HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 89-01; City of Carlsbad Offshore Oil; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (5)- - WC
STATE OF CPLIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
631 HOWARD STREET, 4TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-3973
Hearing Impaired/TDD (415) 896-1 825
(415) 543-8555
June 1, 1990
TO: COMMISSIONERS AND INTERESTED PERSONS
FROM: CHUCK DAMM, SOUTH COAST DISTRICT DIRECTOR DEBORAH N. LEE, COASTAL PROGRAM MANAGER, SAN DIEGO AREA OFFICE
PAUL 6. WEBB, COASTAL PROGRAM ANALYST, SAN DIEGO AREA OFFICE
MARK DELAPLAINE, ENERGY & OCEAN RESOURCES UNIT, SAN FRANCISCO
SUBJECT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON MAJOR AMENDMENT 1-89 TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (For Public Hearing and Possible Final Action
at the Coastal Commission Hearing of June 12, 1990)
SYNOPSIS
BACKGROUND
The Carlsbad Local Coastal Program consists of six geographic segments. Pursuant to Sections 30170(f) and 30171 of the Public Resources Code, the
Coastal Commission prepared and approved two portions of the LCP, the Mello I
and I1 segments in 1980 and 1981, respectively. However, the City of Carlsbad
found several provisions of the Mello I and I1 segments unacceptable and
declined to adopt the LCP implementing ordinances for the LCP. In October,
1985, the Commission approved major amendments, related to steep slope
protection and agricultural preservation, to the Mello I and I1 segments, which resolved the major differences between the City and the Coastal
Commission. The City then adopted the Mello I and I1 segments and began
working towards certification of all segments of its local coastal program.
Since the 1985 action, the Commission has approved several major amendments to the City of Carlsbad LCP. (See pages 2-3 for more detailed status of LCP
segments).
The proposed LCP amendment would apply to all segments of the City's Land Use Plan (LUP). The proposed changes in the zoning code would also apply to all
areas within the City's coastal zone.
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT REQUEST
The City of Carlsbad proposes to amend all six segments of the City's Local
Coastal Program Land Use Plan to restrict onshore oil and gas support
facilities except upon a determination of the City Council that the following
six findings are true: the project will pose no danger to life and property;
the project will not pose a potential threat of damage or injuries to
residents; the benefits of the project clearly outweigh any adverse
environmental effects; no feasible alternatives to the project exist;, the
-2-
approval at the particular location outweighs any potential harm to public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare; and the proposed
project is permitted within the underlying zone.
The amendment request seeks to amend the zoning code to limit onshore oil and gas support facilities to the C-M (Heavy Commercial-Limited Industrial), M
(Industrial), and P-M (Planned Industrial) zones. A Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) would also be required in these specified zones.
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission deny LCP Amendment 1-89, as submitted by
the City of Carlsbad, and approve the amendment, if modified as suggested, to
allow for the regulation of onshore support facilities for offshore oil and
gas exploration and development activities, including additional standards for the regulation of such activities, changes to the City's zoning code limiting
onshore support facilities to the C-M, M and P-M zones, and the requirement
that a conditional use permit (CUP) be granted for such uses. The essence of
the staff's recommendation is to modify the standards for such uses in a
manner reflecting Coastal Act goals and policies. The appropriate resolutions
can be found beginning on Page 4; the supporting findings begin on Page 6 of
this report.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Further information on the City of Carlsbad LCP amendment may be obtained from Paul Webb at the San Diego Area Office of the Coastal Commission, 1333 Camino
del Rio South, Suite 125, San Diego, CA 92108-3520, (619) 297-9740, or Mark
Delaplaine at the San Francisco Energy & Ocean Resources Division of the Coastal Commission, at 631 Howard, 4th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415)
543-8555.
PART I. OVERVIEW
A. LCP HISTORY
The City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP) currently consists of six
segments: the Agua Hedionda Lagoon LCP segment comprised of approximately
1,100 acres; the Carlsbad Mello I LCP segment with 2,000 acres; the Carlsbad
Mello I1 LCP segment which includes approximately 5,300 acres; the West
Batiquitos Lagoon/Sarnmis Properties segment with 200 acres; the East
Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties segment with 1,500 acres and the Village
Area Redevelopment segment with approximately 100 acres (see Exhibit 1).
The Mello I, Mello I1 and Agua Hedionda segments of the Carlsbad LUP cover the majority of the City's coastal zone.
which involve the greatest number of coastal resource issues and have been the
subject of the most controversy over the past years.
involved in the process of certifying the land use plans for these segments
were agricultural preservation, protection of steep-sloping hillsides and
wetland habitats, the provision of adequate visitor-serving commercial
facilities, and preservation of the scenic resources of the area.
