HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 95-09; Ocean Bluff; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (11)h
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY ,& rr7c)O '-L <hTE -. WILSON, Coecmor /. "
I-
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
I_ SAN DIEGO COAST AREA
3111 CAMINO DE1 RIO NORTH, SUITE 200 June 2d,k 1996 ''. SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725
(619) 521-8036
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
P-,
\ --
\\ +.
COMMISSIONERS AND INTERESTED PARTIES
CHUCK DAMM, SOUTH COAST DISTRICT DIRECTOR DEBORAH N. LEE, COASTAL PROGRAM MANAGER, SAN DIEGO AREA OFFICE BILL PONDER, COASTAL PROGRAM ANALYST, SAN DIEGO AREA OFFICE
STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON MAJOR AMENDMENT NO. 2-96A (OCEAN BLUFF) TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM - MELLO I1 SEGMENT (For Public Hearing and Possible Final Action at the Coastal Commission Hearing of July 9-12, 1996) .
SYNOPSIS
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT REOUEST
The subject amendment request revises the certified Mello I1 LCP segment. This item was continued from the June 1996 hearing in order to try and resolve
an issue with the City of Carlsbad. The request rezones a 31.2 acre property
located at the northwest corner of future Poinsettia LaneIBlack Rail Court from Exclusive Agriculture (E-A) to One-Family Residential (R-1). At the June
1996 hearing, the Commission did approve Part B of LCPA #2-96 to amend the LCP
Imp1 ementation Plan by rezoning the McReynolds property (aka "Mar Vista") and
the MSP California L.L.C. property (aka "Emerald Ridge").
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The proposed Ocean Bluff rezoning would potentially allow development of the
site at a density which would exceed the certified land use plan designation
and staff is recommending it first be rejected, then approved with a suggested
modification to reinforce the land use plan density limits.
Mello I1 LUP designates the site as Residential Low Medium (RLM) which permits up to 4 dwelling units per acre (dua).
minimum lot size) would accommodate up to 5.8 dwelling units per acre, which is inconsistent with the density limits specified in the certified LCP.
The certified
The proposed R-1 zoning (7,500 sf.
As mentioned above, the item was postponed at the June 1996 hearing. response to the staff report drafted for that hearing, the City submitted a
letter dated June 11, 1996 (see attached) which makes several points. First and foremost, the City maintains that the zoning code and regulations do not
regulate density, stating it only provides development standards and design
guidelines for projects. The City states that project density is regulated
through the land use designation applied to a particular site through the
General Plan and certified LUP and that the zoning code must be consistent
with the General Plan. While staff agrees that zoning alone does not guarantee a certain density of development, most local governments do
In
_- e
Carl sbad LCPA No. 2-96A Page 2
interpret the minimum required lot sizes specified in zoning codes as a key
indicator of permissible density. particular site would not accommodate a higher density of development that it is designated for in the General Plan, as it appears in this case. Furthermore, the Carlsbad General Plan is not part of its certified local coastal program.
Typically, the zoning applied to a
The City's second point indicates that the Subdivision Map Act specifies that the City would have to deny approval of any tentative map if it was not consistent with the General Plan. However, the Commission is not herein
reviewing a tentative map; it is reviewing a proposed rezoning and the specified standard of review is whether or not the proposed amendment conforms
with, or is adequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified land use
plan.
The City's final point is that application of the "Q" designator, as suggested
in the proposed modification, will not regulate density in the manner staff believes and sets an adverse precedent. Therefore, the City has indicated it is unacceptable. Staff has repeatedly indicated that the application of the "Q" designator was simply viewed as one mechanism to address the density limit concerns but that other options or alternatives would certainly be considered. However, to date, the City has not suggested any other alternatives or code
provisions to address the density issue for Commission consideration.
resol ut ions and motions may be found on Paues 4 and 5.
suaaested modi fi cat . Findinas for the denial of the
Ocean Bluf in on Paae 6 a nd findinas for apD rova 1 ion may be found on Paae 5 The aDproD ri ate
f rezoning. as submitted. beg of the rezoning. as modi f i ed . bea in on Paae 7.
The ..
