Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 94-02; Affordable Housing; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (11)CFI COFISTFIL COMMISSION TELz619-521-9672 - \ r* State of Cali fornia MEMORANDUM TO: Comml s s 1 one rs and Interested Persons Flug 12,96 ----10:45 No.001 P.02 Ca 1 1 forni a Caas ta 1 Commi s s 1 on San Dlego District DATE: August 12, 1996 FROM: Staff SUBJECT : Addltions and Changes to the Suggested Modlffcatlans and Findings for the Staff Recommendation on Major Amendment No, 1-96G to the City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, dated July 23, 1996 Staff recommends the Commission adopt the following add! tions, deletlons, changes and clarifications to the above-referenced staff report, recommendation is based on the response from the Clty of Carlsbad, additional staff analysis and suggestions from the Comlssion's legal counsel. merlining indlcates new language to be added and lttiKCCbdt tndlcates language to be deleted. This The first suggested modlflcation, on Page 7 of the referenced staff report, should be modified as follows: 1. read as follows and shall be incorporated Into the six certified land use plan segments: Pollcy 1(A) - Affordable Houslng, of LCPA 93-02, shall be revi'sed to In order to encourage and enable the develapmcnt of' loner Income yni ts dens1 ty increases -dens1 tv bonuses above the mbxlmum resldentlal densities petmltted by this plan may be permltted s affordabl e housl ng j ond duel 1 .Ins - (NO CHANGE TO REHAJWOER OF SUGGESTED M001FICATIONI Insert the fellawlng new suggested madlfication under PART 111, Suggested Modltfcations, on Page 11: 12. Sectton 21.10.015(~)(3)(C), addressing review of admlnisttatlve permlts for second dwelling unlts, in Ordinance NS-283, shall be revised to read as follows: (C) The second dwelling unit must meet the setback, lot coverage, and other development standards appllcable to the zone, CR CORSTRL COMMISSION TEL:619-521-9672 - Comi ssloners and Interested Persons August 12, 1996 Page 2 Qug 12,96 10.:45 No.001 P.03 A .- The paragraph beglnning at the bottom of Page 16 and continuing onto Page 17, should be revised as follows: As In the flndlngs for the two prevfous pollcy groups, the Comnisslon's concern is that allowing for Increased densities on any site throughout the C1 ty, whlch includes many sloping and natural ly-vegetated properties, could encourage encroachments onto steep slopes that would not normally be a1 lowed. 0lt~/~~~~~~/#~/tCfLt~ltf~~l~dl~lf~~/%d~dtd~ JPZddJdddIWdW HldlJlMdt /BtI#ddrlL L 4 /tMll dMIdid1 @7 id 11 I If / ddlddddd / d$ J@r"d#B$ Cd( /Wid ddt/gdltddtdl/fiSdt tttldrl/bf IddMt tf Cdlltdbddtt di: ldt /ddtJtdt/ 1 drldt dWd I Thus, the Commission finds that the amendments, as currently proposed, are not consistent with Sections 30231 and 30253 of the Act. The paragraph beginning at the bottom of Page 17 and contlnulng onto Page 18 should be modified as follows: The City of Carlsbad is proposlng to address the requlrements of Government Code g65915 by arnendlng their certlfled LUP to allow it to increase residential dens1 tles and to grant Incentives. Proposed aptlons include accommodatlon for density Increases and reduced development standards for senior houslng, and the typlcal 25 percent denslty bonus and one additional incentive for developers agreelng to maintaln 20% of thelr units affordable for 30 years, or alternative In-lieu incentlves to thls program. In addition, Carlsbad has added policies to create an additional program, whlch the Ctty devised to meet its fair share allocation of affordable housing. which requites all developers to provide 15 percent of thalr unltr as affordable for rllnr~~dd~ldtlfu#r~~/~~~~~ J.he useful 11.- proie&. The proposed LUP policy would allow the City to grant unrestricted dens1 ty increases and other incentives to enable developers to sat1 sfy the requtrement. d C rl 1 I tf I Bd d 16 t I 7 dd / &! d I d I f I! 41 / d#d X #I I J h e Co.mml.ssionl.fndsthl~ This is a mandatory Incluslonary houslng program, U6~~J~t~/~f/dl~C16~Cfit~t~l~~~~f~dl~ ddddf#jl i~Ltdb$~lltnsleltfltc dffdf If Mi! lfHdlfit6JdLf lIbCllbld fif Cdf /mn 8CCtfd1127 [Wdt JtMf ldddl t I 17 ltdddl /I I dl 4 /dl l Ifit dJI i fddd /bf It Mi!/ itltt! on the Dart of the Citv -ec!flc gf state de nsitymlaw -. but onlv.If~LL.~ro %n5 CFI COASTAL COMMISSION TEL:619-521-9672 I Rug 12,96 .. .. 