They are also the segments of the LCP
Among those issues
e- -3-
In the summer of 1985, the City submitted two amendment requests to the
Commission, and, in October of 1985, the Commission certified amendments 1-85
and 2-85 to the Mello I and Mello I1 segments, respectively. These (major)
amendments to the LCP involved changes to the agrigultural preservation, steep
slope protection and housing policies of the Mello I and I1 segments of the
LCP. After certification of these amendments, the City adopted the Mello I
and I1 LCP segments and began the process of preparing documents for
"effective" certification of the entire LCP and assumption of permit authority
for the City's coastal zone.
In March of 1988, the Commission approved the Implementation Program for the Village Area Redevelopment segment of the LCP. A review of the
post-certification maps occurred in December, and the City assumed permit
authority for this LCP segment plan area on December 14, 1988. To date, no other segments of the LCP have become fully certified.
The City is currently in the process of preparing the various ordinances and
post-certification maps for implementation of the remainder of its LCP. The
City is also expected to prepare a single LCP document that incorporates into the originally-certified LCP segments all the LCP amendments which have
occurred since the time of the segments' certifications.
8. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of review for land use plans, or their amendments, is found in Section 30512 of the Coastal Act. This section requires the Commission to
certify an LUP or LUP amendment if it finds that it meets the requirements of
Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Specifically, it states:
(c) The Commission shall certify a land use plan, or any amendments thereto, if it finds that a land use plan meets the requirements of, and
is in cohformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section
30200). Except as provided in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), a
decision to certify shall require a majority vote of the appointed membership of the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 30513 of the Coastal Act, the Commission may only reject zoning ordinances or other implementing actions or their amendments, on the
grounds that they do not conform with, or are inadequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified land use plan. The Commission shall take action
by a majority vote of those Commissioners present.
C. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City has held numerous Planning Commission and City Council meetings with regard to the the subject amendment request.
noticed to the public.
all known interested parties.
All of these local hearings were
Notice of the subject review has been distributed to
-. -4-
PART 11. 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 recommendation are provided just prior to the
resolution.
A. RESOLUTION I (Resolution to deny certification of the City of Carlsbad
LUP Amendment, entitled LCPA 89-1, to the Mello I, Mello
11, Agua Hedionda, East Batiquitos/Hunt Properties, West
Batiquitos/Sammis Properties and Village Redevelopment Area
segments, as submitted)
MOTION I
I move that the Commission certify the land use plan amendment, entitled LCPA 89-1, to the City of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program, as submitted.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends a vote and the adoption of the following resolution and findings. An affirmative vote by the majority of the appointed
Commissioners is needed to pass the motion.
Resolution I
The Commission hereby denies certification of the amendment to the Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program and adopts the findings stated below on
the grounds that the land use plan, as amended, does not meet the
requirements of and is not in conformity with the policies of Chapter 3
(commencing with Section 30200) of the California Coastal Act to the
extent necessary to achieve the basic state goals specified in Section
30001.5 of the Coastal Act; the land use plan, as amended, will contain a
specific access component as required by Section 30500 of the Coastal Act;
the land use plan, as amended, will not be consistent with applicable
decisions of the Commission that shall guide local government actions
pursuant to Section 30625(c); and certification of the land use plan amendment does not meet the requirements of Section 21080.5(d)(2)(i) of
the California Environmental Quality Act, as there are feasible mitigation
measures or feasible alternatives which would substantially lessen
significant adverse impacts on the environment.
B. RESOLUTION I1 (Resolution to approve certification of the City of Carlsbad LUP Amendment, entitled LCPA 89-1, to the Mello I,
Mello 11, Agua Hedionda, East Batiquitos/Hunt Properties, West Batiquitos/Sammis Properties and Village Redevelopment
Area segments, if modified as suggested)
MOTION 11:
''I move that the Commission certify Amendments LCPA 89-1 to the Carlsbad Land Use Plan if it is modified as suggested.''
C.
Staff recommends a YES vote.
appointed Commissioners is needed to pass the motion.
An affirmative vote by a majority of the
RESOLUTION 11:
The Commission hereby certifies Amendments # LCPA 89-1 to the Land Use
Plan of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program if modified according to the
modifications below for the specific reasons discussed in the following findings on the grounds that, as modified, these amendments and the LUP as thereby amended meet the requirements of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act
(commencing with Section 30200) of the California Coastal Act to the
extent necessary to achieve the basic state goals specified in Section
30001.5 of the Coastal Act; the land use plan, as amended, will contain a
specific access component as required by Section 30500 of the Coastal Act;
the amendments, as modified, are consistent with applicable decisions of
the Commission that guide local government actions pursuant to Section
30625(c); and approval will not have significant environmental effects for
which feasible mitigation measures have not been employed consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act.
RESOLUTION I11 (Resolution to approve certification of the City of Carlsbad LCP Implementation Plan Amendment, entitled ZCA
89-1, to the Mello I, Mello 11, Aqua Hedionda, East
Batiquitos/Hunt Properties, West Batiquitos/Sammis
Properties and Village Redevelopment Area segments, as
submitted)
MOTION I11
I move that the Commission reject the implementation plan amendment,
entitled ZCA 89-1, to the City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, as
submitted.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends a NO vote and the adoption of the following resolution
and findings.
present is needed to pass the motion.
