a reference to the Hillside Development Ordinance when defining natural slopes with an inclination of greater than 40% as undevelopable and excluded from density calculation. SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending denial of the proposed amendments as submitted and approval if modified as suggested in this report. The attached suggested modifications would bring the amendment into conformance with the certified LCP land use plan policies. Carlsbad LCPA 1-98D Page 2 The appropriate resolutions and motions begin on page 3. The suggested modifications begin on page 4. The findings for denial of the Implementation Plan Amendment as submitted begin on page 5. The findings for approval of the Implementation Plan Amendment, if modified, begin on page 9. BACKGROUND The City's certified LCP contains six geographic segments as follows: Agua Hedionda, Mello I, Mello 11, West Batiquitos LagoodSammis Properties and East Batiquitos LagoodHunt Properties. Pursuant to Sections 30170(f) and 30171 of the Public Resources Code, the Coastal Commission prepared and approved two portions of the LCP, the Mello I and I1 segments in 1980 and 1981, respectively. The Village Redevelopment Area LCP was certified in 1988; the City has been issuing coastal development permits there since that time. On October 21, 1997 the City assumed permit jurisdiction and has been issuing coastal development pepnits for all of its segments except Agua Hedionda. The Agua Hedionda Lagoon LCP segment remains as a deferred certification area until an implementation plan is certified. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Further information on the submittal may be obtained from Bill Ponder at the San Diego Area Office of the Coastal Commission at 3 1 1 1 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92108, (619) 521-8036. Carlsbad LCPA 1-98D Page 3 PART I. OVERVIEW A. STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard for Commission review of implementation plans is found in Section 3051 3 of the Coastal Act. Pursuant to Section 305 13 of the Coastal Act, the Commission may only reject zoning ordinances or other implementing actions, as well as their amendments, on the grounds that they do not conform with, or are inadequate to cany out, the provisions of the certified land use plan. The Commission shall take action by a majority vote of the Commissioners present. B. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The City has held both Planning Commission and City Council hearings with regard to the subject amendment request. Each of these local hearings were duly noticed to the public. Notice of the subject amendment has been distributed to all known interested parties. PART 11. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM SUBMITTAL - RESOLUTIONS Following a public hearing, staff recommends the Commission adopt the following resolution and findings. The appropriate motion to introduce the resolution and a staff recommendation are provided just prior to the resolution. A. RESOLUTION I (Resolution to approve certification of the City of Carlsbad LCP Implementation Plan Amendment #1-98D, as submitted) MOTION I I move that the Commission reject the City of Carlsbad LCP Implementation Plan Amendment # 1 -98D, as submitted. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends a - YES vote and the adoption of the following resolution and findings. An affirmative vote by a majority of the Commissioners present is needed to pass the motion. Resolution I The Commission hereby denies certification of the amendment request to the City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program on the grounds that the amendment does not conform with and is inadequate to carry out the provisions of the certified land use plan. There are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts, which the approval would have on the environment. Carlsbad LCPA 1-98D Page 4 B. RESOLUTION I1 (Resolution to approve certification of the City of Carlsbad LCP Implementation Plan Amendment 1 -98D, if modified) MOTION I1 I move that the Commission approve the City of Carlsbad Implementation Plan Amendment 1-98D, if it is modified in conformity with the suggested modifications set forth in this report. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends a YES vote and adoption of the following resolution and findings. An affirmative vote by a majority of the Commissioners present is needed to pass the motion. Resolution I1 The Commission hereby approves certification of the amendment request to the City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, if modified, on the grounds that, the amendment conforms with, and is adequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified land use plan. There are no feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts which the approval would have on the environment. PART 111. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS Staff recommends the following suggested revisions to the proposed Implementation Plan be adopted. The underlined sections represent language that the Commission suggests be added, and the &uck-wt sections represent language which the Commission suggests be deleted from the language as originally submitted. The entire submittal is attached for reference. 1. New language shall be added to Section 21.95.120(A) as follows: . . .Additionally, all hillside development processed pursuant to this chapter shall be consistent with all applicable policies of the certified Local Coastal Program(s) and shall not result in significant adverse impacts to coastal resources. Within the coastal zone, in case of conflict between this section and any other provision of Chapter 2 1.95 Hillside Development Regulations, this section shall apply. 