Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 89-01; City of Carlsbad Offshore Oil; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (9)STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor CALI FORNl A COASTA 1 COMMISSION 631 HOWARD STREET, 4TH FLOOR (41 5) 543-8555 Hearing Impoired/TDD (415) 896-1825 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-3973 June 22, 1990 TO: COMMISSIONERS AND INTERESTED PERSONS FROM: CHUCK DAMM, SOUTH COAST DISTRICT DIRECTOR DEBORAH N. LEE, COASTAL PROGRAM MANAGER, SAN DIEGO AREA OFFICE PAUL B. WEBB, COASTAL PROGRAM ANALYST, SAN DIEGO AREA OFFICE MARK DELAPLAINE, ENERGY & OCEAN RESOURCES UNIT, SAN FRANCISCO SUBJECT: REVISED 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 July 10, 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 status of LCP segments). (See pages 2-3 for more detailed The proposed LCP amendment would apply Use Plan (LUP). The proposed changes to all areas within the City's coastal to all segments of the City's Land n the zoning code would also apply 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 provide that onshore oil and gas support facilities may be approved only 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 -2- outweigh any adverse environmental effects; no feasible alternatives to the project exist; the 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 RECOMMENOATION 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 provide specific standards for the review of onshore support facilities for offshore oil and gas exploration and development 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 8 of this report. A map showing the location of the C-M, M, and P-M zones is attached as Exhibit 5. 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 941 05, (41 5) 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/Sammis 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. LCP which involve the greatest number of coastal resource issues and have been the subject of the most controversy over the past years. Among those issues 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 They are also the segments of the -3- commercial facilities, and preservation of the scenic resources of the area. 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 agricultural 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. 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. A review of the 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. B. 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 conformity with, the po'licies 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 30512.2, the Commission may require conformance with the policies and requirements of Chapter 3 only to the extent necessary to achieve the basis state goals specified in Section 30001.5. 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. Commissioners present. The Commission shall take action by a majority vote of those 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. Commissioners is needed to pass the motion. An affirmative vote by the majority of the appointed Resolution I The Cornmission 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 meets the requirements of Section 21080.5(d)(2)(i) of the California Environmental Quality Act, as there are no feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives which would substantially lessen significant adverse impacts on the environment. 6. 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: ''1 move that the Commission certify Amendments LCPA 89-1 to the Carlsbad Land Use Plan if it is modified as suggested.' Staff recommends a YES vote. An affirmative vote by a majority of the -5- appointed Commissioners is needed to pass the motion. 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. C. RESOLUTION 111 (Resolution to approve certification of the City of Carlsbad LCP Implementation Plan Amendment, entitled ZCA 89-1, to the Mello I, Mello 11, Agua Hedionda, East Batiquitos/Hunt Properties, West Batiquitos/Sammis Properties and Village Redevelopment Area segments, as submi tted) MOTION 111 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 VES vote and the adoption of the fol and findings. An affirmative vote by a majority of the present is needed to pass the motion. owing resol ut C omm i s s i on e r s on Resolution 111 The Commission hereby rejects certification of the amendment to the City of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program on the grounds that the amendment does not conform with, and is inadequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified land use plan. mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts which the approval would have on the environment. There are feasible alternatives or feasible 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: 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) IA) 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; (C) Effective containment and cleanup facilities will be provided for accidental spills that might occur, and protection against hazardous spills will 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; 1E) 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; (H) 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; and Where development is located between the sea and the first - 11) Coastal recreational opportunities will be protected in accordance with Sections 30220-30224 of the Coastal Act. 14) local air pollution control district or Air Resources Board: The project will be consistent with air quality requirements of the (5) The benefits of the proposed project LXldtXf 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; (7) ffJ The proposed project is permitted within the underlying zone. Ib)(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: