The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZCA 10-06A; Reasonable Accommodations; Zone Code Amendment (ZCA)/f~ \<-~'. ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD APPLICATIONS APPLIED FOR: (CHECK BOXES) LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION P-1 Development Services Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-4610 www.carlsbadca.gov Development Permits (FOR DEPT. USE ONLY) Legislative Permits (FOR DEPT. USE ONLY) 0 Administrative Permit 0 Coastal Development Permit (*) 0 Minor 0 Conditional Use Permit (*) 0 Minor 0 Extension 0 Environmental Impact Assessment 0 Habitat Management Permit 0 Minor 0 Hillside Development Permit (*) 0 Planned Development Permit 0 Residential 0 Non-Residential 0 Planned Industrial Permit 0 Planning Commission Determination 0 Site Development Plan 0 Special Use Permit 0 Tentative Tract Map 0 Variance 0 Administrative 0 General Plan Amendment ffiocal Coastal Program Amendment (*) 0 Master Plan 0 Amendment 0 Specific Plan 0 Amendment 0 Zone Change (*) ~ne Code Amendment South Carlsbad Coastal Review Area Permits 0 Review Permit 0 Administrative 0 Minor 0 Major Village Review Area Permits 0 Review Permit 0 Administrative 0 Minor 0 Major (*) = eligible for 25% discount lCFA jDIJ>l:tr IU'A looLPA NOTE: A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 3:30P.M. A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING ONLY ONE APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 4:00 P.M. ASSESSOR PARCEL NO(S).: 1J /r. --~~~----------~----------------------------~~------------~--- PROJECTNAME: ~~s.xv~ Accw~0o\ ~+~') Ull ~ ~Jrkci fYbtA~1c.. f, .. ~r B~EF DESCRIPTION oF PROJEcT: Arr-t"~ . (\~ c\---"e% 2.1. "E7 t{;. ~o c-..1:> OC\,~W\1\1\.(R_., -tp w~rrot-k C.,l).q..-+J., cPN\""-\4-? ,s;..._ :s\la~K~ "'""~{t.:....-b' ~ BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOCATION OF PROJECT: STREET ADDRESS ON THE: SIDE OF (NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST) (NAME OF STREET) BETWEEN AND (NAME OF STREET) (NAME OF STREET) P-1 Page 1 of 6 Revised 06/12 r • OWNER NAME (Print): \ APPLICANT NAME (Print): Cr+:;z:Q-F Ctxv-bb~ ~ MAILING ADDRESS: \ MAILING ADDRESS: ('-~S £~(U':.~"7' A""v~ CITY, STATE, ZIP: \ CITY, STATE, ZIP: C l\Y'J"$\.,~:i l fA Cil.z..~ TELEPHONE: '\ TELEPHONE: I EMAIL ADDRESS: \ EMAIL ADDRESS: \. I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OWNER INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO KNOWLEDGE. THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. SIGNATURE DATE SIGNATURE DATE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE (Print): MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: TELEPHONE: EMAIL ADDRESS: I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. SIGNATURE DATE IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO INSPECT AND ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. 1/WE CONSENT TO ENTRY FOR THIS PURPOSE. NOTICE OF RESTRICTION: PROPERTY OWNER ACKNOWLEDGES AND CONSENTS TO A NOTICE OF RESTRICTION BEING RECORDED ON THE TITLE TO HIS PROPERTY IF CONDITIONED FOR THE APPLICANT. NOTICE OF RESTRICTIONS RUN WITH THE LAND AND BIND ANY SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST. PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE FOR CITY USE ONLY DATE STAMP APPLICATION RECEIVED RECEIVED BY: P-1 Page 2 of 6 Revised 06/12 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00p.m. on Tuesday, November 27, 2012, to consider accepting and administering the Coastal Commission's suggested modifications to the City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCPA 10-0S(A)). The modifications affect the City's recently adopted Reasonable Accom- modations Ordinance. This ordinance provides standards for persons with disabilities to request changes to land use require- ments that may serve as a barrier to housing opportunities. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after November 23, 2012. If you have any questions, please contact Scott Donnell in the Planning Division at (760) 602-4618 or scott.donnell@carlsbadca.gov. If you challenge the Zone Code Amendment and/or Local Coastal Program Amendment in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence deliv- ered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: ZCA 10-06(A)/LCPA 10-05(A) CASE NAME: REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS PUBLISH: November 17, 2012. e CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL .:r rn .:r ru CJ fleturn "l<>cetpt Fe<; Cl (Endorsem<·,,t Requ,red) Cl Restncted ! )eli very Fee Cl 1"- ..LI (Endorsem<"lt Roqwred) Total Postage & FAR~ ..-:::~ ......-.,-,----TONI ROSS Sent To o COASTAL PROGRAM ANALYST ~ sirrieC'Ai:iCiiJ, STE 103 '-' orPOBoxNo 1"-citjt;siaie.-z'li 7575 METROPOLITAN DR • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mail piece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: TONI ROSS GOASTAL PROGRAM ANALYST 'STE 103 7575 METROPOLITAN DR SAN DIEGO CA 92108 COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY , If YES. enter delivery address below: 0 Express Mail 3. Service Type ~Certified Mail b Registered 0 Insured Mail ~eturn Receipt for Merchandise OC.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service /abeQ 7010 1670 0002 4348 2621 Domestic Return DEPUTY DIRECTOR c:::J r-=1 siriieC.4iJT"NCALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION c:::J or PO Box N< STE 103 f'-Cirr;siaie.-il7575 METROPOLITAN DR SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: SH~tYNSARB <EPUTY DIRECTOR 1 CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION I STE 103 II 7575 METROPOLITAN DR SAN DIEGQ._CA 92108 address different from item 1? If YES, enter delivery address below: 3. Service Type 'Dcertified Mail D Registered D Insured Mail D Express Mail 1ii!:.Return Receipt for Merchandise DC.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 2. Article Number (Transfer from service labeQ 7010 1670 0002 4348 2614 E.st J. Dronenburg, J .. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ASSESSOR/RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK ASSESSOR'S OFFICE 1600 Pacific Highway, Suite 103 San Diego, CA 92101-2480 Tel. (619) 236-3771 *Fax (619) 557-4056 www.sdarcc.com RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE 1600 Pacific Highway, Suite 260 P.O. Box 121750 *San Diego, CA 92112-1750 Tel. (619)237-0502 *Fax (619)557-4155 Transaction#: 284950220121211 Deputy: HAYUYAO CITY OF CARLSBAD DEC 14 2012 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Location: COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 11-Dec-2012 13:35 FEES: 50.00 Qty of 1 Fish and Game Filing Fee for Ref# 20121019 50.00 TOTAL DUE PAYMENTS: 50.00 Check 50.00 TENDERED SERVICES AVAILABLE AT OFFICE LOCATIONS * Tax Bill Address Changes * Records and Certified Copies: Birth/ Marriage/ Death/ Real Estate * Fictitious Business Names (DBAs) * Marriage Licenses and Ceremonies * Assessor Parcel Maps * Property Ownership * Property Records * Property Values * Document Recordings SERVICES AVAILABLE ON-LINE AT www.sdarcc.com * Forms and Applications * Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) * Grantor/ Grantee Index * Fictitious Business Names Index (DBAs) * Property Sales * On-Line Purchases Assessor Parcel Maps Property Characteristics Recorded Documents State of California-The Resources A. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND E 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE. TYPE OR PRINT CLEAR~ LEAD AGENCY CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNTY/STATEAGENCY OF FILING SAN DIEGO PROJECTTITLE RECEIPT# SD2012 1019 STATE CLEARING HOUSE #(lfappJicableJ DATE 12/11/2012 DOCUMENT NUMBER *20121019* ZCA 10-06(A)/LCPA 10-05(A)-SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS TO REASONABLE ACCOMODATION ORDINANCE PROJECT APPLICANT NAME CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT APPLICANT ADDRESS 1635 FARADAY AVENUE PROJECT APPLICANT (Check appropriate box): [lJ Local Public Agency 0 School District CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: 0 Environmental Impact Report 0 Negative Declaration CITY CARSLBAD 0 Other Special District 0 Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board Only) 0 Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs 1Zl County Administrative Fee 0 Project that is exempt from fees [lJ Notice of Exemption 0 DFG No Effect Determination (Form Attached) 0 Other------------------- PAYMENT METHOD: 0 Cash SIGNATURE X I I 0 Credit 1Z1 Check O Other 239259 H. Ayuyao STATE CA 0 State Agency $2,919.00 $2,101.50 $850.00 $992.50 $50.00 $ $ $ $ $ PHONE NUMBER 760/602-4600 ZIP CODE 92008 0 Private Entity $50.00 $ ______ _ TOTALRECEIVED $ ____ ___.:$_5..;_0.-'-00..;_ ·llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll ORIGINAL-PROJECT APPLICANT COPY-DFG/ASB COPY -LEAD AGENCY COPY-COUNTY CLERK FG 753.5a (Rev. 7/08) - NOTICE OF EXEMPTION To: SD County Clerk Attn: Jennifer Samuela Mail Stop A-33 1600 Pacific Highway San Diego CA 92101 CITY OF CARLSBAD DEC 14 2012 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CARLSBAD f~ltED Planning Division EmeatJ Oronenburg, Jr. RtiCCrderCounlYOieltf 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 . DEC 11 ZY1t ev. H. Avuyao DEPUTY Subject: Filing of this Notice of Exemption is in compliance with Section 21152b of the Public Resources Code (California Environmental Quality Act). Project Number and Title: ZCA 10-06(A)ILCPA 10-0S(A) -Suggested Modifications to Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance Project Location -Specific: Project is applicable to residential uses city-wide Project Location -City:_C=ar=ls=b=ad=-----Project Location -County: San Diego Description of Project: Amend reasonable accommodation ordinance (CS-125), adopted by the city in March 2011, to incorporate changes recommended to the ordinance by the California Coastal Commission. This notice is filed following the City Council's adoption and second reading of the amended ordinance (CS-196) on December 4, 2012. Name of Public Agency Approving Project:_C=ity,;.....:::..o!:-f C=ar~ls::!:b~a~d ___________ _ Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project:-=C~i~ty'-'o"""f'--'C::<.:a::..r!-"ls"""ba""d,__ _________ _ Name of Applicant:_~C~ity~o~f~C::.!:!a~rl~sb~a~d~------------------- Awli~nrsA~~~=~~~e~a~b~o~v~e---------------------~ Applicant's Telephone Number:--->.(7.:..:6:::.:0~)...::6~0==-2-'-'4~6~00~---~------------ Exempt Status: (Check One) D Ministerial (Section 21 080(b )( 1 ); 15268); D Declared Emergency (Section 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)); D Emergency Project (Section 21080(b)(4); 15269 (b)(c)); D Categorical Exemption -State type and section number:. ___________ _ 0 Statutory Exemptions-State code number:. ________________ _ [8J General rule (Section 15061(b)(3)) Reasons why project is exempt: Project is a minor zone code amendment that refines or clarifies existing land use standards, does not lead to physical improvements beyond those typically exempt from CEQA, and clearly would not have a significant environmental effect. Accordingly, it is not subject to CEQA review pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 19.04.070 A.l.c.