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
..