10:45 No.001 P.04 - Comni ssioners and Interested Persons August 12, 1996 Page 3 pf the certlfled LCP are In wv apprpved Iwnarv ina nr&ct. The paragraph beginning at the bottom of Page 18 and contlnulng onto Page 19, should be rev+ sed as. Pol lows: The amendment language submitted by the CZ ty &es not requl rei that all affordable housing projects be cons1 stent wl th the BCdCfdllPll~litld CtdrCfn/U1~13ddbdt/0t~f~~~~~it~~f/~~t/~ftntt~~ certl fled LCP, The C1 ty in oral communicatlons wlth staff has stated that consistency wlth the LCP must be found In order to Issue a coastal development permlt for any project, affordable or not, However, wlthout the amendment speclflcal ly sayfng so, there is a strong potential that developers might assume that a densi ty increase takes precedence over a1 1 other factors, rather than realizing Chat a project incorporating a density increase must stlll be designed to protect coastal resources. for example, the proposed dens1 ty bonus pol 1 cies might be interpreted as a1 low! ng otherwise prohl bl ted fill of a wetlands for purposes of accommodating a 25 percent increase In resldentlal density. submttted. could be interpreted by some as allowing for appllcatlon of densi ty Increases Vnd incentives in a manner that does not conform with the pollcles c~f Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Thus, the proposed amendments, based on the language The Plrst full paragraph on Page 19 should be modified as fallows: Government Code §65915(P) requires the increase in density granted to a developer be 25 percent over the "maximurn a1 lowable residenttal density under the applicable zoning ordlnance and land use element of the gcnctal plan. Many local government eneral plans and ordqnances address the approxlmate density for an area, as well as a list of the development standards and other factors (u, envlronmenta.calnts, 1 setbacks heights, yard size. proximtty to circulatlon element roads, etc.) that will be applied to determine the maximum denslty that wlll be allowed on any particular slte wlthin the area. the 25 percent density Increase be applied to the density that will be the maximum allowed under the the base density to which an area and the factors applicable amendments to the UIp res-idential densities by ldent B fylng both a denslty range that lndlcates The Government Code requlres that , that would be Identified after lain how dens it! Is.calculatedand11 en vt r- mtrajnts and om develoD-dt are f~Ut0 red M a ar- CQ CORSTAL COMMISSION TEL:619-521-9672 - Rug 12,96 10:45 No.001 P.05 I 1 Cmlssioners and Interested Persons August 12, 1996 Page 4 Dro.iett. Since the LUP amendment as submltted does not insure that the base denslty to whlch the density Increase Is added 7s the "maximum a1 lowable residentlal density under the applicable zonlng ordlnance and land use element of the General Plan," the LUP cannot be found consfstent with the Coastal Act. The second full paragraph on Page 19 should be deleted in Its entirety. The following flndlng should be added at the end of PART IV., on Page 19: ti-& 1i Ihfs flndf na - add resses the D rwsed land,use plan ame ndments in a ame ral d- -@ conwt of ale or m-vidu es locu i tsww fl e- an ordi-thatcosecondd ts In ce. thatth_- not exceed amlicable d-ad has subml,tted an ordlm allows for serandllina,r. landuse. plans must ah^ erhal 1 v am rtifled LCP.aacePt where thev ara nt wl thout e wplalnlna_hawy,h units will be mist9 Sloce seu units are, bv definition. an_.lncr_ease in r second f0 ,. ylth the ItP. SInce the D.w IItP amendmpnts do not mtstate this Drovislon. -tal Contmlsslon.&kdUbUk&G ond tbt otherwlss allmd. the IUP uulst Drovide.such.hn Yi-th clwter 3 .ofmtal Act- The paragraph be innlng at the bottom of Page 20 and continuing onto Page 21, and the flrst fu 9 1 paragraph on Page 21, should be modifled as follows: 1. vim- Sensitive HabiW Arftu, The City of Carlsbad certifled LCP includes provfslons to identify and protect ex1 sting sensitlve resources, includlng wetlands and naturally-vegetated steep slopes. amendments do not clearly state that these provisions would be applied to a1 1 future development proposals In the coastal zone that Incorporate As submitted, the land use plan CR COFISTRL COMMISSION TEL:619-521-9672 -_ FIUg 12996 10:45 N0.001 P.06 - Cammi ssioners and Interested Persons August 12, 1996 Page 5 densl ty increases