HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 95-01; Affordable Housing II; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (5)1 OfL fAZ> -qt? (has
r t, 1 PETE WILSON, Governor GATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY
6 IP C A i I F 0 R N I A C 0 A STA L C 0 M M I S S IO N
SAN DIEGO COAST AREA
31 11 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725
(61 9) 521 -8036
TO: COMMISSIONERS AND INTERESTED PERSONS
FROM: CHARLES DAMM, SOUTH COAST DISTRICT DIRECTOR
DEBORAH N. LEE, ASSISTANT DISTRICT DIRECTOR, SAN ELLEN LIRLEY, COASTAL PLANNER, SAN DIEGO AREA OFFICE
SUBJECT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON MAJOR AMENDMENT 1-96G (Density Bonuses) TO
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM:
Possible Action at the Meeting of August 14-16, 1996)
(For Public Hearing and
SYNOPSIS
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT REOUEST
The proposed amendment revises the Land Use Plan (LUP) text of all six segments of the Carlsbad LCP (Mello I, Mello 11, Agua Hedionda, Village Redevelopment, East Batiquitos Lagoon and West Batiquitos Lagoon) by i ncorporati ng 1 anguage addressing senior citizen housing, second dwell i ng
units, density increases and inclusionary housing. The land use plan modifications would facilitate the development of affordable housing by allowing density bonuses on properties meeting certain planning, design, infrastructure and locational criteria.
In addition, portions of the Implementing Ordinances (zoning code) are revised to incorporate new residential standards addressing the needs of senior citizens and low and moderate income persons. for density bonuses, relaxation of existing development standards and fi nanci a1 i ncenti ves to encourage the construction of affordable housi ng. These amendments are proposed to bring the General Plan, Zoning and LCP into conformi ty .
The modifications would allow
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends rejection of both the proposed land use plan and implementation plan amendments as submitted, and approval , if modified.
City of Carl sbad LCPA 1-96G
Page 2
1 Coastal Program consists of six geographic segments.
2 Pursuant to Sebhtons 30170(f) and 30171 of the Public Resources Code, the f a Coastal
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. %1985, the Commission approved major amendments, related to steep slope prodiection. and agricultural preservation, to the Me1 lo I and I1 segments,
which resolved the major differences between the City and the Coastal Commission. working toward 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. modifications to all six land use plan segments and the implementation
ordinances of the City's LCP, and is a portion of a larger LCP amendment
package, the other components of which have already been acted upon by the
Commission.
Commissiob prepared and approved two portions of the LCP, the Mello I
1
In October,
The City then adopted the Mello I and I1 segments and began
The subject amendment request involves
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Further information on the City of Carlsbad LCP amendment may be obtained from Ellen Lirley, at (619) 521-8036.
1 -.
PART I. OVERVIEW
h
City of Car I sbad LCPA 1-96G Page 3
A. Local Coastal Prosram Historv-All Seqments.
The City of Carlsbad Local Coasta1,Program (LCP) consists of six geographic segments:
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 Batiqui tos Lagoon/Sammi s Properties LCP segment with 200 acres; the East
Batiqui tos Lagoon/Hunt Properties LCP segment with 1,000 acres and the Vi 11 age Area Redevelopment segment with approximately 100 acres.
the Agua Hedionda Lagoon LCP segment comprised of approximately
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 30170(f) and 30171, the Coastal Commission was required to prepare and approve an LCP for identified portions of the City. to as the Mello I and Mello I1 segments. The Mello I and Mello I1 LCP segments were approved by the Coastal Commission in September 1980 and June 1981, respectively. the City and approved by the Coastal Cornmission on July 1, 1982.
This resulted in the two Carlsbad LCP segments commonly referred
The Agua Hedionda segment Land Use Plan was prepared by
The Mello I, Mello I1 and Agua Hedionda segments of the Carlsbad LCP cover the majority of the City's coastal zone. which involve the greatest number of coastal resource issues and have been the
subject of the most controversy over the past years. involved in the review of the land use plans of these segments were
preservation of agricultural lands, protection of steep-sloping hillsides and
wet1 and habi tats and the provi sion of adequate vi si tor-servi ng faci 1 i ti es.
Preservation of the scenic resources of the area was another issue raised in
the review of these land use plans. As mentioned, the City had found the
policies of the certified Mello I and I1 segments regarding preservation of
agriculture and steep-sloping hillsides to be unacceptable.
therefore did not apply these provisions in the review of local projects.
They are also the segments of the LCP
Among those issues
The City
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.
The West Batiqui tos Lagoon/Sammi s Properties segment and the East Batiquitos/Hunt Properties segment were certified in 1985. These LCP
amendments paved the way for two large projects comprising the majority of each segment: the Batiqui tos Lagoon Educational Park-Sammi s project within
the West Batiquitos segment and the Pacific Rim Master Plan (now known as the
Aviara Master Plan) within the East Batiquitos Segment.
The plan area of the Village Area Redevelopment segment was formerly part of
the Mello I1 segment of the LCP. In August of 1984, the Commission approved
the segmentation of this 100-acre area from the remainder of the Mello I1 LCP
City of Carlsbad LCPA 1-96G
Page 4
,
segment and, at the same time, approved the submitted land use plan for the
area. 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 on December 14, 1988.
A review of the
In addition to the review process for the six LCP segments mentioned, the City has also submitted at various times, packages of land use plan amendments to the certified LUP segments in an effort to resolve existing inconsistencies between the City's General Plan, Zoning Maps and the Local Coastal Program. After all such inconsistencies are resolved, the City plans to submit, for the Commission's review, the various ordinances and post-certification maps for implementation of the LCP. also prepare and submit a single LCP document that incorporates all of the LCP
segments as certified by the Commission and any subsequent LCP amendments.
After review and approval of these documents by the Commission, the City would
gain "effective certification".
At that time, or perhaps earlier, the City should
B. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of review for land use plans, or their amendments, is found in Section 30512 of the Coastal Act. certify an LUP or LUP amendment if it finds that it meets the requirements of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Specifically, it states:
This section requires the Commission to
Sect ion 305 12
(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 policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200). Except as provided in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), a decision to certify shall require a majority vote of the appointed membership of the Commission.
the act
The
the to
Pursuant to Section 30513 of the Coastal Act, the Commission may only reject zoning ordinances or other imp1 ementi ng actions, as we1 1 as thei r amendments, on the grounds that they do not conform with, or are inadequate to carry out, provisions of the certified land use plan. The Commission shall take
on by a majority vote of the Commissioners present.
C. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
City has held Planning Commission and City Council meetings with regard to subject amendment request. he public. Notice of the subject amendment has been distributed to all All of those local hearings were duly noticed
known interested parties .
PART 11. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM SUBMITTAL - RESOLUTIONS
Following a public hearing, staff recommends the Commission adopt the fol lowing resolutions and fi ndi ngs. The ,appropriate motion to i ntroduce the
I
City of Car e ad LCPA 1-96G - Page 5
resolution and a staff recommendation are provided just prior to each
resolution.
A. RESOLUTION I (Resolution to deny certification of the City of Carlsbad Land Use Plan Amendment 1-96G, as submitted)
I move that the Commission certify the Land Use Plan Amendment 1-96G, as
submitted.