An affirmative vote by a majority of the Commissioners
Resolution 111
The Commission hereby approves certification of the amendment to the City of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program on the grounds that the amendment
conforms with, and is adequate to carry out, the provisions of the
certified land use plan.
mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any
significant adverse impacts which the approval would have on the
envi ronment.
There are no feasible alternatives or feasible
-6-
.
PART 111. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS
The following are the suggested revisions for this amendment request.
Language to be added is underlined; language to be deleted is crossed out.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), industrial onshore oil and gas support facilities would be prohibited except upon a determination by the City
Council that mitigation measures have been provided sufficient to enable the
City to find that:
(1) R##f$J~X/d~/U#l/#~d#$$l~/#~~~l~~/~~~/~~~~X~~~l$/~~XX/~$$l/~$ Any danger to life and property to the residents of the neighborhood,
community or City, and any threat of damage or injuries to nearby
residents, will be minimized;
12) The project is consistent with all other applicable LCP policies;
(3) (A) Marine resources, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, and agriculture will be maintained and protected and, where feasible,
restored ;
(B) The biological productivity of coastal waters. streams,
wetlands, estuaries and lakes will be maintained and where feasible,
restored ;
IC) Effective containment and cleanup facilities will be provided
for accidental spills that might occur, and protection against
hazardous spi 11s wi 11 be provided. Measures required for project
approval shall include location of facilities in a manner minimizing
spill potential and consequences, provisions to prevent spills, and
provisions for the containment and clean-up of spills should they
occur. A spill contingency plan, including an effective response
plan and details for implementation, shall be provided;
(D) The development will be located within existing developed areas able to accommodate it, or where adequate public services are
available and where it will not have individual or cumulative adverse effects on coastal resources. New hazardous development will be
located away from existing developed areas;
(E) Grading will be minimized;
(F) Scenic and visual qualities, including coastal land forms, will be protected;
(G) Geologic risks and fire hazard will be minimized, and geologic stability and structural integrity will be assured; and
IH) Where development is located between the sea and the first public road, public access will be provided, except where adequate
access exists nearby or where it would conflict with agriculture,
military security needs or protection of fragile coastal resources.
. rc- -7 - 4
4) The project will be consistent with air quality requirements of the focal air pollution control district or Air Resources Board;
(5) The benefits of the proposed project rllddtld outweigh the possible individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects of the project;
(6) There are no feasible less damaging alternatives to the proposed project, and the adverse environmental effects of the project will be
mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. For projects involving
transportation of oil, the City's consideration shall include analysis of
the feasibility of pipeline transportation, and analysis of whether new or expanded facilities would be consolidated to the maximum extent feasible
and legally permissible, unless consolidation will have adverse environmental consequences and will not significantly reduce the number of
facilities. The City's analysis of consolidation shall include
consideration of the feasibility of co-location and sharing of facilities; and
(7) The proposed project is permitted within the underlying zone.
(b)(l) Facilities which are determined to be coastal dependent shall be analyzed for consistency with the provisions of subsection (a) (above). Where
a coastal dependent facility cannot be feasibly accommodated consistent with
these provisions, it may be permitted upon a determination by the City Council
that:
(A) such facilities will be consistent with subsections (a)(41 through (a)(7)(above); (8) considerations have been identified which
support the conclusion that to do otherwise would adversely affect
the public welfare.
Coastal dependent facilities are defined as facilities which require a
site on, or adjacent to, the sea to be able to function at all.
(b)(2) Facilities identified in section 30263 shall be analyzed for consistency with the provisions of subsection (a) (above), and subsections
30263(b) and (c) of the Coastal Act. Where a facility identified in section
30263 cannot be feasibly accommodated consistent with these provisions, it may
be permitted upon a determination by the City Council that:
IA) the facility will meet subsections (a)(4) through (aI(7) (above); le) the facility will not be located in a highly scenic or
seismically hazardous area, or within or contiguous to an
environmentally sensitive area; (C) the facility will be sited so as
to provide a sufficient buffer area to minimize adverse impacts on
--4
-8-
.
surrounding property; and (D) considerations have been identified which support the conclusion that to do otherwise would adversely
affect the public welfare.
PART IV. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT/LCPA 89-1, AS
SUBMITTED
A. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION.
The City of Carlsbad proposes to amend all six segments (the Nello I, Mello 11, Agua Hedionda, East Batiquitos/Hunt Properties, West Batiquitos/Sammis
Properties and Village Redevelopment Area segments) of the City's Local
Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Under this amendment, onshore oil and gas
support facilities would be prohibited except upon a determination by the City
Counci 1 that:
(a) Approval of the proposed project and facilities will pose no danger to life and property to residents of the neighborhood, community or
City.
(b) Approval of the proposed project will not pose a potential threat of damage or injuries to nearby residents.
(c) The benefits of the proposed project clearly outweigh the possible adverse environmental effects.