jA) such facilities will be consistent with subsections (a)(4) through (a)(7)(above); (B) considerations have been identified which result in 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: (A) the facility will meet subsections (a)(4) through (a)(7) (above); LB) 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 surrounding property; and (0) considerations have been identified which support the conclusion that to do otherwise would adversely I -8- 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 Mello I, Mello 11, Aqua Hedionda, East Batiquitos/Hunt Properties, West Batiquitos/Sammis Properties and Village Redevelopment Area segments) of the City’s Local Program Land Use Plan. Under this amendment, onshore oil and gas facilities would be prohibited except upon a determination by the City that: Approval 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 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 The proposed project is permitted within the underlying zone. 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. 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. -9 - 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 proposed policies conflict with subsections (a), (b), and (d) of this section. In this case, the City of Carlsbad has submitted a proposal identifying standards for the approval of energy facilities. As submitted, the proposal contains extremely subjective and restrictive criteria, without any findings or provisions showing the special consideration of coastal dependent facilities provided for in the Coastal Act. In addition, the subjectivity of the criteria does not enable the Commission to identify the actual standards that the City would apply. the Commission finds that the City's proposal does not assure priority for coastal dependent development, and that it is therefore inconsistent with Section 30001.5(d). 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. Because of these considerations, The Commission also finds that, because the proposed policies are not sufficiently specific, they do not provide adequately for protection of coastal resources and orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources. These problems are discussed in more detail below in subsection C of these findings. [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 30263.1 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 -1 0- 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. 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 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 considerations: --The policies as proposed do not properly 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. The proposal sets forth standards for the approval of energy facilities. However, the City has neither provided specifically for coastal dependent facilities, or adopted standards or made findings reflecting consideration of these sections of the Coastal Act. 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 significantly restrict the circumstances in which energy facilities could be approved. those required by the Coastal Act are permissible where they do not conflict with Coastal Act policies. However, here, the proposed policies appear to be intended to provide for energy needs, yet show no consideration of such needs. Because of this approach, the policies would improperly constrain the Commission's ability to implement its authority with respect to energy facilities. More stringent policies than -11- --The proposed policies are not sufficiently specific. 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 amendment does not deal with these Coastal Act policies in a specific enough manner to assure that they will be met. The proposal 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. In addition, no onshore oil and gas development needing support facilities has been identified. Thus, no present 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/cornmercial 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, a local government may choose not to provide for, or may affirmatively prohibit, oil and gas development. In addition, the Commission notes that the Coastal Act specifically provides that it does not limit the power of a city or county to impose conditions or restrictions more stringent than, but not in conflict with those required by the Act. Nevertheless, because of the problems discussed below, Carlsbad's proposal is not consistent with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. First, as discussed above, the Coastal Act policies relevant to energy development include provisions relating to coastal dependent development. (Section 30260.) 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, in those In past Commission permit and LCP review, the Cornmission has -1 2- circumstances where LCP policies appear to be intended to provide for energy needs, a local government's submittal must show appropriate consideration of these provisions. 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 does not give adequate consideration to this provision (or the "override" 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." Also, 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." 