The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-11-27; City Council; 21060; CA Coastal Accomodation ZCA 10-06A LPCA 10-05ACITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL 13 AB# 21.060 CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS TO DEPT. DIRECTOR(J.^p^ MTG. 11/27/12 REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION CITY ATTORNEY ' DEPT. CED ORDINANCE ZC A 10-06( A)/LPC A 10-05( A) CITY MANAGER ^5C^ RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council hold a public hearing and INTRODUCE Ordinance No. CS-196 . APPROVING an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance (ZCA 10-06(A)), thereby ACCEPTING and ADMINISTERING the Coastal Commission's suggested modifications to the City of Carisbad Local Coastal Program (LCPA 10- 05(A)). ITEM EXPLANATION: On March 22, 2011, the City Council amended the Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program by approving a new Zoning Ordinance chapter on reasonable accommodation. The chapter provides flexibility in the application of land use and building regulations, including waiver of certain requirements, for individuals with disabilities to use and enjoy housing. "Flexibility" must be reasonable, necessary, or feasible and may not fundamentally alter the nature of the city's land use regulations. Since the Zoning Ordinance is an implementing ordinance ofthe Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, approval of the amendments requires certification by the California Coastal Commission before it is effective. Approval ofthe reasonable accommodation standards fulfills Program 3.11 ofthe adopted Housing Element. On October 11, 2012, the Coastal Commission certified the amendments conditioned upon the city making certain changes, or "suggested modifications." This certification, and thus the reasonable accommodation standards, will not become effective until (1) the City Council accepts and administers the suggested modifications and (2) the city's approval of the modifications is reported to the Coastal Commission and confirmed by its Executive Director. The suggested modifications propose only minor clarifying changes and are summarized as follows: 1. In the definition of "reasonable accommodation." explain that a request for flexibility or a waiver is not to require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the city's land use regulations, including the Local Coastal Program. 2. In the applicability section of the standards, clarify a developer of housing for an individual with disabilities is obligated to comply with all regulations not at issue in the reasonable accommodation request. 3. In the section providing details about the application for a reasonable accommodations request, add the requirement that an applicant is to state the provision or practice from which a flexibility or waiver is sought and the reason why the provision or practice precludes reasonable accommodation. FISCAL IMPACT: Fiscal impact is negligible. Approval would require only minimal staff time to notify the Coastal Commission of the City Council's action and to file a notice of exemption of environmental impact with the County Clerk. DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Scott Donnell 760-602-4618 scott.donnell@carisbadca.qov FOR CITY CLERK'S USE ONLY. COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC • DENIED 3 CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN • CONTINUED • RETURNED TO STAFF • WITHDRAWN • OTHER-SEE MINUTES • AMENDED • Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Approval of the suggested modifications is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. This determination is based on Municipal Code Section 19.04.070 A.l.c.(l), which exempts minor zone code amendments that do not lead to physical improvements beyond those typically exempt or that refine or clarify existing land use standards, and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). which states "when it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA." EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Ordinance No. CS-196 2. Coastal Commission suggested modifications to Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance in strikeout/underiine format 3. October 3, 2012, Addendum and September 20, 2012 staff report to the Coastal Commission (prepared by Coastal Commission stafO EXHIBIT 1 1 ORDINANCE NO. CS-196 2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS OF 3 RECENTLY ADDED AND ENACTED ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 21.87, REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION, AND 4 THEREBY ACCEPTING AND ADMINISTERING THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION'S SUGGESTED 5 MODIFICATIONS TO LCPA 10-05. CASE NAME: REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION 6 SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS CASE NO.: ZCA 10-06(A)/LCPA 10-05(A) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on January 19, 2011, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider adding standards for reasonable accommodation requests to the Zoning Ordinance pursuant to Zone Code Amendment (ZCA 10-06) and Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 10-05); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted resolutions No. 6748 and 6749, recommending to the City Council approval of ZCA 10-06 and LCPA 10-05; and WHEREAS, the City Council, on March 22, 2011, held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider ZCA 10-06 and LCPA 10-05, and introduced Ordinance No. CS-125 to approve ZCA 10-06, and adopted Resolution No. 2011-048, to approve LCPA 10-05; and WHEREAS, the City Council, on April 5, 2011, passed, approved and adopted Ordinance No. CS-125; and WHEREAS, the approval of both Ordinance No. CS-125 and Resolution No. 2011-048 is subject to Coastal Commission approval (certification) of LCPA 10-05; and WHEREAS, on October 11, 2012, the California Coastal Commission approved LCPA 10-05 conditioned upon the city making certain changes, or "suggested modifications," and WHEREAS, accepting and administering the California Coastal Commission's 2^ suggested modifications, as set forth in this ordinance, is necessary to comply with the 2y California Coastal Act and California Administrative Code; and 28 1 WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission suggested modifications are 2 clarifications of the reasonable accommodation standards rather than substantial modifications 3 as described in Zoning Ordinance Section 21.52.050 B.2. and therefore do not require further 4 review by the City's Planning Commission. 5 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carisbad does ordain as 6 follows: 7 SECTION 1: That Section 21.87.020 A.2. of the Carisbad Municipal Code, as 8 previously approved pursuant to Ordinance No. CS-125, is modified to read as follows: 9 2. "Reasonable accommodation" means, in the land use and zoning context, providing individuals with disabilities or developers of housing for people with disabilities: (1) 10 reasonable, necessary, or feasible flexibility in the application of land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices and procedures, or (2) the waiver of certain 11 requirements when it is necessary to provide equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing and/or eliminate barriers to housing opportunities so long as the requested flexibility or waiver would 12 not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the city's land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices, and procedures, and the city's Local Coastal Program. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 A. Application for a request for reasonable accommodation shall be made in writing 22 on a form provided by the planning director. The form shall be signed by the property owner or authorized agent. The application shall state fully the circumstances and conditions relied upon 23 as grounds for the application and shall be accompanied by adequate plans and all other materials as specified by the planning director. The application shall include the zoning, land 24 use or building code provision, regulation, policy or practice from which modification or exception for reasonable accommodation is being requested including an explanation of how 25 application of the existing zoning, land use or building code provision, regulation, policy or practice would preclude the provision of reasonable accommodation. 26 " 27 28 SECTION 2: That Section 21.87.030 C. of the Carisbad Municipal Code, as previously approved pursuant to Ordinance No. CS-125, is modified to read as follows: C. A request for reasonable accommodation in regulations, policies, practices and procedures may be filed at any time that the accommodation may be necessary to ensure equal access to housing. A reasonable accommodation does not affect the obligations of an individual or a developer of housing for an individual with disabilities to comply with other applicable regulations not at issue in the requested accommodation. SECTION 3: That Section 21.87.040 A. of the Carisbad Municipal Code, as previously approved pursuant to Ordinance No. CS-125, is modified to read as follows: /// /// 1 EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption; 2 and the city clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause the full text of the ordinance 3 or a summary of the ordinance prepared by the City Attorney to be published at least once in a 4 newspaper of general circulation in the City of Carisbad within fifteen days after its adoption. 5 {Notwithstanding the preceding, this ordinance shall not be effective until approved by the 6 California Coastal Commission.) 7 INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carisbad City 8 Council on the 27th day of . November 2012, and thereafter. 9 /// 10 /// 11 /// 12 /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// -3- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of 2 Carisbad on the day of 2012, by the following vote, to wit: 3 AYES: 4 NOES: 5 ABSENT: 6 ABSTAIN: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY MATT HALL, Mayor ATTEST: LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk (SEAL) 10 RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT 2 COASTAL COMMISSION SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS TO REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION ORDINANCE - ZCA 10-06(A)/LCPA 10-05(A) Ordinance CS-125 (approved by the City Council on March 22, 2011) will not be effective until the City Council approves the Coastal Commission's suggested modifications to the ordinance and the city's approval of the modifications is reported to the Coastal Commission and confirmed by its Executive Director. The suggested modifications are shown below and indicated by bold text or stricken text. SECTION 1: That Section 21.87.020 A.2. of the Carisbad Municipal Code, as previously approved pursuant to Ordinance No. CS-125, is modified to read as follows: 2. "Reasonable accommodation" means, in the land use and zoning context, providing individuals with disabilities or developers of housing for people with disabilities: (1) reasonable, necessary, or feasible flexibility in the application of land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices and procedures, or (2) the waiver of certain requirements when it is necessary to provide equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing and/or eliminate barriers to housing opportunitiesT so long as the requested flexibility or waiver would not require a fundamental alteration In the nature of the city's land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices, and procedures, and the city's Local Coastal Program. SECTION 2: That Section 21.87.030 C. of the Carisbad Municipal Code, as previously approved pursuant to Ordinance No. CS-125, Is modified to read as follows: C. A request for reasonable accommodation in regulations, policies, practices and procedures may be filed at any time that the accommodation may be necessary to ensure equal access to housing. A reasonable accommodation does not affect the obligations of an individual^ or a developer of housing for an individual with disabilities obligations to comply with other applicable regulations not at issue in the requested accommodation. SECTION 3: That Section 21.87.040 A. of the Carisbad Municipal Code, as previously approved pursuant to Ordinance No. CS-125, is modified to read as follows: A. Application for a request for reasonable accommodation shall be made In writing on a form provided by the planning director. The form shall be signed by the property owner or authorized agent. The application shall state fully the circumstances and conditions relied upon as grounds for the application and shall be accompanied by adequate plans and all other materials as specified by the planning director. The application shall include the zoning, land use or building code provision, regulation, policy or practice from which modification or exception for reasonable accommodation is being requested including an explanation of how application of the existing zoning, land use or building code provision, regulation, policy or practice would preclude the provision of reasonable accommodation. STATE OF CAUFORNIA-THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EXHIBIT 3 EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN OIEGO AREA 7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-4402 (619) 767-2370 Th24a Addendum October 3, 2012 Click here to go to the original staff report. To: Commissioners and Interested Persons From: California Coastal Commission San Diego Staff Subject: Addendum to Item Th24a City of Carlsbad Major LCP Amendment No. CAR-MAJ-2-11-A (Reasonable Accommodation) for the Commission Meeting of October 10-12, 2012 Since the time of the original staff report, the City submitted comments in response to the staff report regarding its LCP amendment request which would add a new chapter into its LCP in order to review and grant reasonable accommodations. The City's correspondence is attached. The City asserts that they do not expect many requests for reasonable accommodation to be sought and since coastal development permits will still need to be obtained, adequate protection of coastal resources will be provided. The City has therefore requested that the majority of suggested modifications be removed from the staff report. Commission staff has reviewed the City's comments, and, in response to this request, as well as the review of other state-wide Coastal Commission precedents regarding reasonable accommodations, staff concurs. Specifically, the modifications inserting language describing the coastal development permit review process into the City's chapter for reasonable accommodation requests can be removed. That being said, three suggested modifications clarifying the definition of "reasonable accommodation" and the procedure for reviewing reasonable accommodations are still included. As such, staff recommends the Commission ADOPT the following changes to the above- referenced staff report. Language to be added will be shown in underline and language to be deleted will be shown in strike out. 1. Modify the ^'Summary of Staff Recommendation" beginning on Page 2 as follows: The Commission can only reject such amendments where it can be shown that the amendment would be inconsistent with the certified Land Use Plan (LUP) and/or render the Implementation Program (IP) inadequate to carry out the LUP. Addendum to CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation Page 2 Staff recommends denial of the amendment as proposed, and then approval of the amendment with five three suggested modifications. For the most part, the Commission is not chiefly concerned with the review and approval of a request for a reasonable accommodation as it relates to the threshold criteria of whether or not a requestor of a reasonable accommodation is medically qualified to make such a request. However, when the authorization of reasonable accommodations includes allowing flexibility in the City's application of land use, zoning, and building code regulations, the Commission does have an interest in assuring that any potential impacts to coastal resources be identified, feasible altematives reviewed, the least environmentally damaging alternative implemented; and, if impacts to any coastal resources are determined to be unavoidable, the appropriate feasible mitigation is provided. Without the inclusion of this process, protection of coastal resources cannot be assured. In this case, the City has included language in three separate sections of the proposed Reasonable Accommodation ordinance (21.87.030(C). 