(d) There are no feasible alternatives to the proposed project.
(e) The location and approval of the onshore facilities at the particular
location clearly outweigh any potential harm to public health,
safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood or community and will not be
detrimental or injurious to property in the neighborhood, community
or to the general welfare of the City, and
(f) The proposed project is permitted within the underlying zone.
6. CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 30001.5 OF THE COASTAL ACT.
The Commission finds, pursuant to Section 30512.2(b) of the Coastal Act, that
the portion of the LCP amendment known as LCPA 89-1, as submitted, is
inconsistent with the policies and requirements of Chapter 3 of the Coastal
Act and does not meet the basic state goals specified in Section 30001.5 of
the Coastal Act, which states:
The Legislature further finds and declares that the basic goals of the state for the coastal zone are to:
a) Protect, maintain and where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and
manmade resources.
I -9- 4
b) Assure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources taking into account the social and economical needs of the
people of the state.
c) Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public
recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound
resource conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of
private property owners.
d) Assure priority for coastal-dependent and coastal-related
development over other developments on the coast.
e) Encourage state and local initiatives and cooperation in preparing procedures to implement coordinated planning and development for
mutually beneficial uses, including educational uses, in the coastal zone.
The amendment's inconsistency with respect to Section 30001.5 is with
subsection (d) above. The amendment is inconsistent with subsection (d)
because it does not assure priority for coastal dependent industrial
development. If it were modified as suggested above, however, the amendment
would reflect the Coastal Act's "override" policy for coastal dependent
industrial development, and therefore would be consistent with Section 30001.5.
[Note: provisions of Sections 30260 and 30263 as "override" policies, because they
allow the Commission to approve coastal dependent industrial development, and
refineries, not otherwise approvable, if certain tests are met. Thus,
throughout these findings the phrase "override" will be used to reflect these
policy considerations found in Sections 30260 and 30263.
In previous decisions the Commission has commonly referred to the
C. CONFORMITY OF LCPA 89-1 WITH CHAPTER 3 POLICIES OF THE COASTAL ACT.
1. Industrial Development. Section 30250(a) of the Act states, in part:
(a) New residential, commercial, or industrial development, except as otherwise provided in this division, shall be located within, contiguous
with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to
accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in
other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have a
significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on
coastal resources.
In addition, Section 30260 of the Act states:
Coastal-dependent industrial facilities shall be encouraged to locate or expand within existing sites and shall be permitted reasonable long-term
growth where consistent with this division. However, where new or
expanded coastal-dependent industrial facilities cannot feasibly be
accommodated consistent with other policies of this division, they may
nonetheless be permitted in accordance with this section and Sections
30261 and 30262 if (1) alternative locations are infeasible or more
environmentally damaging; (2) to do otherwise would adversely affect the
public welfare; and (3) environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum
extent feasible.
_I h
-1 0-
Other polices which may be relevant to future proposed industrial facilities include Sections 30230, 30231, 30232, 30251, 30253, 30262, and 30263, which
address, respectively, protection of marine resources, protection of coastal
waters, protection against hazardous spills, protection of visual impacts and landforms, protection against geologic hazards, consolidation, and policies
applicable to refineries.
Under the proposed amendment to the Carlsbad LUP, onshore support facilities for offshore oil and gas development would only be allowed where six specific
findings could be made. The findings, listed above, require, among other
things, that the City find that a proposed project would pose no danger to life and property, no detriment or injury to property or general welfare, and
no threat of damage or injuries to residents.
facilities must be consistent with the underlying zone designations, and that potential harm be clearly outweighed.
They also provide that
The major planning efforts in the Carlsbad LCP have been directed towards
preserving agricultural land, and the LCP has not focused on industrial
development issues. With respect to offshore oil and gas development and
related onshore facilities, no offshore leasing and/or development has
occurred off this portion of the California coast, as the bulk of offshore
development has occurred in the Santa Barbara Channel and Santa Maria Basin,
with additional development in the Los Angeles/Long Beach area. There are no
coastal dependent industrial uses or sites within the incorporated limits of
the City of Carlsbad. The only industrial facility located directly on the
shoreline is the San Diego Gas & Electric Encina Generation Facility located
at Aqua Hedionda Lagoon. Several other industrial and limited
industrial/commercial type facilities are or have been located in the
southerly portions of the City, but these sites are located inland from
Carlsbad Blvd. and are not directly on the coastline. Thus, although some
vacant lands have been zoned for general industrial use, none of the Carlsbad
LCP segments contain policies specifically addressing coastal dependent
industrial uses.
In past Commission permit and LCP review, the Commission has found that some onshore support facilities for oil and gas exploration and development, such
as marine terminals and crew and supply boat bases, which require a site along
the shoreline in order to function, constitute coastal dependent industrial
facilities. In reviewing the proposed LUP amendment, the Commission notes the
high priority placed on coastal dependent industrial uses by the policies of
the Coastal Act. Section 30260 provides that coastal dependent industrial
development not otherwise consistent with the Coastal Act, may be approved if
certain tests can be met, tests (see above) which involve alternatives, the
public welfare, and mitigation of adverse effects to the maximum extent
feasible. Land use policies which would prohibit coastal dependent industrial
facilities outright would not be consistent with Section 30260.