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 appeal process helps to assure proper implementation of the Chapter 3 policies. For example, for coastal dependent development, these policies play a role in the implementation of Sections 30255 and 30260. The category of (Section 30603(a)(5).) Any action 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 LCP will allow for implementation of Coastal Act provisions relating to energy needs. This problem in part results from the fact that the proposal appears to be intended to address energy needs, but does not contain standards appropriately providing for consideration of such needs. The Commission would retain appeal authority over projects reviewed by the City under the amendment; however again the Commission would have to review them under standards such as "peace, morals, and comfort," and policies indicating that no danger whatsoever may occur. As noted above, a city may adopt more stringent standards than those required by the Coastal Act, provided that they do not conflict with the Act. Here, however, the subjective nature of some of the standards does not enable the Commission to evaluate the specific standards that would be applied, while others are extremely limiting in nature. Therefore, the Commission cannot assure that it -1 3- could properly implement its appeal authority. 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 do not properly implement those polices and therefore cannot be certified. Again, 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, given that the purpose of the proposed policies is to provide standards for the future review of energy facilities, 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 and 30519 does not modify the considerations raised above. Section 30515 provides that, "any person authorized to undertake a public works project or proposing an energy facility development may request any local government to amend its certified local coastal program, if the purpose of the proposed amendment is to meet public needs of an area greater than that included within such local coastal program that had not been anticipated by the person making the request at the time the local coastal program was before the commission for certification." That section further provides that, if the local government does not amend its local coastal program, "such person may file with the commission a request for amendment which shall set forth the reasons why the proposed amendment is necessary and how such amendment is in conformity with the policies of this division." After public hearing, the Commission may approve the proposed amendment if it finds that to do otherwise would adversely affect the public welfare, that a need of a greater than local area would be met, that there is no feasible, less damaging alternative, and that the amendment is in conformity with Coastal Act policies. Section 30519 provides that, "the Commission may, from time to time, recommend to the appropriate local government local coastal program amendments to accommodate uses of greater than local importance, which uses are not permitted by the -1 4- certified local coastal program." Both of these provisions provide mechanisms for the future consideration of energy needs. These policies do provide for "corrective" actions in certain, limited circumstances. However, they do not authorize the Commission to approve LCP policies that are inconsistent with the provisions of the Coastal Act. Rather, despite the possibility of future action, the Commission must consider the consistency of a proposal with Chapter 3 at the time the proposal is before it. Therefore, the Commission's authority under Sections 30515 and 30519 does not address the existing problems with the City proposed energy policies. 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.) The suggested modification language set forth 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 o'!l 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 provide one means of assuring 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 Coastal Act policies, the suggested modifications would result in the application of those policies in the Commission or City's 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 a manner conflicting with the Coastal Act. 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 faci 1 i ties. -1 5- PART VI. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL 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. Maps showing the location of the C-M, M, and P-M zones are attached as Exhibit 5. Such uses within those zones would be allowed only subject to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). 8. 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 existing 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 Carlsbad, for the types of industrial development normally associated with offshore oil and gas activities. Although none are anticipated at this time, 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. 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. 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. Also, the 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 shoreline 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. The standard for certification of zoning amendments is whether they will conform with, and be adequate to carry out the provisions of the certified land use plan. As a matter of course, it is necessary that land use plan policies be in place before or coincident with related zoning ordinances. In this case, the Commission finds that the land use plan that would provide the applicable standards for the analysis of energy facilities cannot be certified as an LCP amendment. Without a related land use policy, the zoning amendment would not conform to the certified LUP and therefore cannot be certified. 