2. New language shall be added to Section 21.95.120(B)(2) as follows: Outside the coastal zone, projects which propose the development of natural slopes defined in Subsection 2 1.95.120@)( 1) above shall nevertheless be allowed, Carlsbad LCPA 1-98D Page 5 only if the project qualifies as an exclusion or obtains a modification, pursuant to Sections 21.95.130 and 21.95.140, respectively. 3. New language shall be added to Section 21.95.130 (A) as follows: Outside the coastal zone, the following are excluded from the Hillside Development and Design Standards of Section 21.95.120.. . . 4. New language shall be added to new Subsection 21.95.130 (B) as follows: Within the coastal zone, grading for construction of Circulation Element roadways are excluded from Sections 21.38.141(C)(l)(a) and 21.203.04O(A)(l) of the Municipal Code. 5. New language shall be added to Section 21.95.140 (A) as follows: Outside the coastal zone, the decisionmaking body or official may approve a modification to the Hillside Development and Design Standards of Section 21.95.120 if it finds that the proposed development complies with the Purpose and Intent provisions of Section 2 1.95.0 10 and makes one or more of the following findings.. . . 6. New language shall be added to Section 21.53.230 (d) as follows: Residential development on slopes with an inclination of twenty-five to forty percent, inclusive, shall be designed to minimize the amount of grading necessary to accommodate the project. For projects within the coastal zone, the grading provisions of the Carlsbad local coastal program and Sections 2 1.38 and 21.203. of the Municipal Code shall apply. PART IV. FINDINGS FOR REJECTION OF THE CARLSBAD 1-98D IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT, AS SUBMITTED A. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION - Hillside Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.95) The subject amendment request revises the City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP) by amending and incorporating the City’s Hillside Development Ordinance (Chapters 21.95). The City’s Municipal Code functions as the implementation plan for Carlsbad’s LCP. Accordingly, a local coastal program amendment is proposed to ensure consistency between the proposed amended municipal code and the City’s LCP. The existing hillside development regulations were adopted by the City in 1989 but not adopted by the Coastal Commission. The objectives of the zone code amendment are to streamline the hillside development process, clarify and simplify the hillside development Carlsbad LCPA 1-98D Page 6 chapter to make it more user friendly, and add new development standards to the hillside development chapter. B. SUMMARY FINDINGS FOR REJECTION 1) Purpose and Intent of the Ordinance. The purpose and intent of the Hillside Development Ordinance is to implement the goals and objectives of the Land Use and Open Space/Conservation Elements of the Cklsbad General Plan; assure hillside conditions are properly identified and incorporated into the planning process; preserve and/or enhance the aesthetic qualities of natural hillsides and manufactured slopes by designing projects which relate to the slope of the land; minimize the amount of project grading, and incorporate contour grading into manufactured slopes which are located in highly visible public locations; assure that the alteration of natural hillsides will be done in an environmentally sensitive manner whereby lagoons and riparian ecosystems will be protected from increased erosion and no substantial impacts to natural resource areas, wildlife habitats or native vegetation areas will occur. 2) Major Provisions of the Ordinance. The major provisions of the ordinance include distinguishing between natural and manufactured slopes; providing definitions for natural slopes and manufactured slopes; identifying the development of manufactured slopes shall continue to be regulated by the ordinance but shall not require a hillside development permit; identifying the regrading of or encroachment into manufactured slopes of greater than 40% gradient shall be subject to new manufactured slope development and design standards; identifying a Hillside Development Permit (HDP) is only required if a project proposes to develop a natural slope which has a gradient of 15% or greater and an elevation differential of greater than 15%. The existing ordinance indicates that a HDP is required if the property has a slope of 15% gradient or more and an elevation difference of greater than 15 feet, regardless of whether the identified slope area is proposed for development. The ordinance identifies one single family dwelling unit on a residentially zoned lot. and the proposed regrading, slope alteration or other development encroachment on or into any manufactured slope or other graded area which has been graded consistent with a previously authorized grading permit. would no longer require a HDP. However, these types of projects would still be required to comply with the Hillside Development and Design Standards of the Hillside Ordinance and would be evaluated for compliance through the grading plan and building plan review processes. Additionally, a coastal development permit would be required wihich would assure conformance with the certified LUP and Sections 2 1.3 8 and 2 1.203 of the Municipal Code. The ordinance also adds new development standards for the development standards of manufactured slopes of greater than 40% gradient, and adds specific building setbacks from top/edge of slopes of greater than 40% as follows: A 10’ - 15’ setback for building up to 15’ tall; a 15’ - 20’ setback for building taller than 15’. It allows the development of up to 50’ tall manufactured slopes if the gradient is less than 50% and the slope is contour graded. The ordinance provides Carlsbad LCPA 1-98D Page 7 that similar to Circulation Element Roads, Collector Streets which are necessary to provide primary or secondary access to a property would be exempted from complying with the development prohibition of natural slopes greater than 40% gradient. 