The Commission finds that the land use plan amendment as proposed fails to meets the policies of the Coastal Act primarily as a result of the following
cons iderati ons :
--The policies as proposed do not implement the "override" policies of the Coastal Act. Specifically, Sections 30260 and 30263 contain specific
standards allowing the approval of certain energy facilities even where
such facilities do not meet the other policies of the Coastal Act. Since
the proposal lacks language reflective of these two provisions of the
Coastal Act, they would not be specifically considered by Carlsbad in its
review of energy facilities in appropriate cases, and there would be no
relevant LCP policies for the Commission to apply in its review on
appeal. Thus, the proposal is inconsistent with Chapter 3 because it does
not specifically provide for the special consideration provided for by
these sections of the Coastal Act.
--The Coastal Act gives the Coastal Commission a continuing role in the review of energy facilities after the certification of a Local Coastal
Program. In that role, the Commission is authorized to approve energy
facilities which are disapproved by a local government if it finds that
the provisions of the Local Coastal Program and the access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act will be met. The proposed policies would
contain language that could restrict the circumstances in which energy
facilities could be approved, even where such facilities would be
consistent with provisions reflecting the Coastal Act policies, without a
showing by the City of Carlsbad that energy needs could be met under the policies as proposed. Thus, the policies would improperly constrain the
Commission's ability to implement its authority with respect to energy
facilities.
--The proposed policies are not sufficiently specific. The proposal contains provisions setting stringent but general standards with respect
to life and property, welfare, environmental impacts and other issues.
However, the Coastal Act contains specific standards with respect to a
broad range of issues, including marine resources, grading, oil spills and
fire hazards. In this case, the proposed policy does not deal with these
Coastal Act policies in a specific enough manner to assure that they will
be met.
Each of these considerations is discussed below in more detail.
To date, the major planning efforts in the Carlsbad LCP have been directed towards preserving agricultural land. No offshore leasing and/or development
has occurred off this portion of the California Coast. Rather, the bulk of
offshore development has occurred in the Santa Barbara Channel and the Santa
Maria Basin, with additional development in the Long Beach/Los Angeles Area.
Thus, at present, no need for onshore support facilities has been identified.
Depending on their purpose and circumstances, onshore oil and gas support facilities may or may not be coastal dependent.
coastal dependent industrial uses or designated sites within the incorporated limits of the City of Carlsbad. The only industrial facility located directly
on the shoreline is the San Diego Gas and Electric Encina Generation Facility
located at Aqua Hedionda Lagoon. Several other industrial and limited
industrial/commercial type facilities are or have been located in the
southerly portions of the City, but these sites are located inland of Carlsbad
Blvd. and are not directly on the coastline.
There are at present no
The City of Carlsbad General Plan contains provisions dealing with industrial
facilities. As discussed above, the LCP is in various segments. Presumably
because oil and gas development was not contemplated, not all of the Coastal
Act policies relevant to such development are specifically reflected in the
Plan. The Commission notes in this respect that in appropriate circumstances,
-
-1 2-
a local government may choose npt to provide for oil and gas development.
However, where it does so, it must, to meet the standard of review for LCP
approval, do so in a manner meeting the policies of the Coastal Act.
As discussed above, the Coastal Act policies relevant to energy development
include provisions relating to coastal dependent development.
30260.) In past Commission permit and LCP review, the Commission has found
that some onshore support facilities for oil and gas exploration and
development, such as marine terminals and crew and supply boat bases, may require a site on or along the shoreline in order to function, and in those cases are coastal dependent industrial facilities. Prior to LCP
certification, the Coastal Commission is authorized to consider whether such
development may be approved under the "override" provisions of Section 30260.
To carry out this special consideration after LCP certification, the LCP must
contain appropriate provisions implementing this standard.
(Section
In reviewing the proposed LUP amendment, the Commission notes the high priority placed on coastal dependent use by the policies of the Coastal Act.
(See, e.g., Section 30255.) Section 30260 provides that coastal dependent
industrial development not otherwise consistent with the Coastal Act may be
approved if certain tests can be met, tests which (see above quotation of
section) involve consideration of alternatives, the public welfare, and
mitigation to the maximum extent feasible.
For several reasons, the proposed policy would not properly implement this provision (or the ltoverride" provided for in section 30263 for refineries and
petrochemical facilities). First, in several instances, the standards
proposed contain subjective, limiting standards, such as those relating to
"peace, morals, and comfort." Second, the City has not shown that the
provisions of its proposal requiring that no harm to property occur would not
preclude in this circumstance coastal dependent facilities approvable pursuant
to Section 30260. Finally, an "override" is considered only in those
circumstances where a project does not meet the other policies of the Coastal
Act. Since the City's proposal does not adequately reflect these provisions,
it is also problematic in this respect.