21.87.050(A). and 21.87.060(D)) that specifies when a reasonable accommodation is requested within the coastal zone, the request must still fundamentally comply with the LCP and issuance of a coastal development permit will still be necessary. It is through the review and issuance of the coastal development permit that impacts to coastal resources will be adequately analyzed. That being said. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the implementation plan as submitted, and then approval of the zoning amendment with five three suggested modifications to address this concem. The basis for the inclusion of the three suggested modification are discussed below. The primary intent of the suggested modifications is to clarify that review of any proposed reasonable accommodation still needs to be found consistent with tho policies and adhere to all the regulations included in the City's LCP unless it is demonstrated that reasonable accommodation would bo precluded. As proposed by the City, the provisions do not require the applicant to identify any potential impacts to any coastal resources associated with a devolopment proposal, nor does it require an altematives analysis to be included in the proposal and tho least environmentally damaging alternative to be implemented. Tho language also fails to require that, should impacts to coastal resources be unavoidable, appropriate feasible mitigation measures are included. Without this typo of review, the protection of coastal resources cannot bo guaranteed, which is inconsistent with the underlying purpose of the Cit>^'s certified LCP. The term "coastal resources" includes: visual or physical access to and along tho coast; sensitive vegetation and wildlife; natural features of the coast such as bluffs, as well as tho protection of existing structures from hazards such as flood, fire, and geologic stability; and, without adequate protection of these resources, the proposed amendment is inconsistent with numerous policies within tho Cit>^'s LCP. As such, staff is suggesting two modifications to the City's proposed language. Suggested modification ffl would require any applicant to provide, as a component of their reasonable accommodation application, an assessment prepared by a qualified professional, which would include identification of any impacts to coastal resources, an altematives analysis minimizing the identified impacts, and proposed feasible Addendum to CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation Page 3 mitigation should the impacts be unavoidable. Suggested modification //I requires that the Cit>^ find, when reviewing a specific reasonable accommodation application, that the proposed development has been sited in order to eliminate or minimize any impacts to coastal resources, that the alternative implemented is the least environmentally damaging altemative feasible; and, that all unavoidable impacts be mitigated consistent with tho mitigation requirements of the Cit>^'s certified LCP. Staff is also suggesting three additional modifications, including tho following: (I) require that review of the reasonable accommodation request shall be done concurrently with any discretionary review, including a coastal development permit application (Suggested Modification No. 3); (2) clarify that if the reasonable accommodation proposal also includes a coastal development permit, an appeal of the decision will also be govemed by the appeal procedure for coastal development permits (Suggested Modification No. 5); and (3) Suggested Modification #1 has been included to further define "reasonable accommodation" to include that a reasonable accommodation mav be one that requires a deviation from an LCP policv but it mav not be a request that fundamentally alters the nature of the LCP. Suggested Modification #2 has been included to clarify that both an individual or any developer of housing for an individual with disabilities is obligated to comply with other applicable regulations not at issue in the requested accommodation (Suggested Modification No. 1). Suggested Modification #3 has been included to specify that any request for reasonable accommodation shall also include the zoning, land use, or building code provision, regulation, policy or practice from which modification or exception is being requested as well as an explanation of how application of the existing zoning, land use or building code provision, regulation, policv. or practice precludes reasonable accommodation. 2. Modify the "Suggested Modifications" section, beginning on Page 6, as follows. For purposes of revising the suggested modifications, changes to them will be shown in double-underline or double otrikothrough. In addition, a new Suggested Modification #1 shall be added to the "definitions" section of the Cify's ordinance. Therefore, the existing Suggested Modification #1 shall be renumbered to Suggested Modification #2 and the existing Suggested Modification #2 shall be renumbered to Suggested Modification #3. Finally, the originally proposed Suggested Modifications 3, 4 and § shall be deleted in their entirety. 1. Modify Section 21.87 -Definitions" as follows: 2. "Reasonable accommodation" means, in the land use and zoning context, providing individuals with disabilities or developers of housing for people with disabilities: (1) reasonable, necessary, or feasible flexibility in the application of land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices and procedures, or (2) the waiver of certain requirements when it is necessary to provide equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing and/or eliminate barriers to housing opportunitiesT so long as the requested flexibility or waiver would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the citv's land use and zoning and building Addendum to CAR-MAJ-2-l 1A Reasonable Accommodation Page 4 regulations, policies, practices, and procedures, and the Citv's Local Coastal Program +2. Modify Section 21.87.030 - "Applicability" as follows: A. A request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any individual with a disability, his or her representative, or a developer or provider of housing for individuals with disabilities, when the application of a land use, zoning or building regulation, policy, practice or procedure acts as a barrier to housing opportunities. B. A request for reasonable accommodation may include a modification or exception to the rules, standards, development and use of housing-related facilities that would eliminate regulatory barriers and provide a person with a disability equal opportunity to the housing of their choice. C. A request for reasonable accommodation in regulations, policies, practices and procedures may be filed at any time that the accommodation may be necessary to ensure equal access to housing. A reasonable accommodation does not affect the obligations of an individual^ or a developer of housing for an individual with disabilities obligationo to comply with other applicable regulations not at issue in the requested accommodation. 23. Modify Section 21.87.040 - "Request for reasonable accommodation" as follows: A. Application for a request for reasonable accommodation shall be made in writing on a form provided by the planning director. The form shall be signed by the property owner or authorized agent. The application shall state fully the circumstances and conditions relied upon as grounds for the application and shall be accompanied by adequate plans and all other materials as specified by the planning director. The application shall include the zoning, land use or building code provision, regulation, policv or practice from which modification or exception for reasonable accommodation is being requested including an explanation of how application ofthe existing zoning, land use or building code provision, regulation, policv or practice precludes reasonable accommodation?^^ addition, tho application ohall include an asscoomont. prepared bv a qualified profoDoional. of the potential advoroo impaoto to wetlands, environmentally oonoitivo habitat aroao. public aooooo. publio viowo. and/or haHardo ouob^ goologio. flood and fire. Tho aooooomcnt ohall aloe include a detailed fcaoiblo altomativoo analvoio and propoood foaoiblo mitigation moaouroo if unavoido^ impaoto aro identified. B. Proof of applicable disability shall be provided in the form of a note from a medical doctor or other third party professional documentation deemed acceptable to the planning director. Addendum to CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation Page 5 C. Any information identified by an applicant as confidential shall be retained in a manner so as to respect the privacy rights of the applicant and shall not be made available for public inspection. D. If an individual needs assistance in making the application for reasonable accommodation, the city will provide assistance to ensure the process is accessible. 3. The Cify's comments also noted that Section 21.87.060 - Required Findings of its proposed ordinance was incorrectly cited in the report. Language was inadvertently left out; the correct citation is as follows: A. The housing, which is the subject of the request for reasonable accommodation, will be occupied by an individual with a disability protected under fair housing laws; B. The requested accommodation is necessary to make housing available to an individual with a disability protected under the fair housing laws; C. The requested accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city; D. The requested accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the city's land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices, and procedures; and for housing in the Coastal Zone, the City's Local Coastal Program. E. The requested accommodation would not result in a detriment to the surrounding uses or character of the surrounding neighborhood. 4. Modify the "Specific Findings for Denial" beginning on Page 12 as follows: The Cify of Carlsbad is proposing to amend its implementation plan to include a new chapter (Chapter 21.87) to formalize the process by which requests for reasonable accommodations are reviewed and approved. For the most part, the Commission is not chiefly concerned with the review and approval of a request for a reasonable accommodation as it relates to the threshold criteria of whether or not a requestor of a reasonable accommodation is medically qualified to make such a request. However, when the approval of reasonable accommodations includes flexibility in the City's application of land use, zoning, and building code regulations, the Commission does have an interest in assuring that any potential impacts to coastal resources are avoided and/or minimized to the maximum extent feasible if some impact is determined to be necessary. In order for such approvals to be found consistent with the City's LCP, all potential impacts need to be identified, feasible altematives reviewed, and the least damaging feasible alternative implemented. Additionally, if impacts to any coastal resources are unavoidable, the appropriate feasible mitigation must be required. The City failed to include this process in its review for reasonable accommodations. Addendum to CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation Page 6 Without this detailed review by the City, the proper protection of coastal resources cannot be assured. The Commission realizes that the City and other regulated parties must, by federal law, make reasonable accommodations available as necessary to assure that structures are accessible by all people, including those with disabilities. The City's proposed language will allow flexibility such that if land use restrictions preclude or limit accessibility to people with disabilities, the restrictions will not be imposed unless relaxing such restrictions fundamentally alters the nature of the city's land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices, and procedures, or the City's Local Coastal Program. However, the proposed language does not clearly address how tho flexibility or complete removal of development restrictions will be approved should those improvements result in impacts to coastal resources. As is reflected in the City's certified LUP policies cited above, the City's certified LUP places high value on maximizing public access and recreation, protecting and enhancing public views, protecting natural habitats and wildlife, and protecting structures from geologic, flood and fire hazards. Additionally, these policies require that impacts to coastal resources be minimized to the maximum extent feasible