3) Adequacy of the Ordinance to Implement the Certified LUP Segments. The standard of review for LCP implementation submittals or amendments is their consistency with and ability to carry out the provisions of the certified LUP. In the case of the subject LCP amendment, the City’s Municipal Code serves as the Implementation Program for the Carlsbad LCP. The Carlsbad LCP has a number of provisions that protect coastal resources, including naturally vegetated steep slopes. The various Carlsbad LUP segments have policies which state that grading and erosion control on sensitive “dual criteria” (naturally vegetated and over 25% grade) slopes is prohibited unless.the application of the policy would preclude any reasonable use of the property. The policy does not apply to the construction of roads on the City’s Circulation Element or the development of utility systems. Subsection 21.95.120(D) of the proposed Hillside Ordinance specifies that “All development on slopes of twenty-five percent or greater within the coastal zone shall comply with the requirements of the coastal overlay zone” which are Chapter 21.203 (Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone) and Chapter 21.38 (Additional Standards: Rancho La Costa, Batiquitos Lagoon Watershed). These overlay zones contain the same provisions as the above referenced LUP policies and are attached as Exhibit 3 and 4 to this report. Proposed Subsection 2 1.95.120 (A)( 1) states that “All development on natural slopes of twenty-five percent or greater within the coastal zone shall comply with the requirements of Chapters 21.38 and 21.203 of the certified LCP and all hillside development shall be consistent with the policies of the certified LCP.” Chapters 2 1.38 and 2 1 -203 of the certified LCP contain implementation policy language addressing grading on slopes greater than 25% grade and the policies are not being modified or removed from the certified LCP with this amendment. However, Section 2 1.95.120(B) of the proposed Hillside Development Ordinance provides that projects which propose development of natural slopes shall be allowed if the project qualifies as an exclusion or modification, pursuant to Sections 2 1.95.130 (Exclusions) and 2 1.95.140 (Modifications to Development and Design Standards) respectively. The former section allows Circulation Element and Collector roadways to disturb otherwise undevelopable areas provided the proposed alignment(s) are environmentally preferred. The amendment provides that similar to Circulation Element Roads, Collector Streets which are necessary to provide primary or secondary access to a property would be exempted from complying with the development prohibition of natural slopes greater than 40% gradient. This section also allows remedial grading on hillside areas to correct unusual soil or geotechnical conditions. Carisbad LCPA 1-98D Page 8 These sections of the proposed Hillside Ordinance are inconsistent with the certified LUP policies which prohibit grading on dual criteria slopes. The certified LUP policies allow development of sensitive areas to accommodate Circulation Element roads but no such exception exists for collector streets and remedial grading. These exceptions would not ensure that coastal resources are protected in the coastal zone consistent with the existing resource protection policies of the certified LCP. Therefore, because the proposed amendment is not consistent with the resource protection provisions of the certified land use plans, the amendment must be denied. A. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION - Residential Density Calculations, Residential Development Restrictions on Open Space and Environmentally Sensitive Lands (Chapter 2 1 S3.230) Section 21.53.230(b)(4) is proposed to be amended to add a reference to Section 21.95.120(B) when identifying natural slopes with an inclination of greater than 40% as undevelopable, to be consistent with the proposed provisions of the Hillside Development Ordinance. B. SUMMARY FINDINGS FOR REJECTION 1) Purpose and Intent of the Ordinance. The purpose and intent of Chapter 21 S3.230, Residential Density Calculations, Residential Development Restrictions on Open Space and Environmentally Sensitive Lands, is to provide direction on how residential density shall be determined based on the number of dwelling units per developable acre of property. 