to accommodate affordable housl ng, fHCl+td#diCd BtdXMCCiIdCf t~ltldf/J~lC~l~l/~d~t/~~li~~lt~~t~~~~dl~~?f HI th the suggested modiflcatlon requlrfng that all projects be consistent wlth LCP provisions. the Commission finds that the density can be increased beyond the limits identified in the certified LUPs without adverse impacts on environmentally sensitive lands because the resource protection pol Icies of the UPS are suffic!ently protective. complies wlth the resource protection policies of the certlfimd LCP, the increased density is not going to be fnconsjstent wlth Chapter 3 pollcles of the Coastal Act. Therefore, the Commission finds that the amendments are conslstent wlth the clted Chapter 3 pollcles of the Coastal Act. rddddddd/ddl$/ f #f CtCdC C~It~LI61~Ct~llPld~Ii~~/~t~~t~l~~d~~~~~~f Thus, as long as a project 2. ! The Cl mal nta includ such t subni t provi s coas ta ddd/Bt CCtfif :y of Carlsbad cartifled 1CP includes provisions to protect, n and enhance public access to the Clty's beaches and lagoens, ng pol i cl es requirl ng the provl si on of adequate on-si te park! ng iat street parking remains available for beach visitors. As :ed, the land use plan amendments do not clearly state that these ons will be applied to all future development proposals in the zone. t~~~~t~~bdtdll~~~~~~dld~l~/t~~dtd~~~dft~~l0Cd~t~~l?l~~ I~tM/n/d/JCdildt/0~d~~~~~d~l~~~fMCf Idfldinf tMlfl/~iftlbflf\C 'ldl WPf The paragraph beginning towards the bottom of Page 21 and continuing onto Page 22 should be modifled as follows: Since this trafflc Influx is ddlnflldidlf larclrl.v beyond the Clty's control, the Commission concludes that it Is not a decidlng factor In determining whether or not the proposed densl ty Increases are acceptable. The Commisslon concludes that any potentlal density Increases In Carlsbad will be only a minor, incremental contribution to the overall populatqon growth of San Dlego County, and therefore tddrldf the Clm be held responsible for future traffic problems which could marglnal ly affect beach access. That issue aside, #~ttddfldfdCll~t~CI/~~~~C/~~~l/~~f/nd~~ 4dWW Ilr#dt2d f dd/L6ddLH /dl-tdl# I /fifBJlddd a s eco- wld bg that projects are designed conslstent wlth all other provisions of the certified LCP, such as parklng and sltlng provisions. It is these provi sions, td2MttltHldf til6 dona w im density limits, that will assure , that development Is conslstent with the public access policies of the Coastal Act. Therefore, with the suggested modlficatlon requiring that all projects be consistent with LCP provisions, mldW~Bhmu&rUl %be increased beyond the limits Identified In the certified 1UPs re of theculatian the Commission finds that the density CFI CORSTAL COMMISSION TEL:619-521-9672 Cmunlssfoners and Interested Persons August 12, 1996 Page 6 without -Picant adverse Impacts policies of the LUPs are sufficient Rug 12,96 10:45 No.001 P.07 -. on publlc access because the access y protective. Thus, as long as a project complies with the access pa IcIes of the certified LCP, the 1 ncreased dens1 ty If/lBt/JdXdQ/tdll f litd~t~ttddt/~Xfn/en~~26~/~ fidliC1Ct /dff t WCddtf 11 IAtt can. Comnlssion finds that the amendments are consistent with the elted Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. Therefore, the The two full paragraphs on Page 22 should be modified as follows: 3- - The Clty of Carlsbad certified LCP Includes provisions to protect downstream ocean and lagoon resources from upstream construction and development Impacts by requiring appropriate dralnage, eroslon control and runoff facllltles. Theta are also LCP provlslons prohlblting gtadtng on steep slopes during the ralny season. As submitted, the land use plan amendments do not clearly state that these provisions would be applied to a1 1 future development proposals 4n the coastal zone that Incorporate density Increases to accommodate affordable housing. tHbl@td#dddd Idlrgddglf ddlj/tdf CSCdC CdlfMIBClCf 11 /P1 IlldddlBtb~fHf Hddddddlddt Otd I d1IItL I ld dl f Ut /dff MI t Ill 1 t / gift /df J fW C Cft 1 f Idd f LCP 1 W 1 th the suggested modlflcation requlrtng that all projects be consistent wl th LCP provlslons, the Commisslon finds that the density can be Increased beyond the llmits identlfied In the certlffed LUPs without adverse Impacts on water and marine resources because the resource protectlon policies of the LUPs are sufflciently