Staff recommends a lQ vote.and the adoption of the following resolution
and findings. An affirmative vote by the majority of the appointed Commissioners is needed to pass the motion.
Resolution ‘I,
The Commission hereby denies certification of the amendment request to the City of Carlsbad Land Use Plan and on the grounds that the amendment will not meet the requirements of and conform 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 not be consistent with applicable decisions of the Commission that shall guide local government actions pursuant to Section
30625(c); and certification of the land use plan amendment does not meet
the requirements of Section 21080.5(d)(2)(i) of the California Environmental Quality Act, as there would be feasible measures or feasible
alternatives which would substantially lessen significant adverse impacts
on the environment.
8. (Resolution to approve certification of the City of Carlsbad
Land Use Plan Amendment 1-96G, if modified)
I move that the Commission certify the Land Use Plan Amendment 1-966. if modified.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends a ]rls vote and the adoption of the following resolution
and findings. Commi ssioners is needed to pass the motion.
An affirmative vote by the majority of the appointed
Resol ut ion I1
The Commission hereby certifies the amendment request to the City of
Carlsbad Land Use Plan and adoDts t he findincrs stated be low on the grounds
e Ci ty of Carl sbad LCPA 1-96G
Page 6
that the amendment, with suggested modifications, will meet the requirements of and conform 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 be consistent with applicable decisions of the Commission that shall guide local government actions pursuant to Section 30625(c); and certification of the land use plan amendment does meet the requirements of Section 21080.5(d)(Z)(i) of the California Environmental Quality Act, as there would be no feasible measures or feasible a1 ternatives which would substantially lessen significant adverse impacts on the environment.
RESOLUTION I11 (Resolution to deny certification of-"Implementation Plan C. Amendment 1-96G, as submitted)
MOTION I11
I move that the Commission reject the Implementation Plan Amendment 1-96G, as submitted.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends a YES vote and the adoption of the following resolution and findings. present is needed to pass the motion. An affirmative vote by the majority of the Commissioners
Resolution I11
The Commission hereby denies 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. There are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts which the approval would have on the envi ronment.
D. RESOLUTION IV (Resolution to ,&@rQve certification of Imple&eneation Plan Amendment 1-966; if modified)
MOTION IV
I move that the Commission apprave Implementation Plan Amendment 1-96G, if modi f i ed .
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends a lvls vote and the adoption of the following resolution
and findings.
present is needed to pass the motion.
An affirmative vote by a majority of the Commissioners
Resolution IV
Ci tv of Car cc sbad LCPA 1-96G I Page 7
The Commission hereby atmroves certification of the amendment to the City of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program on the grounds that.the amendment, with suggested modifications, conforms with, and is adequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified land use plan. There are no feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts which the approval would have on the envi ronment.
PART 111. SUGGES TED MODIFICATIONS (underlining indicates where added policy 1 anguage is recommended for City proposed pol i ci es and stri ke-out indicates language to be deleted)
A. la nd Use P1 an
1. Policy 1(A) - Affordable Housing, of LCPA 93-02, shall be revised to read as follows and shall be incorporated into the six certified land use plan s egmen t s :
In order to encourage and .enable the development of lower income affordable housing. senior citizen housinq. and second dwellina units. density increases ,above the maximum residential densities permitted by this plan may be permitted as follows:
,v ,-
ty- --"
Densi tv Increases: Any request to increase residential densi ties above the densities permitted by the plan, for the purpose of provi di ng lower-i ncome affordabl e housi ng shall be eval uated re1 ati ve to: (a) a proposal's compatibility with adjacent land uses; (b> the adequacy of public facilities; and (c) the project site being located in proximity to a minimum of one of the following: a freeway or major roadway, a commercial center, employment opportunities, a City park or open space, or a commuter rail or transit center. Within the coastal zone. anv affordable housina proiect that incoroorates a densitv increase Pursuant to this ~olicv shall be consistent with all : *n fth base de nsitv. In calculating the base densitv. a 11 environmental IY ;q rs n t th 1 z nin ordinances and local coastal Droarams are considered to be 44 1nu rf r of a subiect Dropertv.
-
nsi tv Bonuses: Consi stent with Government Code Sect ion 65915 and 6591 5.5. densi tv bonuses and other incentives may be a rant ed to enable the develoDment of low income. verv low income and sen i or ci ti Zen housi na. Wi thi n the coa stal zone. anv housina develoment that incorPorates a densitv bonus and/or other incentives Dursuant to Cj with all certified local coasta 1 Droaram Drovisions. with the
L \
e City of Carl sbad LCPA 1-96G
Page 8
exceD tion of the base de nsity. In calculatina the base de nsitv. a 11 e st 1
undeveloDable and shall be d educted from the total number of acres of
a subiect DroDertv.
rmi n r hi lan
I ded for the Purpose o f constructina seco nd dwelling 3W' be excee units. In the coastal zone. any seco nd dwellina unit shall be
consistent with all certified local coastal Droaram Drovisions. with 1 he ex ni .
4
2. Policy 1(B) - Affordable Housing, of LCPA 95-01, shall be revised to read as follows and shall be incorporated into the six certified land use plan
segments :
In order to enable the development of a variety of housing types (!.e., lower i ncome dwell i ng uni ts, second dwell1 ng uni ts and senior ci ti Zen housing), which provide housing opportunities for lower income and senior citizen households, the City will implement an inclusionary housing
mandate, which all residential development will be subject to, and offer a
variety of economic incentives to the development community (i .e., density
bonuses consistent with State Government Code Sections 65915 and 65915.5
and development standards modifications). In the coastal zone. the 2 i
develot>ers with satisfaction of inclusionarv housina reauirements shall be cons istent with Policv 1A and those o rdi nances imDlementina Policv 1A.
The inclusionary housing mandate requires that a minimum of 15% of all
units approved in any residential master plan, specific plan, or
residential project shall be made affordable to lower income households.
In those residential developments which are required to include 10 or more
units affordable to lower income households, at least 10% of the lower
income units should have 3 or more bedrooms. An in-lieu fee may meet the
requirement to construct lower income housing for residential developments of fewer than 7 units.
S uaaested Modifications Nos. 1 and 2 shall be inserted into the six certified land use D lan seaments as follows:
MELLO I 2. STANDARD PACIFIC (as POLICY 1(A) - AFFORDABLE HOUSING)
3. OCCIDENTAL LAND, INC. (as POLICY 1(A) - AFFORDABLE HOUSING) 4. RANCHO LA COSTA (as i tem 6., under POLICY 1 -- LAND USES)
(as Policy 1-1 and Policy 1-2 Affordable Housing)
AGUA HEDIONDA LAND USE PLAN (as i tems 1.11 and 1.12)
VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA (as i tems titled Residential Density Increases - Affordabl e Housing and Affordable Housi ng, under VI1 . DEVELOPMENT GG)
City of Car 9 sbad LCPA 1-96G
Page 9
EAST BATIOUITOS LAGOON/HUNT PROPERTIES (both listed as I. AFFORDABLE
HOUSING)
I445 (both listed as 10. AFFORDABLE
HOU S I NG 1
6. JmDlementation Plan (Zonincl 0 rdi nances)
3. Section 21.06.090, addressing the Q Qualified Development Overlay Zone, in
Ordinance NS-207, shall be revised to read as follows:
/ Property in the Q zone shall be subject to the development standards required in the underlying zone and any applicable specific plans, except for Affordable Housing Projects as expressly modified by the site development plan. The site development plan for AffordabJe Housing
Projects may allow less restrictive development standards than specified
in the underlying zone or elsewhere provided that the project is in conformity with the General Plan and adopted policies and goals of the City, ilAd it would have no detrimental effect on public health, safety and welfare. and. in the coastal zone, anv Droiect D rocessed DU rsuant to
this ChaDter shall be consistent with all certified local coastal D roaram .