2) Major Provisions of the Ordinance. The major provisions of the ordinance include specifying what lands are considered to be undevelopable and thus excluded from density calculation. These lands include: beaches, permanent bodies of water, floodways, natural slopes with an inclination of greater than 40% except as permitted pursuant to Section 2 1.95.120 (B) of this Code; significant wetlands, significant riparian or woodland habitats, land subject to major transmission easements, land upon which other significant environmental features as determined by the environmental review process for a project are located, and railroad track beds. The reference to Section 2 1.95.120 (B) of the Hillside Development Ordinance is the change proposed with this amendment. The ordinance provides that no residential development shall occur on such property but the City may permit limited development of such property if the prohibition against development would constitute an unconstitutional taking of property. Finally, the ordinance provides that residential development on slopes with a gradient of twenty-five to forty percent shall be designed to minimize the amount of grading necessary to accommodate the project. For projects within the coastal zone, the grading provisions of the Carlsbad local coastal program shall apply. 3) Adequacy of the Ordinance to Implement the Certified LUP Segments. The standard of review for LCP implementation submittals or amendments is their consistency with and ability to carry out the provisions of the certified LUP. In the case Carlsbad LCPA 1-98D Page 9 of the subject LCP amendment, the City’s Municipal Code serves as the Implementation Plan for the Carlsbad LCP. As noted, the Carlsbad LCP has a number of provisions that protect coastal resources, including naturally vegetated steep slopes. The various Carlsbad LUP segments have policies which state that grading and erosion control on sensitive “dual criteria” (naturally vegetated and over 25% grade) slopes is prohibited unless the application of the policy would preclude any reasonable use of the property. The policy does not apply to the construction of roads on the City’s Circulation Element or the development of utility systems. Subsection 21.53.230(d) provides that residential development on slopes with a gradient of twenty-five to forty percent shall be designed to minimize the amount of grading necessary to accommodate the project. For projects within the coastal zone, the grading provisions of the Carlsbad local coastal program shall apply. For the same reasons as the above findings for denial of the Hillside Development Ordinance, the Commission finds this ordinance revision is inconsistent with the certified LUP policies which prohibit grading on dual criteria slopes. While the ordinance references that grading provisions of the Carlsbad LCP shall apply, the Commission desires more specificity as to what those specifications are. This specificity is provided in Sections 21.38 and 21.203 of the certified implementation plan (Carlsbad Municipal Code). Because the amendment does not propose this specificity regarding consistency with the resource protection provisions of the certified land use plans, the amendment must be denied. Additionally, the reference to the section of the Hillside Development Ordinance would be inconsistent with the certified land use plan policies and the sections of the municipal code applicable in the coastal zone. The revision would provide for exceptions that would be in confict with the provisions of the LCP addressing development of dual criteria slopes. The certified LUP policies allow development of sensitive areas to accommodate Circulation Element roads but no such exception exists for collector streets and remedial grading. These exceptions would not ensure that coastal resources are protected in the coastal zone consistent with the existing resource protection policies of the certified LCP. Therefore, because the proposed amendment is not consistent with the resource protection provisions of the certified land use plans, the amendment must be denied. The Commission finds that, as modified above, the subject amendment to the implementation plan is consistent with and adequate to carry out the policies of the certified LUP. PART V. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD LCP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT #1-98D, IF MODIFIED The standard of review for implementation plans is Section 305 13 of the Coastal Act. Pursuant to Section 305 13 of the Coastal Act, the Commission may only reject zoning ordinances or other implementing actions, as well as their amendments, on the grounds that they do not conform with, or are inadequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified land use plan. As identified above, the proposed implementation plan amendments cannot be found consistent with the resource protection provisions of the Carlsbad LCPA 1-98D Page 10 certified Carlsbad LCP. Specifically, the proposed Hillside Development Ordinance is inconsistent with the certified LUP policies which prohibit grading on dual criteria slopes. The certified LUP policies allow development of sensitive areas to accommodate Circulation Element roads but no such exception exists for collector streets and remedial grading. These exceptions would not ensure that coastal resources are protected in the coastal zone consistent with the existing resource protection policies of the certified LCP. However, the following Suggested Modifications would bring the proposed Hillside Ordinance into conformance with the resource protection policies of the respective LUP segments. Regarding Section 2 1.95.120(A) (Coastal Zone Hillside Development Regulations), the following is proposed: . . .Additionally, all hillside development processed pursuant to this chapter shall be consistent with all applicable policies of the certified Local Coastal Program(s) and shall not result in significant adverse impacts to coastal resources. Within the