A second problem with the proposed provision is that it does not sufficiently preserve the Commission's role in the appeal process. Section 30603(a)
provides that after certification of a local coastal program, the Commission
may review, on appeal, the actions taken by a local government on a coastal
development permit for specified types of developments. development included in Section 30603 which is most likely to be affected by
the proposed amendment is "[alny development which constitutes a major public
works project or a major energy facility." (Section 30603(a)(5).) Any action
"taken by a local government on these two types of projects is appealable to the Commission, regardless of whether the local action results in approval or
denial of a coastal permit.
The category of
The proposed amendment could prevent the Commission from taking the range of
actions authorized by the Coastal Act where it acts on appeal because its
provisions do not reflect the Chapter 3 policies or otherwise enable the
Commission to assure that the policies will allow for implementation of
Coastal Act provisions relating to energy needs. While the Commission would
retain appeal authority over projects reviewed by the City under the
amendment, again the Commission would have to review them under standards such
- -1 3-
as "peace, morals, and comfort," and policies indicating that no danger whatsoever may occur, rather than standards based on the coastal resource
protection and other policies of the Coastal Act.
In addition to these concerns, the Commission finds that approval of the amendment, as submitted, would fail to implement with adequate specificity the
various policies of the Coastal Act. While some of these are reflected in various parts of the existing LCP, additional provisions are needed. The
broad provisions proposed here, dealing generally with considerations such as
harm or injury, are insufficient to meet these policies. The Coastal Act
contains specific provisions which individually address oil spills,
protection of marine resources, protection of coastal waters, protection
against hazardous spills, protection of views and landforms, consideration of
cumulative impacts, protection against geologic hazards, consolidation, and
policies applicable to refineries.
reflected, and/or, as appropriate implemented through site limitations and
other provisions in the LCP.
These policies must be specifically
The Coastal Act clearly indicates that the Commission retains a permanent role in planning and management relating to coastal resources (Section 30004(b)).
The Commission must exercise that authority together with local government
(Section 30004(a)). The Coastal Act requires that local governments develop
local coastal programs which implement the provisions and policies of the Act (Section 30108.6, 30005(a).) The Commission is required to review LCPs and
any amendments to them to determine whether they comply with the Act's
policies as set forth in Chapter 3. Here, the proposed amendments depart from
those polices and therefore cannot be certified.
The Commission is aware that the Coastal Act provides that local governments may provide more stringent standards than those called for by the Coastal Act
provided that they do not conflict with the Act. Here, however, the
stringency and subjectivity of the proposed standards does not enable the Commission to find that such a conflict would not occur. The Commission notes
in this regard the special consideration of energy facilities in the Coastal
Act.
Finally, the Commission notes that its authority pursuant to Section 30515 does not modify the considerations raised above. Section 30515 authorizes the
Commission to approve an LCP amendment upon the request of a project proponent
where certain findings are made. Among the required findings are that a
public need of an area greater than that included within the local coastal
program would be met. Also, the Commission has the option of recommending
under Section 30519 that the City amend its LCP to accommodate a facility
meeting such needs. with energy needs, the policies proposed here remain problematic for the
reasons described above.
While these provisions authorize future action to deal
PART V. FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION WITH SUGGESTED MODIFICATION
The Commission finds that the amendment is approvable if modified to provide clear standards reflecting the relevant Coastal Act policies. Those policies
include Sections 30230, 30231, 30232, 30250, 30251, 30253, 30260, 30262, and
30263.) (The suggested modification language is set forth in full at page 5
of these findings.)
! -
-1 4-
e
The suggested modification language set farth in these findings constitutes
one way in which the City can provide criteria for onshore oil and gas
facilities in a manner meeting Coastal Act requirements. The provisions would
specifically reflect the relevant Coastal Act policies. For example, the
amendment would specifically provide that the City must assure that effective
containment of clean up facilities will be provided for oil spills, that
hazardous development will be located away from existing developed areas, and
that geologic risks and fire hazards will be minimized. Also, the amendment
would specifically reflect the override provisions of Sections 30260 and
30263. For example, for coastal dependent facilities, the review would first
consider whether the basic standards could be met. The override standards
would be applied only in those cases where the basic standards could not be
met.
These changes are necessary to assure that the policies meet the Coastal Act. First, they correct the overly general and subjective nature of the tests
contained in the City's proposal by, as indicated, containing provisions
reflecting the specific subject areas covered by the Chapter 3 policies.
Specific consideration of these issue areas is necessary to assure that these
provisions are implemented. In addition, by reflecting the the Coastal Act
policies, the suggested modifications assure that both the City and the
Commission are guided by those policies in their review of energy facilities.
As discussed above, the Commission retains authority after LCP certification
to review energy projects on appeal. Under the suggested modifications, the
Commission's authority to assure that energy needs are met consistent with the
policies of the Coastal Act would not be constrained. In particular, with
respect to projects eligible for approval under the override provisions of the
Act, the standards would allow for evaluation of competing issues relating to
the consideration of energy facilities.