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]. Thus, under CEQA, both the Commission and local government are relieved of the responsibility to prepare an EIR for each LCP or amendment thereof. Nevertheless, the Commission's findings must address the environmental impacts of the proposal, and feasible alternatives or mitigation measures. To approve an amendment, the Commission must find that the LCP amendment does conform with CEQA provisions. case of the subject LCP amendment request, the Commission finds that approval of the subject LCP amendment could potentially allow significant environmental impacts under the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act. In particular, because of the general and subjective nature of the proposed policy, it would not assure specific consideration and protection of coastal resources. However CEQA responsibilities must still be carried out by the Coastal In the Specifically, the LCP amendment, as modified, would provide 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 or mitigation measures. In 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. 31 57N (05421) . .- - -- *- --- - APPLICATION NO. aEAsT 8ATlQUITOS LAGOONIH I..T . WEST BATIQUITOS LAGOOEIlSAMMIS E AEOEVELOPMEHT AREA /ACA7lON - &C Cattornla ~aasia Commtnlon CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PRO~RAlVi 1 2 3 4 .... .... .... 5 EXHIBIT NO. 2 APPLICATION NO. ~p, c \-y LLuP pc.a, 1 7 r? N (&-c*... c .lP -.. - A RES - RESOLUTION NO. - 89-330 LUTION 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. LCPA 89-1 WHEREAS, on August 2, 1989 the Carlsbad Planning !ommission adopted Resolution Nos. 2898 and 2901 recommending :o the City Council that the Negative Declaration, and Local :oastal Plan, LCPA 89-1, be approved; and WHEREAS, the CiCy Council of the City of Csrlsbad, Dn September 12, 1989 held a public hearing to consider the recommendations and heard all persons interested in or Dpposed 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 the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission in Resolution No. 2898 on file with the city Clerk and incorporated herein by reference consticute the findings of the City Council in this matter and the !b -. -. 1 3 4 e € 1: 1: 1' 1 1 1 2 - 3. That the findings and conditions or' the - Planning -Commission in Resolution No. 2901 on fila with the city Clerk and incorporated herein by roference constitute- the findings of the City Council in this matter and the Local Coastal Plan Amendment LCPA 89-1 is hereby approved. PASSED, APPRUVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meecing of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the a day of Smar , 1989 by the following vote, to wit: ! AYES: Council Nlcrnbars Lewis, Kulchln, Pettinr, Mamaux and Larson I * NOES: None ABSENT: None - ATTEST: -2- t. I ti I i 1 I I i I ! i I ! I i 1 I ! I 8 i I i I I I I i I . 1 2 3 4 5 e 9 E 5 1C 1: 1: 1: 14 11 11 1' 1 1 2 2 2 2 i d 2 I A I 1 PIANNING COMflISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2900 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT , AMENDING TITLE 21, CHAPTER 21.42, 21.53, 21.30, 21.32, and 21.34, OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE, BY THE ADDITION OF SUSSECTIOn(S) 21.42.010(15), 21.53.250, 21.30.010(29), 21.32.010(35), and 2~34.020(11), TO PROHIBIT ON-SHORE OIL AN0 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 7 ows : A) 6) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission recommends APPROVAt of ZCA 89-1, according to Exhibit "A", dated August 2, 1989, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings. F i nd i nus : 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 uses found in other zones. On-shore support facilities will require the approval of a conditional use pemit in addition to determining that all of the proposed findings are true which will assure that all potential adverse impacts are identified and mitigated. The proposed amendments will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a Negative Oeclaration has been issued by the Plannins Director on June 7, 1989 and reconanended for APPROVAL by the Planning Comnission on August 2, 1989. EXHIBIT NO. '7 I I hLrPl4 APPLICATION NO. _I - 1 2 3 4 -5 6 7 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 - ia 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 20 . .. PASSED, APPROVED, &NO ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning - Comissian of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of August, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairman Ha'll, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm, Erwin, Mcfadden, Holmes h Marcus. -. NOES: None. ABSENT : None. ABSTAIN: None. ATT E S T : t PI anni ng Di rector PC RESO NO. 2899 , I m& dlv HATTHEM HALL, Chairman CARLSBAO PLANNING COMMISSION h - 4 HELLO I SEGMENT Of THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM EXH I B I T " A " DATE0 AUGUST 2, 1989 SECTION ACTION 2. Standard Pacific (p. 3) - 3. Occidential Land, Inc. (p. 8) 4. Rancho La Costa (Hunt Properties) (p. 18) t (. Add Policy 6: Onsnore Oil and Gas Support Facilities. Add Policy 5: Onshore Oil and GOs Support F aci 1 i ties . Add Policy 7: Onshore Oil and Gas Support Facil i ties . Proposed Pol icy: ON-SHORE OIL AN0 GAS SUPPORT FACILITIES Since the location and maintenance of on-shore ail and gas support facilities including, but not 1 imited to, processing plants, refineries, storage facil ities, transfer stations, pipelines, warehouses, offices, tanker facilities, he1 icopter pads and other support facil ities present adverse environmental impacts wnich 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 Council that all of the following are true: Approval 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 the particular location clearly outweigh any potential harm to pub1 ic health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general bel fare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or community and will not be detrimental or injurious to property in the neignborhood, community or to the general welfare of the City, and The proposed project is permitted within the underlying lEXHIBlT NO. L/ LEGEND ' El I-1 El I-] I-I I--I I-1 1-11 El a' El El I-1 El El I-1 I-I I-1 lol El ..