coastal zone, in case of conflict between this section and any other provision of Chapter 2 1.95 Hillside Development Regulations, this section shall apply. Regarding Section 2 1.95.120(B)(2) (Development of Natural Slopes of Over 40% Gradient), the following is proposed: Outside the coastal zone, projects which propose the development of natural slopes defined in Subsection 2 1.95.120(B)( 1 ) above shall nevertheless be allowed, only if the project qualifies as an exclusion 7- or obtains a modification-, pursuant to Sections 21.95.130 and 21.95.140, respectively. Regarding Section 21.95.130 (A) (Exclusions), the following is proposed: Outside the coastal zone, the following are excluded from the Hillside Development and Design Standards of Section 2 1.95.120.. . . Regarding new Subsection 2 1.95.130 (B)( Exclusions), the following is proposed: Within the coastal zone, grading for construction of Circulation Element roadways are excluded from Sections 21.38.141(C)(l)(a) and 21.203.040(A)(l) of the MuniciDal Code. Regarding Section 2 1.95.140 (A) (Modifications), the following is proposed: Outside the coastal zone, the decisionmaking body or official may approve a modification to the Hillside Development and Design Standards of Section 2 1.95.120 if it finds that the proposed development complies with the Purpose and Intent provisions of Section 2 1.95.0 10 and makes one or more of the following findings.. . . Carlsbad LCPA 1-98D Page 11 As modified above, the ordinance will ensure that coastal resources are protected within the coastal zone. As suggested for modification, in case of conflict between the exclusion and modification provisions of the city-wide hillside ordinance and the resource protection policies of the certified LUPs, the latter would prevail. That is, only outside the coastal zone would the development of natural slopes be allowed if the project qualifies as an exclusion or obtains a modification from hillside ordinance regulations. As suggested for modification, no impacts to dual criteria slopes could occur through the exclusion or modification provisions of the proposed ordinance outside those already permitted in the certified LUPs. Also, the proposed revisions provide specificity that within the coastal zone, grading for construction of Circulation Element roadways are excluded from Sections 21.38.141(C)(l)(a) and 21.203.04O(A)(l) ofthe Municipal Code as is presently the case in the certified LCP. Thus, as modified above, the Commission finds that the subject amendment to the implementation plan is consistent with and adequate to carry out the policies of the certified LUP. Regarding the proposed changes to Chapter 2 1 S3.230 Residential Density Calculations, Residential Development Restrictions on Open Space and Environmentally Sensitive Lands, the Commission found above that more specificity was needed to ensure consistency with the resource protection provisions identified in the certified Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zones. This specificity is provided in Sections 21.38 and 21.203 of the certified implementation plan (Carlsbad Municipal Code). These sections identie that dual criteria slopes are prohibited from development within the coastal zone except for Circulation Element Roads, installation of utilities, to provide access to flatter, developable areas, or if reasonable use of the property would be precluded. Thus, the suggested modification proposes that Section 2 1.53.230(d) be revised as follows: Residential development on slopes with an inclination of twenty-five to forty percent, inclusive, shall be designed to minimize the amount of grading necessary to accommodate the project. For projects within the coastal zone, the grading provisions of the Carlsbad local coastal program and Sections 21.38 and 21.203. of the Municipal Code shall apply. As modified above, the Commission finds the amendment can be found consistent with the resource protection provisions of the certified land use plans; therefore, it can be approved. PART VI. CONSISTENCY WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) Section 21080.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exempts local government from the requirement of preparing an environmental impact report (EIR) in connection with its local coastal program. Instead, the CEQA responsibilities are assigned to the Coastal Commission and the Commission's LCP review and approval program has been found by the Resources Agency to be functionally equivalent to the EIR process. Thus, under CEQA Section 21080.5, the Commission is relieved of the responsibility to prepare an EIR for each LCP. Carlsbad LCPA 1-98D Page 12 Nevertheless, the Commission is required in an LCP submittal or, as in this case, an LCP amendment submittal, to find that the LCP, or LCP, as amended, does conform with CEQA provisions. The proposed amendment deals with a change to the hillside development regulations and development restrictions on open space and environmentally sensitive lands within the City's coastal zone. As submitted, the proposed ordinance revisions can result in inappropriate impacts to coastal resources. However, as modified, the amendment provides sufficient protection to coastal resources by prohibiting such impacts within the coastal zone. Therefore, the Commission finds that approval of the zoning amendment, as modified, will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts under the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act and that the proposed changes can be made. (CARLCPA198Dfnlstffrpt6.99)