PART VI. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT/ZCA 89-1
A. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION
Along with Land Use Plan Amendment LCPA 89-1, the City has also proposed an amendment to the zoning code, ZCA 89-1. ZCA 89-1 would limit onshore oil and
gas support facilities to the City's industrial zones, the P-M (Planned
Industrial), C-M (Heavy Commercial/Limited Industrial) and M (Industrial)
zones. Such uses within those zones would be allowed only subject to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
B. CONFORMITY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT WITH THE CERTIFIED LAND USE PLAN
In review of the proposed zoning code amendment, the amendment must be consistent with and adequate to carry out the policies of the certified LUP.
The City of Carlsbad has proposed to utilize three industrial zones for potential onshore support facilities, the M, C-M and P-M zones. These
industrial zones would, generally speaking, support the broad types of uses
that would include activities normally associated with onshore oil and gas
facilities. The allowed uses in the current zoning code would include manufacturing, processing, storage, distribution facilities, machine shops and
other uses that would be similar to onshore oil and gas support facilities,
and would appear to be appropriate locations, if any are to be considered in
-1 5- -.
Carlsbad, for the types of industrial development normally associated with
offshore oil and gas activities.
if it becomes necessary at some future date to consider coastal dependent
uses, which are higher priority under the Coastal Act than other land uses
(except agriculture), in some other location than existing industrially zoned
lands, the LCP amendment process would be the vehicle for such consideration.
Although none are anticipated at this time,
In this circumstance, the Commission notes several of the considerations that may be relevant in the evaluation of potential sites for coastal dependent
development. The City currently supports no marinas, harbors, or piers, and
has not developed a transportation infrastructure which could be used to
provide direct support to an offshore oil platform, as one example. Also, the
majority of the coastline is characterized by either steep coastal bluffs and/or public recreational facilities, including Carlsbad State Beach and
South Carlsbad State Beach, which, taken together account for about 75% of the City's shoreline.
The remaining areas which offer large parcels typically required by industrial uses, which could be suitable for industrial uses and which are located near
to the sh.ore1ine are located in south Carlsbad, between Carlsbad Blvd. and
1-5. The area is bounded on the north by Cannon Road, and on the south by
Poinsettia, and contains a number of large parcels with industrial zoning.
Any or all of these sites could be utilized for certain types of onshore
support facilities, other than those that require a waterfront location.
Given that there is no anticipated need at this time for onshore support facilities in Carlsbad, combined with the fact that existing property
ownership and topography preclude the use of immediate waterfront areas for
industrial facilities, and the fact that properties suitable for industrial
uses are not available in close proximity to the shoreline, the Commission finds that the proposed amendment to the City's zoning code will allow
suitable areas for industrial use to accommodate for onshore oil and gas support facilities. In addition, as discussed above there would always be the
potential for processing another land use plan and/or zoning amendment if some
as yet unanticipated need arises to consider a specific proposal. Therefore,
the Commission finds that the subject amendment request ZCA 89-1 is consistent
with and adequate to carry out the policies of all segments of the City of
Carlsbad LUP, as amended.
The Commission notes that the zoning and land use plan are inherently tied together.
modifies and resubmits the land use plan amendments, the zoning amendments
would need to be resubmitted along with such land use plan resubmittal.
If the Commission denies the land use plan amendments, and the City
PART VII. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT CONSIDERATIONS.
Section 21080.9 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exempts local government from the requirement of preparing an environmental impact
report (EIR) in connection with its local coastal program or amendments to
it.
Commission. The Commission's LCP review and approval program has been found
by the Resources Agency to be functionally equivalent to the EIR process [see
Section 15251(f) of the CEQA guidelines]. Commission and local government are relieved of the responsibility to prepare
However CEQA responsibilities must still be carried out by the Coastal
Thus, under CEQA, both the
-1 6-
an EIR for each LCP or amendment thereof. Nevertheless, the Commission's findings must address the environmental impacts of the proposal, and feasible
alternatives on mitigation measures. To approve an amendment, the Commission
must find that the LCP amendment does conform with CEQA provisions. In the
case of the subject LCP amendment request, the Commission finds that approval
of the subject LCP amendment would not result in significant environmental
impacts under the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Specifically, the LCP amendment, provides that onshore oil and gas support
facilities could be approved only if specific criteria are met. Those
criteria set standards, and provide for the consideration of specific impacts,
and the application of feasible measures and alternatives. Because future
projects would be evaluated pursuant to those criteria, the Commission concludes that the provisions if modified as suggested are consistent with
CEQA. Specifically, those provisions will assure that significant impacts
will be mitigated or avoided through alternatives on mitigation measures.
those circumstances where the override provisions of the Coastal Act would
apply, a project could not be approved unless significant impacts would not
occur or the overriding considerations provisions of CEQA are found to be
met. The Commission notes that future projects would be subject to CEQA
requirements. Furthermore, the Commission finds that there are no feasible
alternatives which have not been explored or implemented which would reduce
the potential for any such impacts under the meaning of CEQA.