and require feasible mitigation for any unavoidable impacts. The Commission further recognizes that such impacts may be necessary to provide accessibility to those with disabilities, again, as required by federal law. However, if there is a feasible altemative that accomplishes the goals of accessibility without impacting coastal resources, that should be the altemative implemented. If there are no feasible altematives that eliminate impacts to coastal resources, then the least environmentally impacting feasible altemative should be the altemative implemented. However, approval of a proiect that fundamentally alters the nature of the land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices, and procedures of the Citv's Local Coastal Program shall not be allowed. Federal law addressing reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities does not expressly prohibit the consideration of a project's environmental impacts in its project review nor does it prohibit requiring an applicant to construct a feasible project altemative that would avoid or minimize environmental impacts. Finally, for projects where impacts are unavoidable, the federal law does not prohibit requiring feasible mitigation measures for such impacts. To provide illustrative examples, without inclusion of tho above stated process (impacts identified, feasible altematives reviewed, impacts minimized, feasible mitigation provided), a proposal may be approved on a coastal bluff that is not safely sited or located in an area that would result in obstructing expansive public views to and along tho ocean and scenic coastal areas, when a feasible altemative location that has a more appropriate geologic setback or does not provide such an view impact was overlooked. The siting of development can also result in development located on a portion of a lot that contains sensitive habitat or wetlands. All of these scenarios could be avoided if a proper altematives analysis was required. Finally, tho City could approve a development without the imposition of feasible mitigation measures for 15 Addendum to CAR-MAJ-2-l IA Reasonable Accommodation Page 7 such impacts. As previously stated, the City's proposed amendment does not clearly include the review of potential impacts and potential feasible altematives, nor does it require feasible mitigation for unavoidable impacts. Absent these measures, coastal resource protection is not maximized. Additionally, the City failed to clarify how the coastal development permit process is incorporated into approval of reasonable accommodation proposals. The coastal development permit process is the time when the City would review the project for consistency with the City's LCP. If this process is not clearly identified, there is potential that the City^ may approve a proposal that is not consistent with its LCP. Without detailed review of all potential impacts to coastal resources or clear inclusion of the coastal development permit process, the proposed amendment cannot be found consistent with the City's LCP, and; therefore shall be denied as submitted. In this case, the City has included language in three sections of the proposed ordinance indicating that if the proposed development is located in the coastal zone, then the request must fundamentally comply with the city's certified LCP and issuance of a coastal development permit process will also be necessary. Specifically. Section 21.87.030 -Applicability - states that "a reasonable accommodation does not affect the individual's obligations to comply with other applicable regulations not at issue in the requested accommodation." Additionally. Section 21.87.050 -Review Authority and Procedure - states that "approval of a reasonable accommodation mav be conditioned upon the approval of other related permits. Finally, Section 21.87.060 Required Findings - states that a reasonable accommodation can onlv be approved if "the requested accommodation would not require fundamental alteration in the nature of the citv's land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices, and procedures, and for housing in the Coastal Zone, the city's Local Coastal Program. The combination of these three sections of language can be found adequate to assure that the request for reasonable accommodation will not supersede other applicable regulations, will be fundamentally consistent with the Citv's LCP, and will include adequate review of potential impacts to coastal resources. That being said, the City failed to include a requirement for the applicant of any reasonable accommodation to submit the provision or policy from which modification or exception is being requested or an explanation on how application of the existing provision or policy precludes reasonable accommodation. Additionally, the submitted amendment does not clarify that either an individual or a developer of housing for the disabled must comply, to the maximum extent feasible, with all other required development policies and standards. Finally, for purposes of consistency with the LCP, the Citv did not include language in its definition of reasonable accommodation that mirrors language in its proposed "Request for reasonable accommodation" section to further define that a reasonable accommodation may be one that requires a deviation from an LCP policv but it may not be a request that fundamentally alters the nature of the LCP. Without these inclusions, the administration for granting reasonable accommodations is not clear: and, therefore, the amendment shall be denied as submitted. Addendum to CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation Page 8 5. Modify the "Findings for Approval ofthe Cify ofCarlsbad Implementation Plan Amendment, if Modified," beginning on Page 14, as follows: As proposed, the City's language allows for flexibility in application of land use and zoning standards, policies and regulations in order to provide for reasonable accommodation in development intended for people with disabilities so long as such flexibility in the coastal zone does not fundamentally alter the nature of the land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices, and procedures of the City's Local Coastal Program, but the ordinance does not adequately address review of potential impacts to coastal resources or include an alternatives analysis. In addition, it does not require that the least environmentally damaging feasible altemative be implemented, nor does it require that if impacts are unavoidable, feasible mitigation has to be provided consistent with the certified LCP. A project located in the coastal zone which requests land use and zoning flexibility should identify whether impacts to coastal resources would result and, if so, identify the specific resource(s) impacted. The altematives review should also describe feasible altematives to the project as proposed and identify the feasible altemative with the least impacts to coastal resources. And, finally, a request for reasonable accommodation should also identify and include feasible mitigation for any unavoidable impacts the proiect would create. As previously discussed, the City has included language in Sections 21.87.030 and 21.87.050 of the proposed ordinance that reaffirms the issuance coastal development permit is still necessary: and, thus, it is at that time that adequate altematives analysis will be accomplished. Additionally, Section 21.87.060 also requires that the request for reasonable accommodations will not require fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's certified LCP. That being said, the procedure for reviewing and granting reasonable accommodations is still not clearly described. The Commission is therefore suggesting three five modifications to the City's proposed amendment. The overarching intent of these modifications is to clearly identify that tho approval of reasonable accommodations may also require review and issuance of a coastal development permit. To that end, two suggested modifications were included to address the projects consistency with the Citv's LCP and three modifications have been included to highlight to clarify the process for approving a coastal development permit for any reasonable accommodation proposal. Suggested modifications (Nos. 2 and 1 respectively) modify the City's language to include 1) the requirement for any applicant to provide, as a component of their reasonable accommodation application, an assessment prepared by a qualified professional, which would include identification of any impacts to coastal resources, an altematives analysis minimizing the identified impacts, and proposed mitigation should tho impacts be unavoidable. Suggested modification (No. 1) requires that tho City find, when reviewing a specific reasonable accommodation application, that the proposed development has been sited in order to eliminate or minimize any impacts to coastal resources, that the feasible altemative implemented is the least environmentally 15 Addendum to CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation Page 9 damaging altemative feasible; and, that all unavoidable impacts be mitigated consistent with tho mitigation requirements of the City^'s certified LCP. With the inclusion of Suggested Modification Nos. 2 and 1, all coastal resources impacts will be minimized to tho maximum extent feasible, and any unavoidable impacts will be adequately mitigated. It io only with the inclusion of these modifications that the proposed amendment can bo found consistent with the City^'s LUP. The remaining three modifications sor\^e to clarify the coastal development permit process. To ensure maximum compliance with LCP policies when approving a reasonable accommodation. Suggested Modification No. 1 includes additional language that if a reasonable accommodation requires a deviation from an LCP policv then the City can only approve such a proiect so long as the requested deviation does not fundamentally alter the nature of the Citv's LCP. Suggested Modification No. 24- clarifies that an individual or any developer of housing for an individual with disabilities is obligated to comply with other applicable regulations not at issue in the requested accommodation. Suggested Modification No. 3 requires the applicant to include in anv request for reasonable accommodation the regulation, policv or practice from which modification or exception is necessary and an explanation of how the application of such regulation, policv, etc. precludes reasonable accommodation. ^ require that a request for reasonable accommodation shall bo processed concurrent with any other required discretionary^ approval. Finally Suggest Modification No. 5 clarifies that if the reasonable accommodation proposal also includes a coastal development permit, an appeal of the decision will also bo govemed by tho appeal procedure for coastal development permits. To conclude, the certified LUP requires that coastal resources such as public access and recreation, public views, and sensitive habitats; including wetlands, be protected. In this case, the City is proposing language that will make it clear to any applicant that if the proposed development is located in the coastal zone, the proposal will also have to be found consistent with the Citv's LCP. to the maximum degree feasible, and that any deviation from the LCP, in approving a reasonable accommodation, does not fundamentally alter the nature of the land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices, and procedures of the City's Local Coastal Program. Forthe reasons described above, only if modified as suggested can the proposed Implementation Plan amendment be found to be consistent with and adequate to carry out the public access and recreation, public view and habitat protection policies ofthe City's certified Land Use Plan in addition to policies related to assuring that any proposed reasonable accommodation will be safe from potential flood, fire and geologic hazards. Therefore, the Commission finds that, as modified, the proposed Implementation Plan amendment will be consistent with and adequate to carry out the provisions of the certified Land Use Plan (LUP). Addendum to CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation Page 10 6. Modify Part VI "Consistency with the California Environmental Qualify Act (CEQA)" as follows: Section 21080.5 of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exempts local govemment from the requirement of preparing an environmental impact report (EIR) in connection with its local coastal program. 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. Nevertheless, the Commission is required, in a LCP submittal or, as in this case, a LCP amendment submittal, to find that the approval of the proposed LCP, or LCP, as amended, conforms to CEQA provisions, including the requirement in CEQA section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) that the amended LCP will not be approved or adopted as proposed if there are feasible altemative or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which the activity may have on the environment. (14 CCR. §§ 13542(a), 13540(f), and 13555(b)). The Commission finds that approval of the proposed LCP amendment, as submitted, would result in significant impacts under the meaning of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. Specifically, tho proposed LCP amendment as proposed would result in potential impacts to public access/recreation, public views, sensitive habitat and wildlife, and could increase coastal hazard concems such as safe geologic setbacks, flood, and fire. However, with the inclusion of the suggested modifications, the revised zoning ordinance would not result in significant impacts to the environment within the meaning of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, the Commission finds that approval of the LCP amendment will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. (G:\San Diego\Reports\LCPs\Carlsbad\CAR-MAJ-2-l 1A Reasonable Acc. IP addendum.doc) n d&f^ CITY OF VCARLSBAD Planning Division www.carisbadca,gov September 27,2012 Slierilyn Sarb, Deputy Director California Coastal Commission, San Diego Coast District 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103 San Diego, CA 92108 SUBJECT: aTY OF CARLSBAD LCP AMENDMENT NO. CAR-MAJ-2-llA> REQUESTED CHANGES Dear Ms. Sarb: Qty staff has reviewed the Septennber 20,2012, staff report prepared for the above item, v/hich is scheduled for Coastal Commission review October 11, 2012. We appreciate the opportunity to both review the staff report and provide comments. Based on our review, we request the foliowing changes, all of which affect Part III, Suggested Modifications. Due to the shortness of time, the recommended changes are shown handwritten on the attached portion of the staff report copy. Also attached is Ordinance CS-125, the city's adopted Reasonable Accommodation standards. The requested changes by city staff bear explanation, as noted below. 