provisions. with the exception of density. In addition, the Planning
Commission or the City Council in approving a site development plan may impose special conditions or requirements which are more restrictive than the development standards in the underlying zone or elsewhere that include
provisions for, but are not limited to, the following:
r. %: t )y‘ /I
(NO CHANGES TO REMAINDER OF CHAPTER)
4. Section 2ln18.O45(c), addressing requirements for Senior Citizen Housing,
in Ordinance NS-274, shall be revised to read as follows:
[. ..l(c> Senior Citizen Housing projects shall meet the following requirements:
(3) A senior citizen housing project shall observe the following development standards:
(A) All senior citizen housing projects are required to comply
with all applicable devleopment standards of the underlying zone, except those which may be modified as an additional incentive granted pursuant to Chapter 21.86 of this Title;
pp h 11
jxceotion of densi tv.
projects, in Ordinance NS-274, shall be revised to read as follows:
jc t
i
5. Section 21.18.045(d), addressing the review of senior citizen housing
(d) Application submittal and review is an follows: (4) Review: The Planning Director shall evaluate the request
Ci t @ Carlsbad LCPA 1-96G
Page 10
and make findings and recommendations based upon the fol 1 ow! ng crl teri a:
The senior citizen housing project complies with the general plan, zoning. certified Local Coastal Proaram and development
this Title.
housing projects, in Ordinance NS-207, shall be revised to read as follows:
[...I e :L (D)
policies of the City of Carlsbad, and is consistent with Sect ion 21.86 o f
6. Section 21.53,120(c), addressing development standards for affordable
c.. .I (c) Development Standards.
The development (both for mu1 ti-family residential and affordable
housing) shall be subject to the development standards of the zone in which the development is located and/or any applicable Specific or Master Plan except for affordable housing projects as expressly modified by the site development plan. The site development plan for Affordable Housing Projects may allow less restrictive development standards than specified in the underlying zone or elsewhere provided that the project is in
conformity with the General Plan and adopted policies and goals of the City, drld it would have no detrimental effect on public health, safety
and welfare. and. in the coastal zone. anv Droiect processed pursuant to this ChaDter shall be c onsi stent with a1 1 certified local coastal Droaram
provisions. with the excmtion of densitv. Commission or the City Council in approving a site development plan may impose special conditions or requirements which are more restrictive than the development standards in the underlying zone or elsewhere that include
provisions for, but are not limited to, the following:
r-;
In addition, the Planning
(NO CHANGES TO REMAINDER OF CHAPTER)
7. Section 21.85.020(19), addressing the definition of "net developable acreage," in Ordinance NS-232, shall be revised to read as follows:
(19) "Net developable acreage (for base residential unit
calculations)" means the total number of acres of a subject property minus
those lands considered to be undevelopable, as listed in Section 21.53.230
of thi s code. Wi thi n the coastal zone. a1 1 environmental 1 v constrai ne8 lands identifi ed Dursuant to the coastal zonina ordinances and local
coasta 1 arograms are considered to be undevelopable and shall be deducted
number of acres of a subject DroDertv. from the total
I'
8. Section 21.85.120(K), addressing affordable housing standards, in Ordinance NS-232, shall be added to read as follows:
t; ,5/ # r S *'I
pursuant to this Chapter shall be co nsistent wi t h all certifi e d lo c a1 coastal Browam Drovisions. with the exceotion of densitv.
City of Ca ad LCPA 1-96G Page 11
9. Section 21.86.020(18). addressing the definition of "maximum allowable residential uield," in Ordinance NS-233, shall be revised to read as
fol 1 ows :
(18) "Maximum allowable residential yield" means the maximum number of residential units permitted on the project site, which number of units :" - is calculated by multiplying the net developable acreage of the project site times the growth management control point(s> for the project site's
applicable residential General Plan designation(s.1. Within the coastal
zone. all environmentally constrained lands identified eursuant to the
coas ta 1 zoninu ordinances a nd local coas tal proarams are co nsidered to be ndevel le and shall alnm r f r f
Sybiect proeertv.
10. Section 21.86.030(d), addressing regulations for new residential construction, in Ordinance NS-233, shall be revised to read as follows:
(d) percent (25%) is requested, includina cases where a densitv increase is souaht to satisfv inclusionarv housina reauirements. no reduction will be allowed in the number of target dwelling units required.
In cases where a density increase of less than twenty-five
11. Section 21.86.060(i), addressing density bonus, equivalent in-lieu
incentives and additional incentives, in Ordinance NS-233, shall be
revised to read as follows:
(i> In the coastal zone, any housina development wocessed eursuant
1 to this Chaeter shall be consistent with all certified local coasta
grogram Drovi sions. with the exceotion of densi tv.
cr,
PART IV. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF AMENDMENT 1-96G TO THE CARLSBAD LAND USE PLAN SEGMENTS
A. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION
To address both Carlsbad's own desire to increase its supply of affordable housing, and State of Cal i forni a requirements for promoti on of the development of affordable housing, amendments to all six of the certified land use plan
segments are herein proposed. Policies 1(A) and 1(B), addressing affordable
housing, in LCPA 93-02 and 95-01, respectively, constitute the land use plan
amendments. The proposed language for all segments is identical, but its
placement within each segment varies due to the different composition of each
individual land use plan. In essence, the City is proposing that density
increases and incentives be granted to development projects that propose to make a certain percentage of units affordable to low income, moderate income
and senior citizen households, based on a specific project's compatibility
with surrounding uses, the adequacy of infrastructure and the location of the
project site.
The proposed amendments provide for an increase in densi ty beyond that which
would be allowed under the applicable policies and ordinances of the certified
LCP. One component of the amendment package proposes the creation of a 15
-
Ci tj ,f Carl sbad LCPA 1-96G Page 12
percent inclusionary housing program, which provides that all residential
subdivisions, master plans and specific plans must maintain 15 percent of the
proposed (or existing in the case of condominium conversions) units as affordable housing. The program also provides for payment of in-lieu fees in certain circumstances, and a1 lows for unl imi ted density i ncreases to assi st developers to meet the inclusionary requirements. However, if density increases are granted, all provisions of Government Code 965915 then apply.
The proposed amendments also offer a range of other incentives to encourage
different types of affordable projects, including the state-mandated density bonuses, densi ty increases, second dwell i ng units and reduced development standards for low/moderate income housing and senior units. The land use plan amendments describe the overall goals and policies in a more general way,
while the associated implementation plan amendments provide the necessary detai 1 to process a specific proposal.