In
31 57N
.. .,.%-
. _. .
~MELLO I * E EL LO 11'
BAGUA HEOIONDA. a EAST BATIQUITOS 'LAGOON,
1
....
....
....
2
EXHIBIT NO. 2
LA R, '.:AJ&y U?A 1- 34
APPLICATION NO.
LU T r2ro(3L,, -r I r'b N
((C- I c .IC *- t
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
15
1E
1E
21
2!
2f
2'
RESOLUTION NO. - 89-330
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE- CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
ALL SIX SEGMENTS OF THE CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PLAN TO PROHIBIT ON-SHORE OIL AND
GAS SUPPORT FACILITIES EXCEPT UPON THE CITY COUNCIL MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS.
TCPA 89-1
WHEREAS, on August 2, 1983 the Carlsbad Planning
Commission adopted Resolution Nos. 2898 and 2901 recommading
to the City Council that the Negative Declaration, and Local
Coastal Plan, LCPA 89-1, be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Csrlsbad,
on September 12, 1989 held a public hearing to consider the
recommendations and heard all persons interested in or
opposed to Local Coastal Plan Amendment LCPA 89-1; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was issued on June
7, 1989 and submitted to-the State Clearinghouse for a 30 day
review period. No comments were received from that review
period.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by
Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as fol
the City
.- c
1
2
3
4
5
e
c1 I
E
t. I
1(
1:
1:
1:
1G
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
i
i
i
t\
d A
1 I
The proposed amendments will not cause any significant environmental impacts- and a Negative Oeclatation has been issued by the Planninq Director on June 7, 1989 and recomnended for APPROVAL by the Planning Comnission on August 2, 1989.
PLANNING COMf4lSSlON RESOLUTION NO. 2900
A R ITION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSEAO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENOING APPROVAL OF A ZONE CODE AMENOMENT, AMENOING TITLE 21, CHAPTER 21.42, 21.53, 21.30, 21.32, and 21.34, OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE, BY THE AOOITION OF SUSSECTlOt4(S) 21.42.010(15), 21.53.250, 21.30.010(29), 21.32.010(35), and 21.34.020(11), TO PROHIBIT ON-SHORE OIL AND GAS FACILITIES. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD
CASE NO. : ZCA 89-1
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of August, 1989, hold
-. -
-
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request: and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said
Commission considered all factors relating to the Zone Code Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as
fol 1 ows :
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commi ssion recommends APPROVAL of ZCA 89-1, according to Exhi bi t "A", dated August 2, 1989, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings.
8)
Fi ndi nas :
1.
2.
3.
....
....
The proposed amendment will prohibit on-shore oil and gas support facilities except in the C-H, H, and P-H Zones which allow land uses which will generally be more compatible with such facilities than use:
found in other zones.
On-shore support facilities will require the approval ' of a condi tiona: use permit in addition to deterwining that all of the proposed finding! are true which will .assure that all potential adverse impacts an identified and mitigated.
IEXHIBIT NO. -? I 1
APPLICATION NO.
.
EXH I B I T I' A I*
DATED AUGUST 2, 1989
HFLLO 1 SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROCM
SECTION ACTION
2. Standard Pacific (p. 3)
-
3. Occidential Land, Inc. (p. 8)
Add Policy 6: Onshore Oil and Gas Support
Facilities.
Add Policy 5: Onshore Oil and Gas Support Faci 1 i ties.
4. Rancho La Costa (Hunt Properties) (p. 18) Add Policy 7: Onshore Oil and Gas Support
Facilities.
Proposed Policy: ON-SHORE OIL AN0 GAS SUPPORT FACILITIES
Since the location and maintenance of on-shore oil and gas support facilities including, but not limited to, processing plants, refineries, storage facilities, transfer stations, pipelines, warehouses, offices, tanker facilities, helicopter pads and other support facilities present adverse environmental impacts which may include catastrophic environmental damage to the marine ecosystem along Carl sbad's coast1 ine and such further adverse environmental impacts as increased air pollution, water pollution, noise, traffic, visual, scenic and aesthetic adverse impacts, such on-shore facilities are prohibited except upon a finding by the City Cauncil that all of the following are true:
Appraval of the proposed project and facilities will pose no danger to life and property to residents of the neighborhood, Community or City.
Approval of the proposed project will not pose a potential threat of damage or injuries to nearby residents.
The benefits of the proposed project clearly outweigh the possible adverse environmental effects.
There are no feasible alternatives to the proposed project.
The location and approval of the on-shore facilities at tne particular location clearly outweigh any potential harm to pub1 ic health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or uorking in the neighborhood or community and nil\ not be detrimental or injurious to property in the neignbothood, community or to the general welfare of the City, and
The proposed project is permitted within the underlying