1. Suggested modification 1 {Modify Section 21.87.030 - "Applicability"). On page 6, subsection C should be rewritten as shown to make it clearer. 2. Suggested modification 2 (Modify Section 21.87.040 - "Request for reasonable accommodation"). At the top of staff report page 7, part of the suggested modification requires an assessment prepared by a "qualified professional." As written, it would apply to ail reasonable accommodation requests, whether inside or outside the Coastal Zone. Additionally, we believe this requirement would be unnecessary In most cases and thus overly burdensome for the applicant and the city. Based on experience, city staff anticipates processing very few reasonable accommodations; those that are will likely affect existing homes, be proposed by homeowners, and be minor in nature (e.g., a ramp to provide access to the front door). Moreover, a reasonable accommodation request does- not necessarily run with the land (see - Section 21.87.030 E.). The Reasonable Accommodations standards (Section 21.87.060 D) already adopted by the city contain this finding (emphasis added): The requested accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration In the nature ofthe city's land use and zoning and building regulations, poiicies, practices, and procedures, and for housing in the Coastal Zone, tlie city's Local Coastal Program. We believe this finding adequately ensures compliance with Coastal Act provisions. Therefore, we believe the majority of Suggested Modification 2 as the attached page shows is unnecessary and should be deleted. 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4500 F 760-602-8559 ® . CITY OF CARLSBAD LCP AMENDMENT NO. CAR-MAJ-2-11A September 27,2012 Page 2 Moreover, city staff notes the September 13, 2012, Coastal Commission approval of Port Hueneme!s reasonable accommodation ordinance (LCPA MAJ-1-12) lacks the three additional findings recommended In the su^ested modification and instead contains a single, similar finding to that already existing in the Carisbad ordinance; Port Hueneme's finding states (emphasis added): The requested accommodation will not require a fundamental alteration of the zoning or building laws, policies, and/or other procedures of the City Induding those implementing the City's Local Coastal Program. In fact, the staff report for LCPA MAJ-1-12 on page 5 notes: Additionally, In consultation with Commission staff, the City has revised their originally proposed amendment in order to specifically add the requirement that reasonable accommodations in the Coastal Zone may only be granted if they do not fundamentally alter or conflict with any provision of the certified LCP. Additionally, staff report page 9 states: Further, the addition of procedures regarding reasonable accommodation measures for disabled or handicapped individuals...does not in any way reduce the adequacy of the IP in carrying out the provisions of the LUP, which include Chapter 3 Policies of the Coastal Act. We believe the rationale applied to Port Hueneme's reasonable accommodation LCPA is also applicable in our case and that the City of Carlsbad's adopted reasonable accommodation procedures likewise do not reduce the adequacy of our IP in carrying out the provisions of the LUP, which include Chapter 3 Policies of the Coastal Act. 3. Suggested modification 3 (Modify Section 21.87.050 - "Review authority and procedure"). City staff recommends no changes to this section. We disagree with the suggested modification requiring concurrent review. We purposely wrote the ordinance to allow a reasonable accommodation request to be processed administratively and Independent of any discretionary permit. This was done to avoid embarrassment to the disabled person which could have a chilling effect on their ability to require a reasonable accommodation. Public opposition may not be relevant where the law mandates a reasonable accommodation. A May 15, 2001, California Attorney General letter (attached) advising cities to adopt reasonable accommodation procedures warns of problems that could arise if a request is processed as a discretionary permit (e.g., a variance or conditional use permit) versus a reasonable accommodation request. While not directly aimed at the issue of concurrent processing, the letter points out the pitfalls of inappropriate review that city staff believes could result if a request were processed with other permits: Further, and perhaps even more important, it may well be that reliance on these alternative procedures [e.g., conditional use permit], with their different governing-criteria, serves at least in • some circumstances-to encourage community opposition to projects involving desperately needed housing for the disabled. As you are well aware, opposition to such housing is often grounded on stereotypical assumptions about people with disabilities and apparently equally unfounded concerns about the impact of such homes on surrounding property values. Moreover, once triggered, it is difficult to quell. Yet this Is the very type of opposition that, for example, the typical conditional use permit procedure, with its general health, safety, and welfare standard, would seem rather predictable to invite, whereas a procedure conducted CITY OF CARLSBAD LCP AMENDMENT NO. CAR-M/U-2-11A September 27,2012 Page 3 ; pursuant to the more focused criteria applicable to the reasonable accommodation determination would not. Inasmuch as we expect most reasonable accommodation requests to be of such a nature as not to trigger a discretionary review (e.g., they would only need a building permit), it makes sense that the reasonable accommodation request be handled as a separate procedure. In cases where a reasonable accommodation request would also require other development permits (including a coastal development permit), granting the request would be conditioned upon approval ofthe other development permits, as provided in Section 21.87.0950. In this manner the Coastal Commission can be assured that coastal resources wiil be adequately protected. Furthermore, city staff notes the September 2012 Coastal Commission approval of Port Hueneme's reaspriable accommodation ordinance did not contain a requirement for concurrent review. 4. Suggested modification 4 (Modify Section 21.87.060 - "Required Findings"). Because of the existing finding already in place that ensures a reasonable accommodations request substantially compiles with Local Coastal Program requirements (see item 2 above), the addition of findings D, E, and F are unnecessary. Additionally, proposed finding G (originally finding D) needs con-ection as it lacks important Coastal plan compliance language already approved by the City Council. (Note that this comment was previously emailed to Coastal Program Analyst TonI Ross on September 25,2012.) 5. Suggested modification 5 (Modify Section 21.87.070 - "Effective date of order- appeal of decision"). The suggested modification to add "and 21.80" should be stricken. This section contains appeal requirements for coastal development permits, which would not be applicable to an appeal of a reasonable accommodations request. The section already referenced, 21.54, is correct and adequate. (Note that this comment also was previously emailed to Toni Ross on September 25,2012.) Please contact me with any questions at (760) 602-4618 orscott.donnell@carlsbadca.gov. Sincerely, Signatme on ^i£e ' SCOTT DONNELL Senior Planner Enclosures c: TonI Ross, Coastal Program Analyst, California Coastal Commission, San Diego Coast District, 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 203, San Diego, CA 92108 Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney Gary Barberio, Community and Economic Development Director Don Neu, Planning Director David de Cordova, Principal Planner CAR-MAJ-2-11A. Reasonable Accommodation Page 6 RESOLUTION TQ CERTIFY THE IMl^LEMENTATION PROGRAM AMENDMENT WITH SUGGESTED MODIglCATIONS! The Commission hereby certifies the Implementation Program Amendment for the City of Carlsbad if modified as suggested and adopts the findings set forth below on grounds that tbe Implementation Program Amendmetit, with fhe suggested modifications, . conforms with and is adequate to carryout the certified Land Use Plan. Certifioation of the Implementation Program Amendment if modified as suggested complies with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act, because either 1) feasible mitigation measures • and/or'altemafives have been incorporated to substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the Implementation Program Amendment on tbe envhx)nment, or 2) there are no fiirther feasible altematives and mitigation measures that would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts on the environment. PART m. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS StaflTrecommends the following suggested revisions to the proposed Implementation Plan be adopted. The underlined sections represent language that the Commission suggests be added, and the struok-out sections represent language which the Commission suggests be deleted firom the language as originally submitted. 1. Modify Section 21.87:030 - "Applicability" as follows: A. Arequestforreasonableaccommodationmaybemadehy any individual with a disability, his or her representative, or a developer or provider of housing for mdividuals with disabilities, when the application of a land use, zoning or building regulation, policy, practice or procedure acts as a barrier to housing opportunities. B. A request for reasonable accommodation may include a modification or exception to the rules, standards, development and use of housing-related facilities that would eliminate regulatory harriers and provide a person with a disability equal opportunity to the housmg of their choice. " - C. A request for reasonable accommodation in regulations, policies, practices and procedures may be filed at any time that tiae accommodation may be necessary to . ensure equal access to housing. A reasonable accommodation does not affect++s5t DU\^^T\?>t%s individuaj)^or4eveloper of housing for an individual with disabilities-obligationo to comply withVther applicable regulations not at issue in the requested accommodation \^ 2. Modify Section 21.87.040 - "Request for reasonable accommodation" as follows: A. Application for a request for reasonable accommodation shall be made in vwiting on a form provided by the planning director. The form shall be signed by the property owner or authorized agent. The application shall state fiilly the circumstances and conditions relied upon as grounds for the application and shall he accompanied by CAR-MAJ-2-nA Reasonable Accommodation Page 7 adequate plans and all other materials as specified by the planning director. The application shall include the zoning, land use or building code provision, regulation.. policv or practice firom which modification or exception for reasonable accommodation is being requested including an explanation of how application ofthe existing zoning. land use or building code provision, regulation, policy or practice . precludes reasonable accommodation, -feftddititmrflte-appliea^t asscssmci ^qrprMesaioaaj, q^Tigss wotiandfi* environmentally oenoitive habitat areasi publio acceBOi publio viewc. and/or hazards sueh aa ecolegic, flood and fire. The assessment shall also inelude a detailed foosibio altomativoa onalvaio ond propoflod foaoiblo mitigation moaauros if— 1 J B. Proof of applicable disability shall be provided in the fonn .of a note fi:om a medical doctor or other third party professional documentation deemed acceptable to the planning director. C. Any information identified by an applicant as confidential shall be retained in a maimer so as to respect the privacy ri^ts of the applicant and shall not be made available for public inspection. D. If an individual* needs assistance in making the application for reasonable accommodation, the city will provide assistance to ensure the process is accessible, . 3. Modify Section 2L87>050 - **Review authority and procedure" as follows: A. Request for reasonable, accommodation may be approved or conditionally approved by the planning- durector and shall be processed independent of concurrent with anv otiier required discretionary approval Cineluding hut r>nt Hmiferi tr^, Conditional Use Permit. Coastal Development Permit Design Review. Variance. General Plan Amendment Zone change, etc.l development pormito. However, ftApproval of a reasonable accommodation may be conditioned upon approval of • other related permits. 4. Modify Section 21,87.060 - "Required Findmgs" as follows: A. The housing, which is the subject of the request for reasonable accornmodation, will be occupied by an individual with a disability protected under fair housing laws; B. The requested accommodation is necessary to make housing available to an individual with a disability protected under the fair housing laws; • C. The requested accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city; CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation . Pages ^''''''•B>ThereQuested ancommodation would eliminate or minimize impaotson^vySfiands. environBtKitallvsensitive habitat areaa. public access, public ynswsj^or hazards to the maximum Mctentfeasible. as documented in a detaaed alteige^ves anaivsis: E. The altemative to be implem^tedds the l alternative: envu-oninentally H^pr^aeine feasible J F. If any impacts to wetktlfls. environmentally sensitive ^bitatareas. public access. public views hazflr5s associated with the accommodation are unav&idable^asible mitigation^fofall unavoidable impacts have been included consistent with Ihe'eit^L's^ LoeffTdoastal Program: ^ BO. The requested accommodation would not requhre a fimdamental alteration in the nature ofthe city's land use and zocdng and bmlding regulations, PoMes,practi^ r X andprocedure^and Jpv- Ko^J5>^^0) i<^ 4-VN.V CON^SV^-V ^^>c^^/ -t-VvSi ^^^y<^ ©rg, The requested accommodation would not result in a detriment to the surrounding uses or character of die surrounding neighborhood. 5, Modify Section 21.87.070 - Effective Date of Order -appeal of decision as follows: Effective date of order - appeal of decision. A. The effective date of the planning director's decision and method for appeal of such decision shall be governed by Sections 21.54^^^:^^f this title... PART rv. BINDINGS FOR REJECTION OF THE OTY OF CARLSBAD IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT. AS SUBMITTED A. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION The proposed LCP amendment includes changes to tiie City*s Implementation Plan only. The amendment incorporates a new chapter (Chapter 21.87 - Reasonable Accommodation) mto tiie City's certified hnplementation plan. This new chapter establishes procedures and regulations governing requests for reasonable aecommodations by-people with disabilities. Specifically, Chapter 21.87 mcludes: 1) a description of tiie puipose and intent ofthe . reasonable accommodation zoning chapter; 2) definitions commonly associated witii reasonable accommodations; 3) tiie applicability of reasonable accommodations; 4) a list of whafs necessary to request a reasonable accommodation; 5) the identification ofthe review authority and procedure to review such requests; 6) the findings necessary to approve a reasonable accommodation; and, 7) lists tiie ^peal procedures for any decision granting/denying a request for reasonable accommodations. J3 EXHIBIT 1 1 ORDINANCE NO. CS-125 2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA. APPROVING A ZONE CODE 3 AMENDMENT TO ADD AND ENACT CHAPTER 21.87 - REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION OF THE ZONING 4 ORDINANCE. CASE NAME: REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION 5 CASE NO.: ZCA 10-06 6 The City Council of the City of Carisbad, California, does ordain as follows: 7 SECTION I: That the list of Chapters contained in Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to add the following chapter in numerical order: 21.87 Reasonable Accommodation 8 9 SECTION II: That Chapter 21.87 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is added and 10 enacted to read as follows: 11 Chapter 21.87 12 REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION Sections: 21.87.010 Purpose and Intent 14 21.87.020 Definitions. 21.87.030 Applicability. 1 ^ 21.87.040 Request for reasonable accommodation. 21.87.050 Review authority and procedure. 1^ 21.87.060 Required findings. 21.87.070 Effective date of order - appeal of decision. 17 21.87.010 Purpose and intent 18 A. The purpose and intent of this chapter is as follows: 1. To provide individuals with disabilities reasonable accommodation in land use 1^ and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices, and procedures to provide equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing and facilitate the development of housing for individuals with disabilities pursuant to the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and the Califomia Fair Employment and Housing Act (hereafter "fair housing laws"). 21 2. To establish a procedure for making requests for reasonable accommodation in land use, zoning and building regulations, policies, practices and procedures of the city to comply fully with the intent and purpose of fair housing laws. 3. To establish findings that ensure a requested accommodation, if granted, is necessary and reasonable, and would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the 24 city's land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices, and procedures. 21.87.020 Definitions. ^ Por the purposes of this chapter, the temris used in this chapter relating to the 9^ provisions of reasonable accommodation are defined as follows: 1. "Individual with a disability" means someone who has a physical or mental 27 impairment that limits one or more major life activities; anyone who is regarded as having such impairment; or anyone with a record of such impainnent. This section is intended to a^ply to 2g those persons who are defined as disabled under the fair housing laws. n 2. "Reasonable accommodation" means, In the land use and zoning context, providing individuals with disabilities or developers of housing for people with disabilities: (1) reasonable, necessary, or feasible flexibility In the application of land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices and procedures, or (2) the waiver of certain requirements when It is necessary to provide equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing and/or eliminate baniers to housing opportunities. 21.87.030 Applicability . ^. . A. A request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any individual with a disability, his or her representative, or a developer or provider of housing for individuals with disabilities, when the application of a land use, zoning or building regulation, poiicy, practice or procedure acts as a barrier to housing opportunities. B A request for reasonable accommodation may include a modification or exception to the rules, standards, deveiopment and use of housing-related facilities that would eliminate regulatory bamers and provide a person with a disability equal opportunity to the housing of their choice. C A request for reasonable.accommodation in regulations, policies, practices and procedures may be filed at any time that the accommodation may be necessary to ensure equal 10 access to housing. A reasonable accommodation does not affect an Individual's obligations to comply with other applicable regulations not at issue in the requested accommodation. 11 D. Requests for reasonable accommodation shall be made in the manner prescrlbedby Section 21.87.040 of this chapter. 12 E. If a request for reasonable accommodation is granted, the request shall be granted to an individual and shall not run with the land unless it is detenmined that (1) the 13 modification is physically integrated into the residential stmcture and cannot easily be removed or altered to comply with applicable city or state codes or (2) the accommodation is to be used 14 by another Individual with a disability. ^ ^ , * F. Nothing in this ordinance shall require the city to waive or reduce development or 15 building fees associated with the granting of a reasonable accommodation request. 1 ^ 21.87.040 Request for reasonable accommodation. A Application for a request for reasonable accommodation shall be made in writing on a forni provided by the planning director. The form shall be signed by the property owner or authorized agent. The application shall state fully the circumstances and conditions relied upon as grounds for the application and shall be accompanied by adequate plans and all other 1D materials as specified by the planning director. B. Proof of applicable disability shall be provided in the fonn of a note from a medical doctor or other third party professional documentation deemed acceptable to the planning director. ........... x • ^ • C Any information identified by an applicant as confidential shall be retained in a manner so as to respect the privacy rights of the applicant and shall not be made available for 99 public inspection. ^. ^ If an individual needs assistance in making the application for reasonable 23 accommodation, the city will provide assistance to ensure the process is accessible. 24 21.87.050 Review authority and procedure. A. A request for reasonable accommodation may be approved or conditionally 25 approved by the planning director and shall be processed independently of any other required development permits. However, approval of a reasonable accommodation may be conditioned 26 upon approval of other related permits. „ * B. The filing of an application for request for reasonable accommodation shall not 27 require public notice. 20 21 28 fi J P5 1 C. If necessary to reach a determination on the request for reasonable accommodation, the planning director may request: 2 1. Further information from the applicant consistent with fair housing laws, specifying in detail the Infonnation that is required. 3 2. Infonnation from other city departments and dh/isiohs or other agencies. D. Conditions may be imposed to ensure that any removable structures or physical 4 design features that are constructed or installed in association with the reasonable accommodation be removed once those structures or physical design features are unnecessary 3 to provide access to the dwelling unit for tiie current occupants. 6 21.87.060 Required findings. A The housing, which is the subject of the request for reasonable accommodation, 7 will be occupied by an individual with a disability protected under fair housing laws; B. The requested accommodation is necessary to make housing available to an 8 individual with a disability protected under the fair housing laws; C. The requested accommodation would not impose an undue financial or 9 administrative burden on tiie city; D. The requested accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the 10 nature of the city's land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices, and ^ ^ procedures, and for housing in the Coastal Zone, the city's Local Coastal Program. 21.87.070 Effective date of order - appeal of decision. 12 A. The effective date of the planning director's decision and method for appeal of such decision shall be govemed by Section 21.54 of this titie. 13 B. Nothing in tiiis procedure shall require the planning director to disclose any information provided to support the request for reasonable accommodation which, in the opinion 14 of the city attomey, would violate State or Federal privacy rights of the indh^idual with a disability. 1^ C. Nothing in the procedure shall preclude an aggrieved Individual from seeking any other state or federal remedy available. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after Its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption. Notwithstanding the preceding, this ordinance shall not be effective until approved by the Califomia Coastal Commission. INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carisbad City 23 Council on the 22"^ day of March 2011. and ttiereafter. /// /// /// /// 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carisbad on the 5* day of April 2011 by the following vote to wit AYES: Council Members Hall, Kulchin, Blackbum, Douglas, Packard. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY C S'ignatwie on ^tU V RONALD R. BALL. City Attomey Signatmeon^iie MATT^HALL, Mayor A?rfST: Signatwieon!fi£e ,%%»«»«//y,>ORRAiNE M. WOOD, City Clerk ^J^^^|AL) pi ^ATE OF CAUPORNIA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BtU. Z..OCXY«R May 15,2001 RE: Arinnttnn of A TtftgsmwMe Aeeoimnndgtidn PfvHtr- Dear ' Both Ifafi fedml Fair Housing Act CTHA*^ «ad the Ca^^ Housing Act CTEHA*^ im]»se m affinnadm Brrfffwrmin^^atifny r i mn^^fv^'^* *awMr»*"»>«) «n •ftwirTwrnng lawt and r*H*' iegoto6<m and practices vtoiWfihiiwininm peisans"ueqi]aIqpp6ztmntr.toiBeandeijoyadwaI^ (42U.S.C $36040D(3XB)*nealso Gov. Code, §§ U!K^(eXI}, 22955(1).)' AiOnugJitUsinaadatBliasbea&incxistaw yean now, h is WTindrntWing thatonly.tt^ aprocess j^xjdfical^ denned fcrpeople vnSt diwhiUfica and oflwr digflJopenona to iitHiae in maldnesodiieqaeats. lanycqpaciQrasAttiimeyOeoejriQffteSiateofCaHftT^ lespan^jffiQr for tiie enfincaneat of tbe EEEA.^ leasniafale amommndaflons leqmnoHait'wifl} the Department ofTair 'EmploymBo.t wad H<nisang. Accnn1ing1y,IamTwtingtocaiwTinragB7Dor jt^lp^^H^^^T1 tn adopt aprntediKeforhanfflinf SBchieqiiegte mdlQ md^ fla aiwilahllity known ^diin yonr eommnt^.' ' IMe n of &e Amsricaos viddi DisabiMes Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-65) and seetiim 504. of Ac RdiabDitaiion Act (29 U.S.C. § 794) bave also been found to mpljrlo zoning otdnaaces and to reqniie local jurisdictions to make leasonaMe accwnmodaHonit inthdf lequugmaita in ceitaixi droumatanees. ^ee Be^ArmAddlGHon Sesnreh v. Qfy qfAaiiodi ^fli Ox. 1999) 179 F3d 725; see aJso 28 CJJL S 3S.13,0(b)C7) (1997),) ' A fiimilBr i^peal has been issued Iqr tbe agendes tespoosUe Gnfaic6mB& FHA. (See Joint Statement the Dqpadmeot ofJmtice andtte Dqurtmeat of Homing and l3riaaJiewiajpma&,QmpHMes,J^^ 18,1999), p. 4. at < 1nittnt/hjww,]!fn'fAvnmfV^'^^ [u ofFebnwy 27.2001].) »- 13001 STREET • SUITE 1740 • SACRAMeNTO. CAUPORNIA • 95814 • 916-324-5437 Page2 It is becoming inereMingly inqwitant that a process be made available fi>r handUng snch seqiieats that opeiates promptly and efiSctendy. A rgxut issued in 1999 by tiie Califiiniia Indepeodeot living ConndlmaVes it sfamdantly decade.' llie t^ifsinajorfiidiogs indude Mowing: ' - •Betweenl999aad2010,tfaennmbcrofCa]ifonuanswItbB«nBibfmofp psydiological disahilily is cagectedto increase by it ieaast 19 percent, fiioiii'appioxinstely ^.SmiBio&toTJBnttlli^andnaiQrziseasiiis^as 11^ niexamibawillisewae dM^ities is e3q>ected to incxease at ^pnodmatdy the same iniBiozi, ami suy leadi 63 mMoiL^ Tlufliei; nust (tf tiib concentnted in CdIfi3ona*s nine largest comitk^ If&eperoeotagesoftidspopalalion'nAoBveinconanuni^seQing^Hhnti^ lunnes' or igamnents (nugjity 66.4 perceA) and gcajp haaiea (agiinxliiaftiity 10.8 paeeDt>-48tD beogndntained, fltera vdnbavetobeasda^ suitable housing in tiw next decade. The projected growfli of ftis pqpuJaticaitnmsIatw into a iffiffd t» •nmnmndale an aABdonri 800,000 to 3.1 milfign pwplft ^witf« <ffwMHti*^ inafibiddileanddccessihlepiivaleieddeBiwiori^artmeatsandanaddM '500,000 iftgiQqp hanes. I xecogniae tiiat naByjnrisdictinns cnzzentiy bandlexeqaests by people 'witii dis^nlities for igjlieffawtiic strict Icpns of thdraoniiigoidiaancfspnisH art eoga^Bticandusepemiitprocedntes. lalsoreposDbB^ nsstter lam emlnded tbat xeqoixing pe(^ widi fsaUfifies to 'See Tootdian & Gaeddce, 2%e Jff^iacf qfilbiainigi<iii^^ AffordOMy On PmpteWUh DhabmHei (Aidl 1999) at <htte/Aww.ea][;nr.nnri^mffinr!^'"^^ [as of Fdxnaxy 27,2001]. *Ilie iower projedions aie'based on. the assmrption timt the perowflage of Califiwnie ieddeat8\rithdis«KMeswlliBnian constant omlimc, at ap^ 19 percent (Ce., one in eireiyfiTO)oveidl,-Tidth about 9Jl percent bariiv severe dsafaiQ^ Ibeidg^'fi^BC^ leflecting a^nsteients figtheigng of fiieslite'sj^opBladonaDdtbe Idgber propoitlonof the elderi^ Ttito are disabled, assame tiiat tfaesB penxatsges-vrill increase to arono^ one in every feur)overdl, with 16 percent having severe dlssbilities. (fiid^ * . 'Tiiese are: Alameda, Conta Costa, lixABgdes, OiaogCtlUverdde, Sacnneoto,^ Bemaidino, San Diego, and Saala: Cbua. (AuQ May 15,2001 ^P«ge3 ^<tynff!