B. SUMMARY FINDING/CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 30001.5 OF THE COASTAL ACT
The Commission finds, pursuant to Section 30512.2b of the Coastal Act, that
the proposed land use plan amendments, as set forth in the preceeding resolutions, are not in conformance with the policies and requirements of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act to the extent necessary to achieve 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 economic needs of the people of the state.
c> Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resource conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners.
d) Assure priority for coastal-dependent and coastal-re1 ated
development over other developments on the coast.
e> Encourage state and local initiatives and cooperation in
prepari ng procedures to imp1 ement coordinated pl ann1 ng and development for
mutual ly benefi cia1 uses, i ncl udi ng educational uses, in the coastal zone.
The Commission therefore finds, for the specific reasons detai 1 ed below, that
the land use plan does not conform with Chapter 3 of the Coastal.Act or the
goals of the state for the coastal zone with regards to environmentally
sensitive habitat areas, shoreline access, water and marine resources, coastal
vi sua1 resources and speci a1 communi ti es, and locati ng and pl anni ng new
development.
City of Cai ,Dad LCPA 1-96G
Page 13
C. NONCONFORMITY OF THE CARLSBAD LAND USE PLAN SEGMENTS WITH CHAPTER 3
Review of local coastal program submittals for findings of Chapter 3
consistency are generally analyzed according to thirteen policy groups. the subject proposed amendments, which address the City of Carlsbad's
affordable housing policies and regulations, the following policy groups apply: Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas; Shoreline Access; Water and Marl ne Resources; and Coastal Vi sua1 Resources and Spec1 a1 Communi ti es. The following resources/land uses are not affected by the proposed land use plan amendments, so no findings are made relative to them:
Vi si tor-Servi ng Uses ; Dredging, Fi 11 i ng, and Shore1 i ne Structures ; Commerci a1 Fishing and Recreational Boating; Hazards; Agriculture; Forestry and Soi 1 s Resources; Public Works; Locating and Planning New Development; and Industrial and Energy Development.
In
Recreation and
1 . Envi ronmental 1 v Sensi ti ve Habitat Areas.
A number of Coastal Act policies address the protection and enhancement of
sensitive habitat areas.
amendments state, in part:
Those most applicable to the proposed land use plan
Section 30233
(a) The diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters,
wetlands, estuaries, and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other appl i cab1 e provi si ons of thi s di vi si on, where there i s no feasi bl e 1 ess
environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation
measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following: [...list of eight allowed uses ... 1
Sect i on 30240
(a> Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected
against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses
dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas.
(b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive
habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the conti nuance of those habitat and recreation areas.
The City has a certified LCP, including six separate certified land use plan
segments. wetlands and environmentally sensitive lands. At the time of certification,
the land use plans also proposed residential densities which the Commission,
agreeing with the City's proposals, found appropriate for lands in and near
sensitive resources. The proposed land use plan amendments would allow
increased densities throughout the City of Carlsbad, so long as they were
proposed in conjunction with an affordable housing project. The amendments do
not include any standards which incorporate the resource protection pol i ci es
Each segment includes policies addressing the protection of
City of Carl sbad LCPA 1 -96G Page 14
of the certified LCP addressing how such density increases will be
accommodated. proposed LUP pol i ci es as a1 lowing for otherwi se impermi ssi bl e direct and indirect adverse impacts to wetlands or other environmental ly-sensi tive
natural communi ti es.
It is possible for the City and others to interpret the
The City maintains that increased densities can be achieved by permitting a
greater number of smaller-sized units, thus keeping a development within the
same building area on a site that would otherwise be occupied by a smaller
number of larger units.
allow any projects with adverse resource impacts, and that it intends to approve increased densities only where the increased density can be achieved without any i nconsi stenci es with the pol i ci es and ordinances of the certified LCP.
land use plan amendments does not reference or incorporate the policies and
ordinances of the certified LCP. Instead it simply states that the maximum
allowable density can be exceeded. the City's intention as expressed to Commission staff orally and in written
communication dated June 13, 1996.
speci fi cal ly assure compl lance with Coastal Act standards, the Commission finds the proposed land use plan amendments are not consistent with the cited Coastal Act pol i ci es.
The City further maintains that it does not intend to
The Commission is concerned that the actual language of the proposed
Thus, the proposed policies do not reflect
Since the proposed policy revisions do not
2. Shore1 i ne AreasIPubl i c Access
The following Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act addressing access to the
coast are most applicable to the proposed land use plan amendments:
Section 30210
In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution, maximum access, which shall be conspicuously
posted, and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from
overuse.
Section 3021 1
Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to
the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization,
including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal
beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.
Section 30252
The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public access to the coast by (1) facilitating the provision or
extension of transit service . . . (4) providing adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of serving the development with public
transportation C . . . .I
.. Ci tv of Car @! I ad LCPA 1-96G " Page 15
Carlsbad is a regionally-popular beach community, having both state and municipal beaches within its boundaries. The City limits also include all or portions of three lagoons (Batiquitos, Agua Hedionda and Buena VSsta) , which provide for more passive public recreational experiences, and, in the case of Buena Vi sta Lagoon, boating opportuni ti es as we1 1 . provides direct access to many of these recreational destinations, with 1-5 being the other main north-south regional access point for the City. Moreover, all major east-west streets funnel beach traffic from the inland areas of Carl sbad and surrounding communi ties to the shoreline.
Carl sbad Boulevard
The proposed amendments are designed to encourage the provision of affordable housing projects in Carlsbad by allowing increased densities, density bonuses, inclusionary housing and second dwelling units. densities, particularly in nearshore areas, creates potential conflicts with beach and lagoon access. The overall proposed amendment package includes provisions to relax many development standards in the accompanying imp1 ementati on plan changes, including parking standards. Moreover, the proposed land use plan revisions require that affordable housing projects be located along transit corridors or near commercial or employment centers, in an effort to encourage walking, biking and the use of public transportation. Transit corridors are generally the main streets of a community, so they also function as the major coastal access routes. If reduced parking is allowed in affordable projects, there could be a spillover effect onto adjacent public streets, and traffic circulation could be slowed by persons hunting for parking spaces.
The City of Carlsbad points out, and rightly so, that much of Carlsbad's traffic is generated by development outside the coastal zone, since it provides regional access to communities up and down the coast. Most of this traffic is generated during the weekday commuter traffic peaks; however, the afternoon traffic peak coincides with the peak for recreational trips, particularly during the summer beach season. As the entire regional population continues to grow, traffic congestion in Carlsbad wi 11 increase, with many intersections throughout the City, i ncl udi n Boulevard, reaching unacceptabl e 1 eve1 s of servi ce.
Increasing the residential
1 contrqbuting factor to the overall problem.
he app-l jcation of a 25 pereen ensities established in the c not expected to
Growth Management Ordinance, however , does not address restrictions based on site-specific constraints, as are applied in the policies and ordinances of the certified LCP. Moreover, the General P1 an and Growth Management Ordi nance do not address public access as a coastal resource, although in highly urbanized Southern California, access opportunities are both in great demand
and extremely vulnerable t over-d velopm nt,
h
City of Carlsbad
rhich can preclude
LCPA 1-96G Page 16
earshore parking availabi 1 i ty and contribute to traffic congestion. Since the proposed LUP amendments do not clearly state that any proposed density increases must be consistent with all other provisions of the certified LCP, the Commission
finds the proposed amendment potentially inconsistent with the Chapter 3 policies on public access and recreation.