BACKGROUND
The City's certified LCP contains six geographic segments as follows: Agua
Hedionda, Mello I, Mello 11, West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties and East
Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties. Pursuant to Sections 30170(f) and 30171 of
the Public Resources Code, the Coastal Commission prepared and approved two portions of the LCP, the Mello I and I1 segments in 1980 and 1981, respectively. However, the City of Carlsbad found several provisions of the
Mello I and I1 segments unacceptable and declined to adopt the LCP -
implementing ordinances for the LCP. major amendments, related to steep slope protection and agricultural preservation, to the Mello I and I1 segments, which resolved the major
differences between the City and the Coastal Commission. adopted the Mello I and I1 segments and began 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's
LCP. LCP .
In October 1985, the Commission approved
The City then
The subject amendment request only affects the Mello I1 segment of the
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Further information on the City of Carlsbad LCP amendment may be obtained at the above address or by contacting Bill Ponder at the Commission's office at
(619) 521-8036.
Carlsbad LCPA No. 2-96A Page 3
PART I. OVERVIEW
A. LC P HISTORY
The City of Carlsbad Local Coastal 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
Bati qui tos Lagoon/Sammi s Properti es LCP segment with 200 acres ; the East Batiqui tos Lagoon/Hunt Properties LCP segment with 1,000 acres and the Vi 1 lage 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. This resulted in the two Carlsbad LCP segments commonly referred
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 Commission on July 1, 1982. The Agua Hedionda segment Land Use Plan was prepared by
The Mello I, Mello 11 and Agua Hedionda segments of the Carlsbad LCP cover the majority of the City's coastal zone. They are also the segments of the LCP
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 wetland habitats 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.
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/Sammis 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 West Batiquitos segment and tbe Pacific Rim Master Plan (now known as the Aviara Master Plan) within the East Batiqui tos Segment.
the Batiqui tos Lagoon Educational Park-Sammi s project within
The plan area of the Village Area Redevelopment segment was formerly part of
Carlsbad LCPA No. 2-96A Page 4
the Mello I1 segment of the LCP. the segmentation of this 100-acre area from the remainder of the Mello I1 LCP 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. A review of the post-certi fication maps occurred in December and the City assumed permit
authority for this LCP segment on December 14, 1988.
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, including these 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. At that time, or perhaps earlier, the City should 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".
In August of 1984, the Commission approved
B. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of review for implementation plans is Section 30513 of the Coastal Act. Pursuant to Section 30513 of the Coastal Act, the Commission may only reject zoning ordinances or other implementing actions, as well as their
amendments, on the grounds that they do not conform with, or are inadequate to
carry out, the provisions of the certified land use plan. shall take action by a majority vote of the Commissioners present.
The Commission
C. PUBLIC PART1 CI PATION
The City has held both Planning Commission and City Counci 1 meetings with regard to the subject amendment request. duly noticed to the public. distributed to all known interested parties.
Each of these local hearings were
Notice of the subject amendment has been
PART 11. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM SUB MITTAL - RESOLUTIONS
Following a public hearing, staff recommends the Commission adopt the
fol lowi ng resol uti on and fi ndi ngs .
resolution and a staff recommendation are provided just prior to the resol uti on.
The appropriate motion to i ntroduce the
A. RESOLUTION I (Resolution to deny certification of the City of
Carl sbad LCP Imp1 ementation Plan Amendment #2-96A - Ocean
I31 uff, as submitted)
I move that the Commission reject the City of Carlsbad's LCP Implementation Plan Amendment #2-96A, as submitted.
Carl sbad LCPA No. 2-96A Page 5
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends a and findings.
present is needed to pass the motion.
vote and the adoption of the following resolution An affirmative vote by a majority of the Commissioners
Resol ut ion €
The Commission hereby denies certification of the amendment to the City of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program on the grounds that the amendment 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 environment.
6. RESOLU TION IL . (Resolution to approve certification of the City of
Carlsbad LCP Implementation Plan Amendment #2-96A -
Ocean Bluff, if modified)
I move that the Commission approve the City of Carlsbad's LCP Implementation Plan Amendment #2-96A, as modified.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends a and findings. present is needed to pass the motion.
vote and the adoption of the following resolution An affirmative vote by a majority of the Commissioners
Resolution Ih
The Commission hereby approves certification of the amendment to the City of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program on the grounds that the amendment, as modified, conforms with, and is adequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified land use plan. feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts which the approval would have on the envi ronment.