^ra*'wy pmeeduras sadi as tiiese is not of itself a. vi'olaliDn ofthe FHA.' Severs! conisidetations counsel against exchisive xdiance on these altetsative ptocedanes, iunvever. Chief amrog these is the inccea-sed riidr of TOong&dly denying a disabled appKcanfs leqcest forgelief and ineuaing the consequent liabiKly for monetary damages, paatdes, attom^ fees, and costs-wgildividatiolMi of ti» state arid federalfehou^ TM? ri± OnSti H^l^n** **** <tn*wt« far AMt^nnhnn^ tuhMiiwrtn grwrf «iMrinea nr fiftiilBtifllMl USC • pernittypicaiiy dififafeomflu»e\rfUcfagovern the deteimi^ acconmodatioti is xeasQiiabfe wi&in the ineaniiig of tiu HBB. inril^'^r*'^** relying Mpnw ttiam «Iftam«riwi jiwwvlmwg hava frtimd tiienndvea in fhe position oflmvirigXBfbsed to ifipEOve aproject as axesdlt^ sofgdent to jcBtify tiie nftasal under tiie cdtBixa^p&eafaiet^ ose permit WBceinsafBrient to jnstifr flie demd when judged ir^ tibs&ir housing laws' leasonabk aceomnradaiiQns maodate. (Se^ eg, Bffvson^ ine. v. Town^ cfBriekC^vi Gx. 1996) 89 F3d 1096 (iDwnah^feimd to have vicrfated flic FHA^ieasonaHeari^^ inandate i&i^isog to gtaitt ft ecmdiiiniBl nse pezinittD aU^ tt "RnTBl RrfH^«l~Aifalt Cnmi^Hy Trnie" aegrite <hfe ftet Aat Ae danfaJ wss siialained bv the State courts imder sspIieaHknning criteria); €S^qflimehester, 'NJL(P3^M. 1997) 992 F.Si9p. 493 (dty-winch tienbd disaUed qipUcants pe paridng space m ftontcrflbeirhnmB because of flieir fi^hre to meet state hwriequlieoieiilsfiir a mdanee fisund to have violated tiie FHA's reasonable aecommodatiDtt mandate). «See, as. V. Vaiage ttfPdatUu. JE (Ttii Or. 199^ 37 R3d 1230,1234; Q^dBoiae. bicy.Oty afVirgtnlaSeai^ (EJ>.Va. 1993) 825 F.S19P. 1251,126:^ see generally-Annot (1998) 148 AXIL Fed. 1.115>12U and later cases (2000 pocket sqip.) p. 4.) ^ See 42 U.S.C § 3604(f)(?)O): Oov. Code, §§ 12987(a); 129893(0. .* UndertiieFHA,an8oeaniik>datiania.dBemBd*'i6asanal^soloogasft rnipinjeig *VnHiia linaneiitl wmA flABuihlnrfive biirienfi** nn fha Tmmiripalhy Of mqiuic a *^dinnflnt"T fltfawrfinn in the iMfagg" of its gpninf; geheme, (See^e^;, QtycfMittoadsv. WasMngton Suae BIdg. Cade ComM (9fii Or. 1994) 18 F3d-802.806; TundngPaint, hie. v. . CZO'o/CczfiMwff ^Cnr. 1996)74 F3d 941; J30wom^ Jnc % TawnO^ffBhOiC^CSx. 1996) 89 F3d 1096,1104; Sadth & LuAssodates, bte. v. aiyqfT(gdor, M!^i^\&h. Ck. 1996) 102 F3d781»795;ChiminV. Otyt^FertA&baonCnhCk. l996)MM9iXi;StepinLV. Cadnum Towers. Inc. C2d Cic. 1995) 51 F3d328.334; see also Gov. Code, § I29S5.6 [expUcitiy declaring tiiat the FEHA's boii^ig disci iminatfonjygvisioos idull be construed to afiisdpeoidB widi disabilitips, amnng ofliea, nb lesser rights oriemedies than flie FHA].) • ^3 :3t 1 May 15,2001 . Page* Purfliet. and peAaps even aoie importantly^ itroay vmn fjf p^Hatir«. nn ahanativoptDcedares. vn&. tiieir difieraut govetiaiig criteria, mrvc* »t Icairt in gptnc dxcmDstSDces to eacomagc commimity o{^)ositiaalo pn^oets invidvnig despexatdly needed homaogfivfliBdSsablfid. AsyDtiaie\vdUamate,oiqpositi(mtDSDdihooai^ on atBuentjipieid agmmpftrms aMmt penpla i^ti^|ff unfj appn^rffy ^^p^lly ^mfnwn'^*^ nnnttWMB wTvmtihft tmpiirf ofSneh tinme* nn MiMiHiiirfti^^|n^[f|y^(y ^^jpj > lyfotBOVB^ OBOO ttiggeaad^ h is cBflScalt ID qiudL Yet tills is'flie very type . typieal cfinditinnal use panrft pmcednte, wMi Tt« gem^l ^«faWl, Mlfety^md TmMiirft HlWtdffnf, ~ would aeem nflier ptedidahly to inwtef ^fareas ftpwoednre cftndnBte^f jmtsnM^if^ frf wtt^ ffacnsed criteria appHeable to the teasonable accr^tma^nn lifth-rmi^miinn -PPWIM nnt Far tihesB reastms^ I urge yonr jmisdietion tn amtinA ynm- Tftt^jj^ig fnyttpm^inr^"^*^ '* pmrj»Aiw^ •% |i^H1fti|r Tcqnests fiffTeaannaWft aeeoBmpQ^hrtiOft made pncmimttO tfac frir hnmnpg lams. "iQiistasjcisiKitalniidensoiiiBODe. &^ MR earfty ^trin Ale frnm jnrkrBetining vMeh bavn ahwiHy iiltwti ftm^ff fw« <ii[;#tn.t nnnprnfitgnnaips •robiApmyMaaearvieeatopaoplBwHh tBarfiflltfff^fnnf*«gfftfimr.^* Itis, however, an impuitatit one. Byta]dsgjd]iscmB,ze]afive^8iiiqdestef^7DaoaitIielptoeosare indnsioaiii onr coztmninMBS of flioseamcmg IB ;Rdio axe SinceEci7, ^ Signatwie an 3^i£e BJLLlDULXhK. 'AtltHUfiyOcnetal ^IHf'^tfWffnf H^fffi'^ fnppfirt fha ennftlmtnn ihrnt 'ywl'TtniS *bftfft 1*1 yjffl tj ^frf^ ixiiisptanrd. (^Lsabac,A Seal LULU: Zoidng-fiirC^^ The Fair StniOngAnimdments Act tfI988 (V^otar 1996)291. MaafaaUL. Ber. 369,3^385 & fit 50 (iqaMctiiig that tiiere aieiricge than fii^8ncftstiiffles,aB effect ton properly vaihies, even fertile honifls hnTnednitety af§aeeni^) A ceMipcBdionnif flteae gtadiiw, pmny lyf ^ainiA lAsn HncMment Aft ladr of any fmif Mminn fer frfl^iy p-rwiflu^^ Mpeamd fem abotitlunsingferpeqpfe'wz&disa!^^ OSeeCoa&otiifFlinDmglifanriaiis^ Tfiere Odes ^Jfeif^im'ltood. ..ASwmuajqfStu^ Addressing the Most QftenBj^^ Fears obmdAe^^eisCfQrapJEbmamN^S^Ad^^ CBiWioBn5«ljy No. 259) (Apr. 1990),) . y.Kwiftin (>iHfhmlB, tiiese indude 1^ cities ofLongBeadxand'San Jose. ^ " M<sM He^Adv:ocat7 Service^ Inc., flflxMAnceto ' colUsctionof reaspmble accommodations enfirmnrea, copies of i»idchare acvijlabie 19011 request J4 31 STATE OF CAUFORNIA-THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor OALiFORNiA COASTAL COiVIIVIISSION SAN DIEGO AREA 7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103 SAN OIEGO, CA 92108-4421 (619) 767-2370 September 20, 2012 Th24a TO: COMMISSIONERS AND INTERESTED PERSONS FROM: SHERILYN SARB, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SAN DIEGO COAST DISTRICT DEBORAH LEE, DISTRICT MANAGER, SAN DIEGO COAST DISTRICT TONI ROSS COASTAL PROGRAM ANALYST, SD COAST DISTRICT SUBJECT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON CITY OF CARLSBAD LCP AMENDMENT No. CAR-MAJ-2-11A (Reasonable Accommodation) for Commission Meeting of October 10-12,2012 SYNOPSIS The subject LCP implementation plan amendment was submitted and filed as complete on August 1, 2011. A one-year time extension was granted on September 15, 2011. As such, the last date for Commission action on this item is October 30, 2012. This is the first of two unrelated items submitted as LCP Amendment No. 2-11 to be heard by the Commission. The second item is LCP Amendment No. CAR-MAJ-2-1 IB (Prop D) and it is scheduled separately for this same hearing. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT REQUEST Currently, in the City of Carlsbad, applications for reasonable accommodations have been processed by either the Planning or Building Division on a case-by-case basis. The City does not have a formalized procedure to review and approve or conditionally approve a reasonable accommodation request. During a recent review ofthe City's Housing Element by the Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), the Department requested that the City formalize its procedures. The subject LCP amendment is the City's response to this request. This LCP amendment proposes a new chapter, Chapter 21.87 - Reasonable Accommodation to the City's certified implementation plan, which establishes procedures and regulations goveming requests for reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. Specifically, this new chapter includes a description of the purpose and intent of the reasonable accommodation zoning chapter, definitions commonly associated with reasonable accommodations, the applicability of reasonable accommodations, a list of what's necessary to request a reasonable accommodation, identification of the review authority and the procedure to review such requests, the findings necessary to approve a reasonable accommodation, and lists the appeal procedures for any decision granting/denying a proposal for reasonable accommodations. This new chapter and its provisions will apply citywide. 3>P CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation Page 2 SUMMARY QF STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Commission can only reject such amendments where it can be shown that the amendment would be inconsistent with the certified Land Use Plan (LUP) and/or render the Implementation Program (IP) inadequate to carry out the LUP. Staff recommends denial ofthe amendment as proposed, and then approval ofthe amendment with five suggested modifications. For the most part, the Commission is not chiefly concerned with the review and approval of a request for a reasonable accommodation as it relates to the threshold criteria of whether or not a requestor of a reasonable accommodation is medically qualified to make such a request. However, when the authorization of reasonable accommodations includes allowing flexibility in the City's application of land use, zoning, and building code regulations, the Commission does have an interest in assuring that any potential impacts to coastal resources be identified, feasible altematives reviewed, the least environmentally damaging altemative implemented; and, if impacts to any coastal resources are determined to be unavoidable, the appropriate feasible mitigation is provided. Without the inclusion of this process, protection of coastal resources cannot be assured. Therefore, staff is recommending denial ofthe implementation plan as submitted, and then approval ofthe zoning amendment with five suggested modifications to address this concem. The primary intent ofthe suggested modifications is to clarify that review of any proposed reasonable accommodation still needs to be found consistent with the policies and adhere to all the regulations included in the City's LCP unless it is demonstrated that reasonable accommodation would be precluded. As proposed by the City, the provisions do not require the applicant to identify any potential impacts to any coastal resources associated with a development proposal, nor does it require an altematives analysis to be included in the proposal and the least environmentally damaging altemative to be implemented. The language also fails to require that, should impacts to coastal resources be unavoidable, appropriate feasible mitigation measures are included. Without this type of review, the protection of coastal resources cannot be guaranteed, which is inconsistent with the underlying purpose of the City's certified LCP. The term "coastal resources" includes: visual or physical access to and along the coast; sensitive vegetation and wildlife; natural features of the coast such as bluffs, as well as the protection of existing structures from hazards such as flood, fire, and geologic stability; and, without adequate protection of these resources, the proposed amendment is inconsistent with numerous policies within the City's LCP. As such, staff is suggesting two modifications to the City's proposed language. Suggested modification #2 would require any applicant to provide, as a component of their reasonable accommodation application, an assessment prepared by a qualified professional, which would include identification of any impacts to coastal resources, an altematives analysis minimizing the identified impacts, and proposed feasible mitigation should the impacts be unavoidable. Suggested modification #4 requires that the City find, when reviewing a specific reasonable accommodation application, that the proposed development has been sited in order to eliminate or minimize any impacts to coastal resources, that the altemative CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation Page 3 implemented is the least environmentally damaging altemative feasible; and, that all unavoidable impacts be mitigated consistent with the mitigation requirements of the City's certified LCP. Staff is also suggesting three additional modifications, including the following: (1) require that review of the reasonable accommodation request shall be done concurrently with any discretionary review, including a coastal development permit application (Suggested Modification No. 3); (2) clarify that if the reasonable accommodation proposal also includes a coastal development permit, an appeal of the decision will also be govemed by the appeal procedure for coastal development permits (Suggested Modification No. 5); and (3) clarify that both an individual or any developer of housing for an individual with disabilities is obligated to comply with other applicable regulations not at issue in the requested accommodation (Suggested Modification No. 1). The appropriate resolutions and motions begin on Page 5. The suggested modifications begin on Page 6. The findings for denial of the Implementation Plan Amendment as submitted begin on Page 8. The findings for approval of the plan, if modified, begin on Page 15. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Further information on the City of Carlsbad LCP Amendment 2-11A may be obtained from Toni Ross, Coastal Planner, at (619) 767-2370. CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation Page 4 PARTL OVERVIEW A. LCP HISTORY The City of Carlsbad's certified LCP contains six geographic segments as follows: Agua Hedionda, Mello I, Mello II, West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties, East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties, and Village Redevelopment. Pursuant to Sections 30170(f) and 30171 ofthe Public Resources Code, the Coastal Commission prepared and approved two portions ofthe LCP, the Mello I and II segments in 1980 and 1981, respectively. The West Batiquitos Lagoon/ Sammis Properties segment was certified in 1985. The East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties segment was certified in 1988. 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 permits for all segments except Agua Hedionda. The Agua Hedionda Lagoon LCP segment is a deferred certification area until an implementation plan for that segment is certified. This amendment modifies the City's Implementation Plan (IP) only. B. STANDARD OF REVIEW Pursuant to Secfion 30513 ofthe 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 ofthe certified land use plan. The Commission shall take action by a majority vote ofthe Commissioners present. C. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The City has held Planning Commission and City Council meetings with regard to the subject amendment request. All of those local hearings were duly noficed to the public. Notice ofthe subject amendment has been distributed to all known interested parties. 3 CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation Page 5 PART H. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM SUBMITTAL - RESOLUTIONS Following a public hearing, staff recommends the Commission adopt the following resolutions and findings. The appropriate motion to introduce the resolution and a staff recommendafion are provided just prior to each resolution. I. MOTION I: / move that the Commission reject the Implementation Program Amendment for City of Carlsbad LCPA No. 2-11 A as submitted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF REJECTION: Staff recommends a YES vote. Passage of this mofion will result in rejection of Implementation Program and the adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion passes only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present. RESOLUTION TO DENY CERTIFICATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM AS SUBMITTED: The Commission hereby denies certification of the Implementation Program Amendment submitted for the City of Carlsbad and adopts the findings set forth below on grounds that the Implementation Program as submitted does not conform with, and is inadequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified Land Use Plan. Certificafion ofthe Implementation Program would not meet the requirements of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act as there are feasible altematives and mitigation measures that would substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts on the environment that will result from certification of the Implementation Program as submitted II. MOTION II: / move that the Commission certify the Implementation Program Amendment for City of Carlsbad LCPA No. 2-1 lA, ifit is modified as suggested in this staff report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a YES vote. Passage of this motion will result in certification ofthe Implementation Program Amendment with suggested modifications and the adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion passes only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present. CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation Page 6 RESOLUTION TO CERTIFY THE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM AMENDMENT WITH SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS: The Commission hereby certifies the Implementation Program Amendment for the City of Carlsbad if modified as suggested and adopts the findings set forth below on grounds that the Implementation Program Amendment, with the suggested modifications, conforms with and is adequate to carryout the certified Land Use Plan. Certification of the Implementation Program Amendment if modified as suggested complies with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act, because either 1) feasible mitigation measures and/or altematives have been incorporated to substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the Implementation Program Amendment on the environment, or 2) there are no further feasible altematives and mitigation measures that would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts on the environment. PART III. 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 otmck out sections represent language which the Commission suggests be deleted from the language as originally submitted. 1. Modify Section 21.87.030 - "Applicability" as follows: A. A request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any individual with a disability, his or her representative, or a developer or provider of housing for individuals with disabilities, when the application of a land use, zoning or building regulation, policy, practice or procedure acts as a barrier to housing opportunities. B. A request for reasonable accommodation may include a modification or exception to the mles, standards, development and use of housing-related facilities that would eliminate regulatory barriers and provide a person with a disability equal opportunity to the housing of their choice. C. A request for reasonable accommodation in regulations, policies, practices and procedures may be filed at any time that the accommodation may be necessary to ensure equal access to housing. A reasonable accommodation does not affect an individual's or developer of housing for an individual with disabilities obligations to comply with other applicable regulations not at issue in the requested accommodation. 2. Modify Section 21.87.040 - "Request for reasonable accommodation" as follows: A. Application for a request for reasonable accommodation shall be made in writing on a form provided by the planning director. The form shall be signed by the property owner or authorized agent. The application shall state fully the circumstances and conditions relied upon as grounds for the application and shall be accompanied by 3'l CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation Page 7 adequate plans and all other materials as specified by the planning director. The application shall include the zoning, land use or building code provision, regulation, policv or practice from which modification or exception for reasonable accommodation is being requested including an explanation of how application ofthe existing zoning, land use or building code provision, regulation, policv or practice precludes reasonable accommodation. In addition, the application shall include an assessment, prepared bv a qualified professional, of the potential adverse impacts to wetlands, envlronmentallv sensitive habitat areas, public access, public views, and/or hazards such as geologic, flood and fire. The assessment shall also include a detailed feasible altematives anaivsis and proposed feasible mitigation measures if unavoidable impacts are identified. B. Proof of applicable disability shall be provided in the form of a note from a medical doctor or other third party professional documentation deemed acceptable to the planning director. C. Any information identified by an applicant as confidential shall be retained in a manner so as to respect the privacy rights of the applicant and shall not be made available for public inspection. D. If an individual needs assistance in making the application for reasonable accommodation, the city will provide assistance to ensure the process is accessible. 3. Modify Section 21.87.050 - "Review authority and procedure" as follows: A. Request for reasonable accommodation may be approved or conditionally approved by the planning director and shall be processed independent of concurrent with any other required discretionary approval (including but not limited to. Conditional Use Permit, Coastal Development Permit, Design Review, Variance, General Plan Amendment, Zone change, etc.). devolopment permits. However, aApproval of a reasonable accommodation may be conditioned upon approval of other related permits. 4. Modify Section 21.87.060 - "Required Findings" as follows: A. The housing, which is the subject of the request for reasonable accommodation, will be occupied by an individual with a disability protected under fair housing laws; B. The requested accommodation is necessary to make housing available to an individual with a disability protected under the fair housing laws; C. The requested accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city; 3% CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation Page 8 D. The requested accommodation would eliminate or minimize impacts on wetlands, envlronmentallv sensitive habitat areas, public access, public views and/or hazards to the maximum extent feasible, as documented in a detailed altematives anaivsis; E. The altemative to be implemented is the least environmentally damaging feasible altemative; F. If any impacts to wetlands, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, public access, public views or hazards associated with the accommodation are unavoidable, feasible mitigation for all unavoidable impacts have been included consistent with the Citv's Local Coastal Program; DG. The requested accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the city's land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices, and procedures; and ETH, The requested accommodation would not result in a detriment to the surrounding uses or character of the surrounding neighborhood. 5. Modify Section 21.87.070 - Effective Date of Order -appeal of decision as follows: Effective date of order - appeal of decision. A. The effective date of the planning director's decision and method for appeal of such decision shall be govemed by Sections 21.54 and 21.80 of this title... PART IV. FINDINGS FOR REJECTION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT. AS SUBMITTED A. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION The proposed LCP amendment includes changes to the City's Implementation Plan only. The amendment incorporates a new chapter (Chapter 21.87 - Reasonable Accommodation) into the City's certified implementation plan. This new chapter establishes procedures and regulations goveming requests for reasonable accommodations by people with disabilities. Specifically, Chapter 21.87 includes: 1) a description of the purpose and intent of the reasonable accommodation zoning chapter; 2) definitions commonly associated with reasonable accommodations; 3) the applicability of reasonable accommodations; 4) a list of what's necessary to request a reasonable accommodation; 5) the identification ofthe review authority and procedure to review such requests; 6) the findings necessary to approve a reasonable accommodation; and, 7) lists the appeal procedures for any decision granting/denying a request for reasonable accommodations. 3'1 CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation Page 9 B. FINDINGS FOR REJECTION. 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. a) Purpose. Intent, and Major Provisions of the Ordinance. The City's intent ofthe proposed new ordinance is to provide some flexibility in the application of land use, zoning, and building codes regulations, policies, practices, and procedures for project that require approval of permits and/or other entitlements in order to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. The City is proposing these changes in response to State and Federal laws (including the federal Americans with Disabilities Act) that require cities to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. b) Adequacy of the Ordinance to Implement the Certified LUP Segments. The Commission can only reject such amendments where it can be shown that the amendment would be inconsistent with the certified Land Use Plan (LUP) and/or render the Implementation Program (IP) inadequate to carry out the LUP. In this case, the LUP includes the Mello I, Mello II, Agua Hedionda, Village Redevelopment Area, East Batiquitos Lagoon and West Batiquitos Lagoon LUP segments. Many sections within the respective LUPs contain policies that address protection of public views, public access and recreation, sensitive habitat and wildlife, and reduction in potential flood, fire and geologic hazards. The addition of the City's proposed language raises several inconsistencies with the policies certified in the City's LUP. The most applicable policies are stated, wholly or in part, below: c) Applicable Land Use Plan Policies. Development Along the Shore Policv 4-1 Coastal Erosion - Development Along the Shoreline a. For all new development along the shoreline, including additions to existing development, a site-specific geological investigation and analysis similar to that required by the Coastal Commission's Geologic Stability and Blufftop Guidelines shall be required, for all permitted development, this report must demonstrate bluff stability for 75 years, or the expected lifetime of the structure, whichever is greater. Additionally, permitted development shall incorporate drought-resistant vegetation in landscaping, as well as adhering to the standards for erosion control contained in the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan. A waiver of public liability shall be required for any permitted development for which an assurance of structural stability cannot be provided. wo CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation Page 10 Policv 4-1 Coastal Erosion - III. Shoreline Structures Revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, and other such constmction 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. Policy 4-1 Coastal Erosion - Undevelopable Shoreline Features No development shall be permitted on any sand or rock beach or on the face of any ocean bluff, with the exception of accessways to provide public beach access and of limited public recreation facilities. Public Access Policv 7-3 - Access Along the Shoreline The City will cooperate with the state to ensure that lateral beach access is protected and enhanced to the maximum degree feasible, and will continue to formalize shoreline prescriptive rights. Irrevocable offers of dedication for lateral accessways between the mean high tide line and the base of the coastal bluffs, and vertical accessways where applicable, shall be required in new development consistent with Section 30212 ofthe Califomia Coastal Act of 1976. There is evidence of historic public use adjacent to Buena Vista Lagoon. Paths crisscross the area near the railroads tracks to the ocean shoreline. Development shall provide access and protect such existing access consistent with the needs to protect the habitat. Public Views Mello II Policy 8-1- Site Development Review: The Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone should be applied where necessary throughout the Carlsbad coastal zone to assure the maintenance of existing views and panoramas. Sites considered for development should undergo review to determine ifthe proposed development will obstmct views or otherwise damage the visual beauty ofthe area. The Planning Commission should enforce appropriate height limitations and see- through construction, as well as minimize alterations to topography. Sensitive Habitat 3-1.2 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) Pursuant to Section 30240 of the Califomia Coastal Act, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, as defined in Section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act, shall be protected CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation Page 11 against any significant dismption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas. 3-1.3 Coastal Sage Scmb Coastal Sage Scmb is a resource of particular importance to the ecosystems ofthe Coastal Zone, due in part to the presence of the Coastal Califomia gnatcatcher (Federal Threatened) and other species. Properties containing Coastal Sage Scmb shall conserve a minimum 67% of the Coastal Sage Scmb and 75% of the gnatcatchers onsite. Conservation of gnatcatchers shall be determined in consultation with the wildlife agencies. 