3. Water and Marine Resources
A number of Coastal Act policies address the protection and
water quality and sensitive water habitats. Those most app
proposed land use plan amendments state, in part:
Section 30231
enhancement of
icable to the
The biologi cal productivity and the qual i ty of coastal waters, streams, wet1 ands, estuaries, and 1 akes appropriate to mai ntai n optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health
shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, . . i control 1 i ng runoff, . . . maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas [....I
Section 30253
New development shall:
(1) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic,
f 1 ood and f i re hazard ;
(2) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction
of the site or surrounding area E.. . .I
One of the most common threats to marine resources in urban and developing areas is from increased sediments in the water from erosion, grading, and unstabi 1 ized fi 11 sites. Grading on steep slopes presents several major concerns including the increased likelihood of onsite and offsite erosion, increased runoff, and increased downstream.sedimentation. As mentioned previously, Carlsbad includes part or all of three lagoon systems, all of which suffer to some degree from the impacts of sedimentation and urban runoff. The certified Carlsbad LCP contains a number of policies relating to grading, erosion and water quality protection, and that restrict encroachments onto steep slopes. However, these resource protection policies are not specifically applied through the proposed language revisions,-which would not require future projects to be consistent with the LCP.
As in the findings for the two previous policy groups, the Commission's concern is that allowing for increased densities on any site throughout the City, which includes many sloping and natural ly-vegetated properties, could encourage encroachments onto steep slopes that would not normally be allowed. Once again, by referencing only the General Plan and Growth Management
Ci tv of Car 4Jb ad LCPA 1-96G - Page 17
Ordinance, the land use plans, if amended as proposed, would not guarantee
protection of downstream resources or natural landforms. Thus, the Commission
finds that the amendments, as currently proposed, are not consistent with
Sections 30231 and 30253 of the Act.
4. Coastal Vi sual Resources and SDeci a1 Communi ti e2
Section 30251
The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of pub1 ic importance.
shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where
feasible, to restore and enhance vi sual quality in vi sual ly degraded
areas. [...I
Permitted development
Carlsbad is a visitor destination point, attracting local, regional and more distant visitors to its beaches, lagoons, flower fields and other recreational resources. The City offers much in the way of scenic amenities, and the certified LCP includes policies protecting public viewpoints and corridors. The various land use plans address those scenic resources within each segment, and designate specific streets as scenic routes. ordinances include development standards such as appropri ate street and blufftop setbacks to maintain views to the ocean and lagoons. In addition,
the certified LCP includes height restrictions to maintain the character of the community and prevent view blockage from inland areas.
The implementation
As stated previously, the proposed land use plan amendments fail to address
how densi ty increases and incentives wi 11 be achi eved consistent with the
various certified LCP policies and ordinances. Therefore, the Commission
finds the proposed amendments inconsistent with Section 30251 of the Coastal Act.
5. Affordabl e Housi nq
This finding addresses the proposed land use plan amendments in a general way, rather than in the context of one or more individual Chapter 3 policies of the
Coastal Act. Government Code 965915 requires local governments to provide residential density increases to developers who agree to develop low-income and senior housing.
households.
grant at least one other incentive, in addition to the density bonus, unless
the local government finds that the additional incentive is not necessary to a1 low for affordable housing.
The City of Carlsbad is proposing to address the requirements of Government
Code 965915 by amending their certified LUP to allow it to increase resi denti a1 densi ti es and to grant incentives.
Government Code $65915(b) a1 so requires local governments to
Proposed options include
f Carlsbad LCPA 1-96G Page 18
accommodation for density increases and reduced development standards for senior housing, and the typical 25 percent density bonus and one additional incentive for developers agreeing to maintain 20% of their units affordable for 30 years, or alternative in-lieu incentives to this program. In addition, Carlsbad has added policies to create an additional program, which the City devised to meet its fair share allocation of affordable housing. This is a mandatory i ncl usionary housing program, which requires a1 1 developers to provide 15 percent of their units as affordable for a minimum of thirty years. The proposed LUP policy would allow the City to grant unrestricted density increases and other incentives to enable developers to satisfy the requi rement. However, if developers are granted a densi ty 1 ncrease, the City requires that the project be consistent with Section 21.86 of their municipal code (i.e., all provisions of the state density bonus law would then apply).
Thus, the LUP amendment addresses the requirement of Government Code 965915 by allowing the City to grant increases in density beyond the otherwise maximum density, and to grant incentives in the form of regulatory relief without indicating how such density increases and incentives will be applied consistent with the policies of the Coastal Act. In the past, the Commission has acknowledged the need of local governments to comply with the mandates of Government Code 565915 by developing LCP provisions that harmonize the requirements of both Government Code S65915 and the Coastal Act. The City of Carlsbad has indicated that it intends to harmonize these two provisions by allowing for density increases and incentives but only when projects incorporating such increases and incentives can be achieved in a manner that is consistent with all policies and ordinances of the LCP. The City has stated that it will not approve projects that include a density increase and/or incentive if the project is in any way inconsistent with any provision of the certified LCP. As will be dlscussed in the findings for approval of the LUP if modified, this approach can be found to be consistent with the policies of the Coastal Act because of the circumstances unique to the City of Carlsbad coastal resources and the structure of its LUPs. Further, the City believes this approach meets i ts ob1 igations under the Government Code provi sions address1 ng the approval of affordabl e housing projects. The City asserts that under Government Code 565589.5 it has the authority to deny an affordable housing project if the project is inconsistent with the certified . local coastal program. The City's position is that, while it cannot refuse a density bonus in and of itself, the overall proposed project must still be designed sensitive to site constraints and must, in the coastal zone, meet all standards other than density of the certified LCP.
The amendment language submitted by the City requires that all affordable housing projects be consistent with the General Plan and Growth Management
Ordinance, but S with staff has to issue- a-coasta However, wi tho potenti a1 that precedence over all other factors, rather than realizing that a project incorporating a density increase must still be designed to protect coastal resources. For example, the proposed density bonus policies might be
City of Car rn ad LCPA 1-96G
Page 19
i nterpreted as a1 1 owing otherwise prohibited fi 11 of a wet1 ands for purposes of accommodating a 25 percent increase in residential density. Thus, the
proposed amendments, based on the language submitted, could be interpreted by some as allowing for application of density increases and incentives in a manner that does not conform with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
Government Code §65915(f) requires the increase in density granted to a
developer be 25 percent over the "maximum a1 lowable residential density under
the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan." Many local government general plans and ordinances address resi denti a1 densi ti es by i denti fyi ng both a densi ty range that i ndi cates the approxi mate
density for an area, as well as a list of the development standards and other
factors (e.a. , setbacks, heights, yard size, proximity to circulation element
roads,, etc.) that will be applied to determine the maximum density that will be allowed on any particular site within the area.
requires that the 25 percent density increase be applied to the density that
wi 11 be the maximum a1 lowed under the general plan and zonl ng ordinances.
Therefore, the base density to which the density bonus will be applied is the
density that would be identified after application of both the density range for an area and the factors applicable to the developer's particular site.