protective. Thus, as long as a project complles with the water and marine resource protection pollcles of the certified LCP, the Increased denslty Is not going to be lnconsfstent with Chapter 3 policles of the Coastal Act. Therefore. the Comirslon finds that the amendments are conslstent with the cited Chapter 3 pollcles of the Coastal Act r 4. tal Visual &w,uu-and Speclal Camaunitles The Clty of Carlsbad certifled LCP Includes provlslons to protect the C3 ty's visual resources by Idantifylng signlficant viewpoints and corridors, and requiring appropriate development standards, such as height llmlts and setbacks, to malntaln said public views. density will not adversely affect scenlc resources If the project that Incorporates the denslty increase and Incentive Is Consistent with each of the pollcles and ordinances of the LCP. amendments do not clearly stiite that these provisions would be applled to a1 1 future development proposals In the coastal zone that Incorporate dens{ ty Increases to accommodate affordable houslng. fHCIdf6d6dCd/ An increase in As submltted, the land use plan CFI COASTFIL COMMISSION TEL:619-521-9672 _- FIug 12,96 .- 10:45 No.001 P.08 Comi ssioners and Interested Persons August 12, 1996 Page 7 lddddlbd/ldl#/W C~CdLCdI2nCIBC~6~11IP~~~ /l~d/Bf63Zn/H~dl46~~~~ 0fdldddl41 IMltMCtlBf lr)Hf tM/fU$dWdf /t#C/tdf fXf ICIIILQPI Wl th the suggested moditlcatlon requiring that all projects be eonslstent with LCP provlslons, the Commisslon finds that the density can be increased beyond the limqts identifled In the certlt'led LUPs without adverse impacts on visual resources because the vfsual resource protection pol icias of the LUPs are sufficiently protective. Thus, as long as a project complies with the visual resource protection policies of the certified LCP, the Increased density is not going to be Inconsistent with Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. are consistent 4th the cited Chapter 3 pollcles of the Coastal Act. Therefore, the Commisston finds that the amendments The following paragraphs should be added between the second and third full paragraphs on Page 23, within the flnding on sffordable housing: dls- in thevlous set of ffndlw fo r dw of MP llfP -ants uroaow Car .rsm us met-1 cul- B1 CUI at nder thew ar-1 is cow m brlth the CoWct bewe: 1 e nvl ran-1 1 Y - -u~eciflc orws: 2) Ud use pLhn i-ovw h of thwliale site pol 1 cles fomi tv -dens1 tv ,-that atembed ly- 15, Ho- ands 1 n t 1 ud& ton of the hac@ Wjtv u and It in Carlsbad. resf- se the_..arnendmenf rea-liance nith all the provim wl thout crwjnsi ste-i th the Co- mrefore. for wes of the CarlsbAd LC P. the, diCfetence_..betwe.en y Identified gnviro-trained landss not affut c-lth Lb dmum allowabla_.densitv and me -it - CoastaL_Act. -..in the City of Carlsbad are rWma and tr- lmnacts due to overa1.l .realanal sr- faraelv bwuuUuqmtrol of the Cltvdhe inclusiQllarY tuw1na Dromm and the 0th.r hQllUM tives mprein wi 11 acwte the tmvision of affordable CA COASTAL COMMISSION TEL:619-521-9672 .- 10:51 No.001 P.09 Commi ssionets and Interested Persons August 12, 1996 Page B . The following finding should be added to the end of PART V., on Page 23: 6. -, 1 The Clt;JLof Carlsbad cerUfied /,p Incl'w orovislqns. to devewt crtta 9f use. Drovfsfons for public : mvfslons would be applied to a1 1 fuw devel-t-n romsal 1 I na- uta1 zone Uina. Incuina s-1 yesldontial lots. With vn ~welllna~its and rePllJrina t-cts be WCstent wlth Ll;e .. Tram imp-. bv reaulrina ria wi-ect to t he w. l&s.and -1tiep Pd, the 1-e Dlan mdrnenta not clparlv state on ex1 sti na si na1.e-.fami 1 v incorborae denslmes ta Ubkdate aff'w n Plnds_tbatitv A ncreased hevland .. th.g certw UPS wtthplrt advers-ts 00 tal res- because & resQUsce DrotPction DOIl-nP..the LUPs are Thus. as,tPSlQ as a atcrject camnl.the ce Drot-lcjes of the wed ICP. thp I-wd &mUy 3 Dolicies of the W eryfore. the Commission fln-arnendn~nts ate r6W ufficlentlv arotectlve. atent wlth ci-ter 3 rulisies of I CFI COASTAL COMMISSION TELz619-521-9672 -- Rug 12996 10:51 N0.001 P.10 - Cent ssloners and Interested Persons August 12, 1996 Page 9 PrOVlSfW Of the cert s to any coacta 1 resou= ce 1s not co nsistentm- nor it out. t ha OOsBd .. ler ,of the cgrtified la use a?~ Flnally, on Page 27, the last paragraph of PART VI1 (flndlngs for approval of the Implementation plan as modlfled) should be deleted a1 together.