There are no feasible alternatives or
PART 111. aES TED MODIFICA TION
Carl sbad LCP Amendment #2-96A/Ocean 81 uf f Rezoni nq
1. The City of Carlsbad LCP Zoning Map shall be revised to indicate that
the Qualified Development Overlay Zone shall be applied to the Ocean Bluff property. The Q designator applied to the site shall indicate that the property will be developed with no more than 4 dwelling units per acre.
Carl sbad LCPA No. Page 6
PART IV. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL 0 F THE CITY OF CARLSBAD LCP IMPLEMENT
AMENDMENT #2-96A/OCEAN BLUFF REZONE. AS SUBMITTED
A. AMFNDMEN T DESCRIPTION - DCEA N BLUFF REZONE
2-96A
TION PL. L
The proposed amendment request proposes to amend the City's implementation
plan of its certified LCP by rezoning the 31.2 acre Ocean Bluff property from Exclusive Agriculture (E-A) to One-Family Residential (R-1). The amendment is associated with a specific project proposal currently under review by the Commission (CDP #6-96-57) to develop a 92 unit residential project and a 16 unit affordabl e housing project.
B. FINDINGS FOR REJECW
a) PurPose a nd Intent of the Ordinance. The purpose and intent of the R-1 zone (One-Family Residential Zone) is to allow for single family detached homes and associated structures; however, the zone also allows multi-family affordable housing structures developed in accordance with the RD-M development standards to be located in the R-1 zone subject to site development plan approval. agricultural uses. The E-A zone is a holding zone which only allows
b) bior Provisions of t he Ordinance . The amendment provides for the change of zoning of the identified parcel from E-A to R-1. The R-1 zone
allows single family detached homes and associated structures, sets a 35 foot
height 1 imi t, and establ i shes development standards for setbacks, placement of
building, minimum lot area (7,500 sq.ft.1, etc. In limited cases, a
two-family dwelling may be permitted provided it is adjacent to specified
zones as listed in the zoning ordinance. Also, home occupations, etc., are
permitted in certain circumstances. Additional development standards for this
zone include provisions for the type of garage required (i.e. two-car) and
that each residence have a permanent foundation. Other requirements pertain
to the composition of exterior siding of residences, specifications regarding
roof pitches and minimum width of residences.
c) Adeauacv o f Ordinance to Imolement the Certified LUP. The standard of review for LCP imp1 ementation submittals or amendments i s the1 r consi stency
with and ability to carry out the provisions of the certified LUP. -In the
case of the subject LCP amendment, the City's Zoning Code serves as the
Implementation Program for the Mello I1 segment of the LCP. In the City's
Zoning Code, R-1 is a zoning designation that specifies a minimum lot area of 7,500 sq.ft. per acre. The Ocean Bluff property has been designated with the Residential Low Medium (RLM) land use designation which permits up to 4 du/ac with a growth control point of 3.2 dwelling units per net acre. Although the
City found the proposed R-1 zone consistent with the RLM land use designation, the R-1 zoning could allow up to 5.8 du/ac based on the minimum lot size of
7,500 sq.ft. (43,560 sq.ft. divided by 7,500 sq.ft. = 5.8). Thus, the
proposed R-1 zone could permit more dwelling units than the land use designation would allow which is inconsistent with the certified LUP.
Increased residential density could result in adverse impacts areawide to
coastal resources by creating the need for more roads and infrastructure
Carlsbad LCPA No. 2-96A Page 7
through sensitive areas (i .e, dual criteria slopes, wetland and riparian
resources).
In response to the staff report drafted for that hearing, the City submitted a
letter dated June 11, 1996 (see attached) which makes several points. First and foremost, the City maintains that the zoning code and regulations do not
regulate density, stating it only provides development standards and design
guidelines for projects. The City states that project density is regulated through the land use designation applied to a particular site through the General Plan and certified LUP and that the zoning code must be consistent with the General Plan. While the Commission agrees that zoning alone does not guarantee a certain density of development, most local governments do interpret the minimum required lot sizes specified in zoning codes as a key indicator of permissible density. Typically, the zoning applied to a particular site would not accommodate a higher density of development that it is designated for in the General Plan, as it appears in this case. Therefore,
because the proposed zoning is not consistent with the certified land use
designation, the amendment must be denied.