The Government Code
Modifications suggested by the City of Carlsbad specifically require that
affordable housing projects be consistent with both the General Plan and Growth Management Ordinance, and further stipulate that it is the maximum
a1 1 owabl e densi ty i n the Growth Management Ordi nance that provides the base figure for calculating the mandatory density bonus.
HCD has found this approach acceptable and has approved the City's program, since the Growth Management Ordinance is designed to accommodate Carlsbad's regional fair share allocation of affordable housing. density in the Growth Management Ordinance is the density identified after applySng all environmental constraints to a site. consistent with Government Code 565915. Moreover, the Growth Management
Ordinance is not part of the certified LCP. Since the LUP amendment as
submitted does not insure that the base density to which the density increase is added i s the "maximum a1 lowable residential density under the appl i cab1 e zoning ordinance and land use element of the General Plan" the LUP cannot be
found consistent with the Coastal Act.
According to City staff,
The maximum a1 lowable
Thus, this approach is
One additional affordable housing option proposed by the City is the construction of second dwelling units on existing single-family residential lots. This will be addressed in a separate finding, since second dwelling
units are regulated under a different government code.
PART V. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS. IF MODIFIED
A. SUMMARY FINDING/CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 3000 1.5 OF THE COASTAL ACT
The City of Carlsbad has presented land use plan amendments so that it can
establish a viable affordable housing program in the coastal zone.
amendment requests were submitted several months ago, as part of an LCP
These
of Carlsbad LCPA 1-96G Page 20
amendment package whi ch included a number of other significant components, such as Carlsbad Ranch and the Green Valley Master Plan. All other components of City of Carlsbad LCP Amendment #1-96 have been acted upon by the Commission at this time. Based on issues raised in addressing density increases in other coastal jurisdictions, the Commission and City staff have taken the time to work together to resolve the concerns raised by the specific wording of the proposed land use plan amendments. interpretation, with a concern that prospective permit applicants and project proponents might not understand that, a1 though density bonuses were being granted consistent with state mandates, any actual proposed projects must still be designed to meet the provisions of the certified LCP.
The problem identified was one of
*,
City maintains that the rms of incentives are a useful tool to reach eir affordable housing goals. However, the City also maintains that these als must be met, and the proposed tools applied, in a manner consistent with e protection of coastal resources. proposed development, affordable or not, must be found consistent with the certified LCP in order to be granted a coastal development permlt. suggested modifications, the Commission finds that the City’s proposed amendments will clarify that intent for the general public and allow the City t ompl i sh. its housing goal s.
The LUP amendments enable the City to grant density increases above the maximum allowable under the certified LCP, along with other types of incentives. As discussed in the findings for denial of the LUP amendments, the City asserts that projects that include density increases and incentives will not be approved if inconsistent with the certified LCP. cited its authority under Government Code 965589.5 in support o
It is the City’s position that any
With the
The City has
pol! ci qs and .ordi nances of density, the amendment can-be fo
densi ti es beyond the otherwi se maximum a1 1 owabl e density because the other provisions of the certified LCP are sufficient to protect the coastal resources in Carlsbad. Upon review of the LCP provisions and the coastal resources in Carlsbad, the Commission has jned that the maximum allowable density can be exceeded without adverse1 tttn’g coastal resources provided that all other provisions of the LCP are complied with.
Envi ronmental 1 v Sensitive Habitat Areas. 1.
The City of Carl sbad certified LCP includes provi si ons to i denti fy and protect existing sensitive resources, including wetlands and natural ly-vegetated steep slopes. As submitted, the land use plan amendments do not clearly state that these provisions would be applied to all future development proposals in the coastal zone that incorporate density increases to accommodate affordable
City of Carl jgd LCPA 1-96G
Page 21
housing. The proposed language only references the General Plan and Growth
Management Ordinance, neither of which is part of the certified LCP. modification requiring that all projects be consist , the-Commission finds th ntified in the certified L tally sensi ti r6 sufficiently protective. wi th the resource protection pol 1 ci e density is not ing to be inconsi
Act. Therefor the- Commi s s i on fi the cited Chapter 3 policies'oP the Coastal Act.
e
2. Shore1 i ne AreasIPubl ic Access
The City of Carlsbad certified LCP includes provisions to protect, maintain'
and enhance public access to the City's beaches and lagoons, including policies requiring the provision of adequate on-si te parking such that street parking remains available for beach visitors. As submitted, the land use plan amendments do not clearly state that these provisions will be applied to all future development proposals in the coastal zone. The proposed language only referenced the General P1 an and Growth Management Ordinance, nei ther of which is part of the certified LCP.
An even greater concern with respect to public access is the ability of the
City to maintain free-flowing traffic on coastal access routes. Commi ssion staff considered whether or not increased densities within the City
would adversely impact traffic flow by requiring additional trips and simply increasing the volume of vehicles on City streets. However, based on regional traffic data with projections into the next century, Carlsbad will be faced with a serious traffic problem with or without increased densities. This is
due to its prime arterials serving as transportation corridors along the
coast, and to the coast from inland communities, where the most slgnificant
regional growth is occurring. Thus, Carlsbad, even if it never built another
unit from this point forward, would still have many local intersections,
including those on Carlsbad Boulevard adjacent to the beaches and its major
east-west corridors, at unacceptable 1 eve1 s of service.
Since this traffic influx is completely beyond the City's control, the
Commission concludes that it is not a deciding factor in determining whether or not the proposed density increases are acceptable. concludes that any potential density increases in Carlsbad will be only a minor, incremental contribution to the overall .population growth of San Diego
County, and therefore cannot be held responsible for future traffic problems
which could marginally affect beach access. That issue aside, increased densities alone will not have adverse impacts on beach access, provided that
projects are designed consistent with all other provisions of the certified
LCP, such as parking and siting provisions. It is these provisions, rather
than the density limits, that will assure that development is consistent with
the public access policies of the Coastal Act. Therefore, with the suggested
modification requiring that all projects be consistent with LCP provisions,
the Commission finds that the density can be increased beyond the limits
City and
.
The Commission
Ci -I of Carl sbad LCPA 1-96G
Page 22
identified in the certified LUPs without adverse impacts on public access
because the access policies of the LUPs are sufficiently protective. long as a project complies with the access policies of the certified LCP, the increased density is not going to be inconsistent with Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. Therefore, the Commission finds that the amendments are consistent with the cited Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act.
Thus, as
3. Water and Marine Resources
The City of Carlsbad certified LCP includes provisions to protect downstream ocean and lagoon resources from upstream construction and development impacts, by requiring appropriate drainage, erosion control and runoff faci 1 i ti es. There are also LCP provisions prohibiting grading on steep slopes during the rainy season. As submitted, the land use plan amendments do not clearly state
that these provisions would be applied to all future development proposals in the coastal zone that incorporate density increases to accommodate affordable
housing.
Management Ordinance, neither of which is part of the certified LCP.
suggested modification requiring that a1 1 projects be consi stent with LCP provisions, the Commission finds that the density can be increased beyond the limits identified in the certified LUPs without adverse impacts on water and marine resources because the resource protection policies of the LUPs are
sufficiently protective. Thus, as long as a project complies with the water
and marine resource protection policies of the certified LCP, the increased
density is not going to be inconsistent with Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal
Act. Therefore, the Commission finds that the amendments are consistent with
the cited Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act.