3-1.7 Wetlands [...] Wetlands shall be delineated following the definitions and boundary descriptions in Section 13577 of the Califomia Code of Regulations. Pursuant to Califomia Public Resources Code Section 30233, no impacts to weflands shall be allowed except as follows: a. The diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging altemative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following: (1) New or expanded port, energy, and coastal-dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities. (2) Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged, depths in existing navigational channels, tuming basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps. (3) In wetland areas only, entrance channels for new or expanded boating facilities; and in a degraded wetland, identified by the Department of Fish and Game pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 30411, for boating facilities if, in conjunction with such boating facilities, a substantial portion of the degraded wetland is restored and maintained as a biologically productive wetland. The size of the wetland area used for boating facilities, including berthing space, tuming basins, necessary navigation channels, and any necessary support service facilities, shall not exceed 25 percent of the degraded wetland. (4) In open coastal waters, other than wetlands, including streams, estuaries, and lakes, new or expanded boating facilities and the placement of stmctural pilings CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation Page 12 for public recreational piers that provide public access and recreational opportunities. (5) Incidental public service purposes, including but not limited to, burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing intakes and outfall lines. (6) Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas. (7) Restoration purposes. (8) Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource dependent activities... 3-1.8 Wetland Mitigation Requirements If impacts to a wetland are allowed consistent with Policy 3-1.7, mitigation shall be provided at a ratio of 3:1 for riparian impacts and 4:1 for saltwater or freshwater wetland or marsh impacts. 3-1.9 No Net Loss of Habitat There shall be no net loss of Coastal Sage Scmb, Maritime Succulent Scmb, Southem Maritime Chaparral, Southem Mixed Chaparral, Native Grassland, and Oak Woodland within the Coastal Zone of Carlsbad. Mitigation for impacts to any of these habitat types, when permitted, shall include a creation component that achieves the no net loss standard. Substantial restoration of highly degraded areas (where effective functions of the habitat type have been lost) may be substituted for creation subject to the consultation and concurrence of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Califomia Department of Fish and Game (wildlife agencies). The Coastal Commission shall be notified and provided an opportunity to comment upon proposed substitutions of substantial restoration for the required creation component. Development shall be consistent with Policy 3-1.2 of this section, unless proposed impacts are specifically identified in the HMP; these impacts shall be located to minimize impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub and maximize protection ofthe Coastal Califomia gnatcatcher and its habitat. d. Specific Findings for Denial. The City of Carlsbad is proposing to amend its implementation plan to include a new chapter (Chapter 21.87) to formalize the process by which requests for reasonable accommodations are reviewed and approved. For the most part, the Commission is not chiefly concemed with the review and approval of a request for a reasonable accommodation as it relates to the threshold criteria of whether or not a requestor of a reasonable accommodation is medically qualified to make such a request. However, when the approval of reasonable accommodations includes flexibility in the City's application of land use, zoning, and building code regulations, the Commission does have CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation Page 13 an interest in assuring that any potential impacts to coastal resources are avoided and/or minimized to the maximum extent feasible, if some impact is determined to be necessary. In order for such approvals to be found consistent with the City's LCP, all potential impacts need to be identified, feasible altematives reviewed, and the least damaging feasible altemative implemented. Additionally, if impacts to any coastal resources are unavoidable, the appropriate feasible mitigation must be required. The City failed to include this process in its review for reasonable accommodations. Without this detailed review by the City, the proper protection of coastal resources cannot be assured. The Commission realizes that the City and other regulated parties must, by federal law, make reasonable accommodations available as necessary to assure that structures are accessible by all people, including those with disabilities. The City's proposed language will allow flexibility such that if land use restrictions preclude or limit accessibility to people with disabilities, the restrictions will not be imposed. However, the proposed language does not clearly address how the flexibility or complete removal of development restrictions will be approved should those improvements result in impacts to coastal resources. As is reflected in the City's certified LUP policies cited above, the City's certified LUP places high value on maximizing public access and recreation, protecting and enhancing public views, protecting natural habitats and wildlife, and protecting structures from geologic, flood and fire hazards. Additionally, these policies require that impacts to coastal resources be minimized to the maximum extent feasible and require feasible mitigation for any unavoidable impacts. The Commission further recognizes that such impacts may be necessary to provide accessibility to those with disabilities, again, as required by federal law. However, if there is a feasible altemative that accomplishes the goals of accessibility without impacting coastal resources, that should be the altemative implemented. If there are no feasible altematives that eliminate impacts to coastal resources, then the least environmentally impacting feasible altemative should be the altemative implemented. Federal law addressing reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities does not expressly prohibit the consideration of a project's environmental impacts in its project review nor does it prohibit requiring an applicant to constmct a feasible project altemative that would avoid or minimize environmental impacts. Finally, for projects where impacts are unavoidable, the federal law does not prohibit requiring feasible mitigation measures for such impacts. To provide illustrative examples, without inclusion of the above stated process (impacts identified, feasible altematives reviewed, impacts minimized, feasible mitigation provided), a proposal may be approved on a coastal bluff that is not safely sited or located in an area that would result in obstmcting expansive public views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, when a feasible altemative location that has a more appropriate geologic setback or does not provide such an view impact was overlooked. The siting of development can also result in development located on a portion of a lot that contains sensitive habitat or wetiands. All of these scenarios could be avoided if a proper altematives analysis was required. Finally, the City could approve a development without the imposition of feasible mitigation measures for such impacts. As previously CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation Page 14 stated, the City's proposed amendment does not clearly include the review of potential impacts and potential feasible altematives, nor does it require feasible mitigation for unavoidable impacts. Absent these measures, coastal resource protection is not maximized. Additionally, the City failed to clarify how the coastal development permit process is incorporated into approval of reasonable accommodation proposals. The coastal development permit process is the time when the City would review the project for consistency with the City's LCP. If this process is not clearly identified, there is potential that the City may approve a proposal that is not consistent with its LCP. Without detailed review of all potential impacts to coastal resources or clear inclusion of the coastal development permit process, the proposed amendment cannot be found consistent with the City's LCP, and; therefore shall be denied as submitted. PARTY. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT. IF MODIFIED As proposed, the City's language allows for flexibility in application of land use and zoning standards, policies and regulations in order to provide for reasonable accommodation in development intended for people with disabilities, but the ordinance does not adequately address review of potential impacts to coastal resources or include an altematives analysis. In addition, it does not require that the least environmentally damaging feasible altemative be implemented, nor does it require that if impacts are unavoidable, feasible mitigation has to be provided consistent with the certified LCP. A project located in the coastal zone which requests land use and zoning flexibility should identify whether impacts to coastal resources would result and, if so, identify the specific resource(s) impacted. The altematives review should also describe feasible altematives to the project as proposed and identify the feasible altemative with the least impacts to coastal resources. And, finally, a request for reasonable accommodation should also identify and include feasible mitigation for any unavoidable impacts the project would create. The Commission is therefore suggesting five modifications to the City's proposed amendment. The overarching intent of these modifications is to clearly identify that the approval of reasonable accommodations may also require review and issuance of a coastal development permit. To that end, two suggested modifications were included to address the projects consistency with the City's LCP and three modifications have been included to highlight the process for approving a coastal development permit for any reasonable accommodation proposal. Suggested modifications (Nos. 2 and 4 respectively) modify the City's language to include 1) the requirement for any applicant to provide, as a component of their reasonable accommodation application, an assessment prepared by a qualified professional, which would include identification of any impacts to coastal resources, an L\5 CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation Page 15 altematives analysis minimizing the identified impacts, and proposed mitigation should the impacts be unavoidable. Suggested modification (No. 4) requires that the City find, when reviewing a specific reasonable accommodation application, that the proposed development has been sited in order to eliminate or minimize any impacts to coastal resources, that the feasible altemative implemented is the least environmentally damaging altemative feasible; and, that all unavoidable impacts be mitigated consistent with the mitigation requirements ofthe City's certified LCP. With the inclusion of Suggested Modification Nos. 2 and 4, all coastal resources impacts will be minimized to the maximum extent feasible, and any unavoidable impacts will be adequately mitigated. It is only with the inclusion of these modifications that the proposed amendment can be found consistent with the City's LUP. The remaining three modifications serve to clarify the coastal development permit process. Suggested Modification No. 1 clarifies that an individual or any developer of housing for an individual with disabilities is obligated to comply with other applicable regulations not at issue in the requested accommodation. Suggested Modification No. 3 requires that a request for reasonable accommodation shall be processed concurrent with any other required discretionary approval. Finally Suggest Modification No. 5 clarifies that if the reasonable accommodation proposal also includes a coastal development permit, an appeal of the decision will also be govemed by the appeal procedure for coastal development permits. To conclude, the certified LUP requires that coastal resources such as public access and recreation, public views, and sensitive habitats; including wetlands, be protected. For the reasons described above, only if modified as suggested can the proposed Implementation Plan amendment be found to be consistent with and adequate to carry out the public access and recreation, public view and habitat protection policies of the City's certified Land Use Plan in addition to policies related to assuring that any proposed reasonable accommodation will be safe from potential flood, fire and geologic hazards. Therefore, the Commission finds that, as modified, the proposed Implementation Plan amendment will be consistent with and adequate to carry out the provisions of the certified Land Use Plan (LUP). PART VI. CONSISTENCY WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY ACT (CEOA) Section 21080.5 of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exempts local govemment from the requirement of preparing an environmental impact report (EIR) in connection with its local coastal program. 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. Nevertheless, the Commission is required, in a LCP submittal or, as in this case, a LCP amendment submittal, to find that the approval of the proposed LCP, or LCP, as CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation Page 16 amended, conforms to CEQA provisions, including the requirement in CEQA section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) that the amended LCP will not be approved or adopted as proposed if there are feasible altemative or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which the activity may have on the environment. (14 CCR. §§ 13542(a), 13540(f), and 13555(b)). The Commission finds that approval of the proposed LCP amendment, as submitted, would result in significant impacts under the meaning of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. Specifically, the proposed LCP amendment as proposed would result in potential impacts to public access/recreation, public views, sensitive habitat and wildlife, and could increase coastal hazard concems such as safe geologic setbacks, flood, and fire. However, with the inclusion of the suggested modifications, the revised zoning ordinance would not result in significant impacts to the environment within the meaning of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, the Commission finds that approval of the LCP amendment will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. (G:\San Diego\Reports\LCPs\Carlsbad\CAR-MAJ-2-l lA Reasonable Acc. IP stfipt.doc) 47 Suggested Modifications Scott Donnell November 27, 2012 Description •Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance •Local Coastal Program •Coastal Commission “suggested modifications” •Suggested modifications are minor 2 City Council introduce Ordinance No. CS-196, approving an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance (ZCA 10-06(A)) and accepting Coastal Commission’s suggested modifications to the city’s Local Coastal Program (LCPA 10-05(A)) Recommendation