PART V. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF CARLSEAD LCP IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN AMENDMENT #2-96A/OCEAN BLUFF REZONE. IF MODIFIED
The standard of review for implementation plans is Section 30513 of the
Coastal Act. Pursuant to Section 30513 of the Coastal Act, the Commission may only reject zoning ordinances or other implementing actions, as well as their
amendments, on the grounds that they do not conform with, or are inadequate to
carry out, the provisions of the certified land use plan. As identified above, the proposed implementation plan amendment cannot be found consistent with the density provisions of the certified Mello I1 LCP. proposed R-1 zone, allowing up to a maximum of 5.8 du/ac, cannot be found consistent with the Residential Low Medium (RLM) land use designation of the certified LUP which allows no more than 4 du/ac.
Specifically, the
The stated intent and purpose of the "Q" Qualified Development Overlay Zone in the certified LCP is to "supplement the underlying zoning by providing
additional regulations for development within designated areas to: [in part1
(1) Require that property development criteria are used to insure compliance with the general plan and any applicable specific plans; (2) Provide that
development wi 11 be compatible with surrounding developments, both ex1 sting
and proposed; (3) Insure that development occurs with due regard to
environmental factors [...I The overlay zone therefore appears to be a
suitable means to provide additional regulations for development to ensure
that future development occurs consistent with a variety of concerns or
environmental factors. Thus, this overlay provides additional assurance the policies of the LCP will be applied and enforced.
The Commission finds that, based on the above findings, the Qualified Development Overlay Zone must be applied to this property. suggested modification applies the "Q" designator to the site to ensure that
the property will be developed with no more than 4 du/ac which is consistent
The attached
Carl sbad LCPA No. 2-96A Page 8
with the certified RLM land use designation. In that way, the Commission can find the proposed zone change is consistent with the certified LUP. As mentioned above, the City submitted a letter in response to the earlier staff report indicating it did not believe that application of the "Q" designator
was appropriate and would set an adverse precedent. The application of the "0" designator is viewed as one mechanism to address the density limit concerns; however, other options or alternatives would certainly be considered. However, to date, the City has not suggested any other alternatives or code provisions that could address the density issue for Commission consideration.
Furthermore, through the review of future development on the site through a subsequent coastal development permit, issues associated with resource protection, etc. , wi 11 be thoroughly assessed for consistency with the certified Mello I1 LCP segment. It should also be noted that both City and
Commission staffs have considered future site development plans for the site.
With such consideration, the modified zoning appears appropriate in that
.future development of the property at the endorsed intensity of use and with
application of the other zoning standards and certified LUP provisions is
possible and reasonable. In summary, since the proposed rezoning, as
modified, would implement the LUP designation cited above, the Commission
finds that the subject amendment to the implementation plan is consistent with and adequate to carry out the policies of the certified LUP.
PART VI. CONSIS TENCY WITH THE CALIF0 RNIA ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY ACT (CEOA).
Section 21080.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exempts local government from the requirement of preparing an environmental impact report (EIR) in connection with its local coastal program. 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. the Commission is relieved of the responsibility to prepare an EIR for each LCP .
Instead, the CEQA
Thus, under CEQA Section 21080.5,
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. The LCP amendment to the Mello-I1 segment of the City's LCP deals with a change to the zoning of a property within the City's coastal zone. inappropriate intensity of land use. However, as modified, the amendment provides suffi ci ent protection to coastal resources by 1 imi ti ng the permitted intensity of .development. Therefore, the Commission finds that approval of the Mello I1 zoning amendment, as modified, will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts.
The proposed Ocean Bluff rezone can result in an
In addition, individual projects to which the new LCP zone would apply will require a coastal development permjt, as previously noted, which would require review for compliance with development standards which address, in part, steep slope encroachment, preservation of native habitat (coastal sage scrub, etc.), visual resource protection, conversion of agricultural land to urban uses and
Carl sbad LCPA No. 2-96A Page 9
_- r ~ -- .-
parking and traffic circulation. individual development projects would be assessed through the environmental review process; and, an individual project's compliance with CEQA would be assured. The Commission finds that approval of the subject LCP amendment, as modified, would not result in significant environmental impacts under the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act and that the proposed changes can be made.
Any specific impacts associated with