The proposed language only referenced the General Plan and Growth With the
4. Coastal Vi sual Resources and Speci a1 Communi ti es
The City of Carlsbad certified LCP includes provisions to protect the City's
vi sual resources by identifying si gni fi cant vi ewpoi nts and corridors , and requiring appropriate development standards, such as height 1 imi ts and
setbacks, to maintain said public views. An increase in density will not
adversely affect scenic resources if the project that incorporates the density
increase and incentive is consistent with each of the policies and ordinances of the LCP. As submitted, the land use plan amendments do not clearly state
that these provisions would be applied to all future development proposals in
the coastal zone that incorporate density increases to accommodate affordable
housing.
Management Ordinance, neither of which is part of the certified LCP. suggested modification requiring that all projects be consistent with LCP provisions, the Commission finds that the density can be increased beyond the limits identified in the certified LUPs without adverse impacts on visual resources because the visual resource protection policies 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.
Therefore, the Commission finds that the amendments are consistent with the
cited Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act.
The proposed language only referenced the General Plan and Growth With the
e City of Car a d LCPA 1-96G
Page 23
5. Affordabl e Housi nq.
Without provisions for incorporating the requirements of the certified LCP,
the density bonuses proposed in the land use plan amendments do not conform
with policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. The Commission has suggested modifications to the proposed language that will conform the City's land use plan segments with the Coastal Act. These sug ted modifications have been put from City staff, and refTec intention to assert of its'LCP in its review o all proposed housing developments,
ing density i ncrea s consistent with the mandates of
I The suggested modifications for the land use plan segments address density increases, density bonuses and inclusionary housing. The modifications are intended to make it clear that, although any landowner may obtain a density increase and i ncentives by agreeing to keep specified numbers of units available for low income or senior citizen use for specified time periods, the resulting development project must still meet all provisions of the certified
LCP except density.
which, when reviewed on a site-specific basis, will not result in inconsistencies with the LCP. landowner the mandatory density increases required in Government Code 965915, it does not relinquish its authority to conduct a discretionary review of
specific development proposals incorporating the increased density.
It is the City's intent to offer only those incentives
The City maintains that, in granting a
The suggested modifications provide that any granted density increase will be
accommodated using those means that do not adversely affect coastal
resources. determine how to accommodate the density increases and any other incentives in a manner that conforms with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
With these modifications, the land use plans will meet the requirements of the
density bonus statute and also comply with requirements of the Coastal Act. Accordingly, as modified herein, the Commission finds the land use plan
amendments conform with the Coastal Act.
They insure that the City will exercise its discretion to
PART VI. FINDINGS FOR REJECTION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT. AS SUBMITTED
A. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION
Along with the previously-discussed land use plan revisions which address the City's affordable housing program, the City s proposing a number of ordinance
revisions to implement the land use plans. he City's implementation plan amendments include Ordinances NS-207, NS-232 NS-233, NS-274 and NS-283. These i ncl ude both changes to exi sti ng elements of the certified imp1 ementation plan and the addition of two new ordinances addressing density bonuses and inclusionary housing. The various amendments would provide for i ncreased densities for low income, moderate income and senior households, and
also address the construction of second dwelling units on existing
single-family residential properties. They outline the City's specific
C, .J of Carlsbad LCPA 1-96G Page 24
affordable housing program options and provide for incentives (relief) on certain development standards and density caps in association with affordable housing projects.
€3. FINDINGS FOR REJECTION
The standard of review for LCP implementation submittals or amendments is
their consistency with and ability to carry out the provisions of the
certified LUP. The purpose of the proposed amendments is to accommodate a
City-wide housing program consistent with state mandates and with the City's
Fair Share requirements to provide a percentage of the regional affordable housing needs. The proposed implementation plan amendments address a number of new and existing ordinances, which will be addressed individually below.
Chauter 21.86 Residential Densi tv Bonus or In-Lieu Incentives
a> Puruose a nd Intent of the Ordinance. The purpose and intent of the new ordinance is to promote housing in the City that is affordable to its low income and senior citizens. developers in order to implement the goals of the City's Housing Element and Sections 65915-65917 of the California Government Code.
Its other purpose is to provide incentives to
b> Major Provisions of the Ordinance. The proposed ordinance includes
regulations for new construction and condominium conversions. It also
provides a density bonus program, including incentives, standards and tenure.
Finally, it provides for long-term management and monitoring of affordable units.
c> Adequacy o f the Ordinance to ImDlement the Certified LUP Seument. The proposed ordinance amendment is an addition to the existing municipal code
and is proposed for inclusion in the certified LCP. The ordinance authorizes
the City to grant density bonuses and additional incentives, and requires that
affordable housing projects must conform to the General Plan, zoning and
development policies of the City of Carlsbad. It also provides that, where a
density increase would exceed the upper end of the General Plan density range
for a specific site, the proposal must be consistent with adjacent land uses
and in proximity to employment opportunities, urban services or major roads.
In no instance does the ordinance provide for a project's consistency with the
certified LCP, although the City has indicated that the general term "development pol i ci es" would 1 i kely be interpreted to include LCP pol i ci es. However, with the suggested modifications for the City's six land use plan segments clearly stating that all housing projects must be consistent with the provisions of the certified LCP, the Commission finds the proposed ordinance is not consistent with, nor can it adequately carry out, the policies of the
certified land use plans.
Chapter 21.85 Inclusionarv Housing
a) Puruose a nd Intent of the Ordinance. The purpose and intent of the new ordinance is to ensure that master and specific planned communities and residential subdivisions provide a range of housing opportunities for all
h
City of Car ,ad LCPA 1-96G Page 25
economic segments of the population. that 15 percent of all approved residential units be affordable. The
ordinance also intends to allow in-lieu fees and housing impact fees in speci fi ed ci rcumstances .
applicability of the inclusionary requirements and describes the in-lieu fees and incentives to be offered. It also provides regulations for both new and existing master and specific plans and lists exemptions for certain
residential developments. Final ly, it provides for long-term management and moni tori ng of affordable uni ts.
c> Adequacy o f the Ordinance to Implement the Certified LUP Segment. The proposed ordinance amendment is an addition to the existing municipal code and is proposed for inclusion in the certified LCP.
that all new residential subdivisions, including those approved through master
plans or specific plans, provide 15 percent of their units as affordable
housing. It further authorizes the City to grant density bonuses and
additional incentives to achieve this goal, but does not provide that a
project be consistent with the certified LCP.
modifications for the City's six land use plan segments clearly stating that all housing projects must be consistent with the provisions of the certified LCP and not result in significant adverse impacts to any coastal resources, the Commission finds the proposed ordinance is not consistent with, nor can it adequately carry out, the policies of the certified land use plans.
ChaDter 21.18.045 Senior Citizen Housinu by S i te Development
a)
ordinance is to provide a mechanism and standards for the development of
rental and for-sale housing for senior citizens.
specific direction as to the appropriate location for senior housing with respect to needed community services. criteria to assure that provided units are functional for persons with special
needs. Provisions are also included stipulating the minimum ages for occupancy of such units.
This is to be accomplished by requiring
b> Maior Provisions of the Ordinance. The proposed ordinance defines the
The ordinance requires
However, with the suggested
Purpose a nd Intent of the Ordinance. The purpose and intent of the new
b> Maior Provisions of the Ordinance. The proposed ordinance provides
It also provides detailed development
c> Adeauacv o f the Ordinance to Imlement the Certified LUP Seament.
The proposed ordinance amendment is a change to the existing municipal code,
which is part of the certified LCP.
process for senior housing and updates the standards such units must attain.
As with the previously-discussed ordinances, it authorizes the City to grant
density bonuses and additional incentives to achieve the stated housing goals,
but does not provide that a project be consistent with the certified LCP.
However, with the suggested modifications for the City's six land use plan
segments clearly stating that all housing projects must be consistent with the
provisions of the certified LCP and not result in significant adverse impacts
to any coastal resources, the Commission finds the proposed ordinance is not
consistent with, nor can it adequately carry out, the policies of the
certified land use plans.
The ordinance modifies the approval
Cit- Jf Carlsbad LCPA 1-96G Page 26
Chapter 21.53.120 Affordable Housina Multi-Familv Residential Projects - Site
Development P1 an Reaui red
a> Purpose and Intent of the Ordinance. This title is part of a larger ordinance, the body of which is not being modified. this particular section provides that any affordable housing project must be approved through the site development plan process.
The purpose and intent of
b) mior Provisions of the Ordinance. The proposed ordinance revision
provides that affordable housing projects are subject to Planning Commission review, and potentially to City Council as well, depending upon the size of the project and whether or not it is appealed. It also provides that these bodies may either increase or decrease a range of development standards to help achieve the City's housing goals.
c> Adeauacv of the Ordinance to Imp1 ement the Certi fi ed LUP Segment. The proposed ordinance amendment is a change to the existing municipal code, which is part of the certified LCP.
process for affordable housing projects and would allow deviations in the applied development standards. Again, there is no mention that resulting projects in the coastal zone must be consistent with the certified LCP or protect coastal resources. However, with the suggested modifications for the City's six land use plan segments clearly stating that all housing projects in the coastal zone must be consistent with the provisions of the certified LCP
and not result in significant adverse impacts to any coastal resources, the
Commission finds the proposed ordinance is not consistent with, nor can it
adequately carry out, the policies of the certified land use plans.
The ordinance modifies the approval
ChaDter 21.06.090 0 Oua lified Overlay Zone DeveloDment Standards
a> Purpose a nd Intent of the Ordinance. This title is again part of a larger ordinance, the body of which is not being modified. intent of thi s particular section provides that any affordable housing project must be approved through the site development plan process, and, as such, is
not necessarily bound by'the development standards of the underlying zone.
The purpose and
b) Major Provisions of the Ordinance. The proposed ordinance revision provides that affordable housing projects are subject to Planning Commission review, and potentially to City Council as well. It also provides that these bodies may either increase or decrease a range of development standards to help achieve the City' s housing goals.
c> Adeauacv of the Ordinance to ImDlement the Certified LUP Seument. The proposed ordinance amendment is a change to the existing municipal code, which is part of the certified LCP. The ordinance clarifies the approval process for affordable housing projects and would allow deviations in the applied development standards. Again, there is no mention that resulting projects in the coastal zone must be consistent with the certified LCP or
protect coastal resources. However, with the suggested modifications for the
City's six land use plan segments clearly stating that all housing projects in
the coastal zone must be consistent with the provisions of the certified LCP
h City of Car' id LCPA 1-96G Page 27
and not result in significant adverse impacts to any coastal resources, the Commission finds the proposed ordinance is not consistent with, nor can it adequately carry out, the policies of the certified land use plans.
PART VII. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
AMENDMENT. IF MODIFIED
As stated previously, the City is proposing a series of modifications to existing ordinances, and two entirely new ordinances, to implement its affordable housing program citywide. Since this program will occur within the coastal zone, the ordinances are either already part of the certified LCP, or,
in the case of the new ordinances, are being incorporated into it at this time. In order to be consistent with the suggested modifications for the land
use plan amendments, language, in the form of additional suggested
modifications, has been added to each of the identified ordinances to incorporate a requirement that any development in the coastal zone approved pursuant to that particular ordinance must be found consistent with the certified LCP provisions.
The proposed modifications assure that the base density to which the density increase is applied is consistent with LUP policy, and that any incentives granted under the program will not result in inconsistencies with the LCP. addition, suggested modifications for Chapters 21.86 and 21.85 include 1 anguage cl ari fyi ng that "a1 1 envi ronmental ly constrai ned 1 ands i denti fi ed
pursuant to the coastal zoning ordinances and local coastal programs are considered to be undevelopable and shall be deducted from the total number of acres of a subject property" prior to calculating any density increases. The
determination of whether a project complies with the LCP is based on the
cons1 stency of the enti re project, including the density increase and incentives, with all LCP provisions. With these suggested modifications, the
and able to carry out, the certified land use plan segments, as modified
herein. '
In
\ Commission finds the proposed implementation plan revisions consistent with,
In addition to the ordinances identified above, and addressed in suggested
modifications, the City of Carl sbad amendment request a1 so includes revisions
to various sections of Chapter 21 of the municipal code, as they relate to
second dwelling units.
second dwelling units, describe an administrative review process for
permitting them, and describe restrictions on size, affordability, etc. Second dwell ing units are a1 lowed by state mandate on existing single-fami ly resi denti a1 parcel s , and the proposed ordinance revi sions are designed to simplify the associated permit process. particular revised ordinance sections are consistent with and able to carry out the certified land use plans, even as modified herein.
The purpose of the ordinance revisions is to define
As submitted by the City, these
PART VI11 . CONSISTENCY WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY ACT (CEOAl
Section 21080.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exempts
local government from the requirement of preparing an environmental impact
- Ci of Carl sbad LCPA 1-96G
Page 28
report (EIR) in connection with its local coastal program. Instead, the CEQA
responsibilities are assigned to the Coastal Commission and the Commission's LCP review and approval program has been found by the Resources Agency to be functionally equivalent to the EIR process. Thus, under CEQA Section 21080.5, the Commission is relieved of the responsibility to prepare an EIR for each LCP *
Nevertheless, the Commission is required in an LCP submittal or, as in this
case, an LCP amendment submittal, to find that the LCP, or LCP as amended,
does conform with CEQA provisions. In the case of the subject LCP amendment request, the Commission finds that approval of the City of Carlsbad land use plan amendments, as proposed, would result in significant impacts under the
meaning of the Cali fornia Environmental Quality Act. amendments are inconsistent with the Coastal Act, and could have adverse impacts in the areas of biology, public access, water quality, visual resources and density. Several suggested modifications are included which will eliminate the potential impacts. As modified herein, there are no
feasible, less environmentally-damaging alternatives and no significant environmental impacts would occur if the modifications are accepted by the
City of Carl sbad.
Likewise, in the case of the implementation plan amendments, the Commission fi nds that approval of the proposed ordinance amendments, as submitted, would result in significant impacts under the meaning of the California
Environmental Quality Act. However, with the inclusion of the suggested modifications, implementation of the revised ordinances would not result in significant impacts under the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, this modified LCP amendment can be found consistent with the provi sions of the Cal i forni a Envi ronmental Qual i ty Act.
Portions of the proposed