(l) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)C3). ~;;tntact Person: Scott Donnell Telephone: (760) 602-4618 IZ-7-/2 DON NEU, City Planner Date Date received for filing at OPR: Revised 04/12 ; . • NOTICE OF EXEMPTION To: SD County Clerk From: IF ~ l iED CITY OF CARLSBADEmestJ Dran!!"llYf\l,jr,"~rCOun~CIIIi Attn: Jennifer Samuela Mail Stop A-33 Planning Division 1600 Pacific Highway San Diego CA 921 01 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 ev. H. A'"'uya o ~ ...... Subject: Filing of this Notice of Exemption is in compliance with Section 21152b of the Public Resources Code (California Environmental Quality Act). Project Number and Title: ZCA 10-06(A)/LCPA 10-05(A) -Suggested Modifications to Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance Project Location -Specific: Project is applicable to residential uses city-wide Project Location-City:_C=ar=ls=b=a=d ___ _ Project Lo~ation -County: San Diego Description of Project: Amend reasonable accommodation ordinance (CS-125), adopted by the city in March 2011, to incorporate changes recommended to the ordinance by the California Coastal Commission. This notice is filed following the City Council's adoption and second reading of the amended ordinance (CS-196) on December 4, 2012. Name of Public Agency Approving Project:_C=ity~o.!c..f=C=ar"-'-l=sb=a'-=d'-------------- Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project:_,C~i:...;ty'--'o=:.!f'-'C~a~r""'ls""'b=ad=------------ Exempt Status: (Check One) 0 Ministerial (Section 21 080(b )( 1 ); 15268); 0 Declared Emergency (Section 21 080(b )(3); 15269(a)); 0 Emergency Project (Section 21080(b)(4); 15269 (b)(c)); D Categorical Exemption -State type and section number: ____________ _ D Statutory Exemptions-State code number: ________________ _ [8] General rule (Section 15061 (b )(3)) Reasons why project is exempt: Project is a minor zone code amendment that refines or clarifies existing land use standards, does not lead to physical improvements beyond those typically exempt from CEQA, and clearly would not have a significant environmental effect. Accordingly, it is not subject to CEQA review pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 19.04.070 A.l.c.(l) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3). ~g;;.tntact Person: Scott Donnell Telephone: (760) 602-4618 /Z-7-/2 DON NEU, City Planner Date Date received for filing at OPR: Revised 04/12 DEPUTY .---------------~------ • . ....-;....__ ·'· State of California-The Resources ~~ 1D_EPARTMENT OF FISH AND .E 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE. TYPE OR PRINT CLEAR~ LEAD AGENCY RECEIPT# SD2012 1019 STATE CLEARING HOUSE# (If applicable) --- DATE CITY OF CARLSBAD I CITY OF CARLSRAn 12/11/2012 COUNTY/STATEAGENCY OF FILING DOCUMENT NUMBER SAN DIEGO JAN 15 2013 *20121019* PROJECTTITLE f~N~l~~~1 ZCA 10-06(A)/LCPA 10-05(A)-SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS TO REA )N ORDINANCE PROJECT APPLICANT NAME CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT APPLICANT ADDRESS 1635 FARADAY AVENUE PROJECT APPLICANT (Check appropriate box): E1 Local Public Agency 0 School District CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: 0 Environmental Impact Report 0 Negative Declaration I CITY CARSLBAD 0 Other Special District 0 Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board Only) 0 Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs 1Z1 County Administrative Fee 0 Project that is exempt from fees E1 Notice of Exemption 0 DFG No Effect Determination (Form Attached) 0 Other------------------- PAYMENT METHOD: 0 Cash 0 Credit 1Z1 Check 0 Other_2_3_9_2_59 __ _ SIGNATURE X H. Ayuyao PHONE NUMBER 760/602-4600 I STATE ZIP CODE CA 92008 0 State Agency 0 Private Entity $2,919.00 $ $2,101.50 $ $850.00 $ $992.50 $ $50.00 $ $50.00 $ ______ _ TOTAL RECEIVED $ ____ ___:$...:.5.:..;0 . ...:.00;:__ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ORIGINAL-PROJECT APPLICANT COPY-DFG/ASB COPY-LEAD AGENCY COPY-COUNTY CLERK FG 753.5a (Rev. 7/08) .. ----·-------------------------- • • • State of California-The Resources Ag , cy DEPARTMENT OF FISHAND GAME 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE. TYPE OR PRINT CLEAR~ LEAD AGENCY CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNTY/STATE AGENCY OF FILING SAN DIEGO PROJECT TITLE RECEIPT# SD2012 0990 STATE CLEARING HOUSE #(lfapplicableJ DATE 12/05/2012 DOCUMENT NUMBER *20120990* ZCA 10-06(A)/LCPA 10-0S(A)-SUGGESTED MODIFICATION TO REASONABLE ACCOMIDATION ORDINANCE PROJECT APPLICANT NAME PHONE NUMBER CITY OF CARLSBAD 760/602-4600 PROJECT APPLICANT ADDRESS 1635 FARADAY AVENUE PROJECT APPLICANT (Check appropriate box): IZ) Local Public Agency 0 School District CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: 0 Environmental Impact Report 0 Negative Declaration CITY CARLSBAD 0 Other Special District 0 Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board Only) 0 Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs 1Zl County Administrative Fee STATE ZIPCODE CA 92008 0 State Agency 0 Private Entity $2,919.00 $ ------- $2,101.50 $ ------- $850.00 $ ------- $992.50 $ ------- $50.00 $ $50.00 ------- 0 Project that is exempt from fees 0 Notice of Exemption 0 DFG No Effect Determination (Form Attached) 0 Other _________________ _ PAYMENT METHOD: ClTY OF CARLSBAD DEC 10 2012 PLANNING DEPARTMENT $ ______ _ 0 Cash 0 Credit IZl Check 0 Other 239257 TOTALRECEIVED $ ____ __:.$_50_._00_ SIGNATURE X V. Orendain llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll ORIGINAL· PROJECT APPLICANT COPY-DFG/ASB COPY-LEAD AGENCY COPY-COUNTY CLERK FG 753.5a (Rev. 7/08) e NOTICE OF EXEMPTION • To: SD County Clerk Attn: Jennifer Samuela Mail Stop A-33 CITY OF CARLSBAD DEC 10 2012 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CPIITY .oFDC:~SBAJ>~JDEnb~rg~R~rdeEun~CJft annmg IVISIOn 1600 Pacific Highway San Diego CA 921 01 1635 Faraday Avenue DEC U 5 2012 Carlsbad CA 92008 V O da"n sv • ren 1 Subject: Filing of this Notice of Exemption is in compliance with Section 21152b of the Public Resources Code (California Environmental Quality Act). Project Number and Title: ZCA 10-06(A)/LCPA 10-0S(A) -Suggested Modifications to Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance Project Location -Specific: Project is applicable to residential uses city-wide Project Location -City:_C=ar=ls:..::::b-=ad=-----Project Location -County: San Diego Description of Project: Amend reasonable accommodation ordinance CCS-125), adopted by the city in March 2011, to incorporate changes recommended to the ordinance by the California Coastal Commission. Name of Public Agency Approving Project:_C=ity.J-:::;!o~f~C-=ar~ls~b~a~d ___________ _ Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project:_,C=ity:::..J,-.:.o=f_,C"""a'""'rl""'sb:::..:a::>:d:....__ _________ _ Name of Applicant:_-=C=ity+-=o=f-=C=a=rl=sb=a=d=---------------------- Applicant's Address:~se!::.-'e::...;a~b~o:...!.v~e _____________________ _ Applicant's Telephone Number:-..l..(7!....:6~0:.z..)-""6=02=--__,_4""-'60"-"0~-------------- Exempt Status: (Check One) D Ministerial (Section 21 080(b )(I); 15268); D Declared Emergency (Section 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)); D Emergency Project (Section 21080(b)(4); 15269 (b)(c)); D Categorical Exemption -State type and section number: ___________ _ D Statutory Exemptions-State code number: ________________ _ ~ General rule (Section 15061(b)(3)) Reasons why project is exempt: Project is a minor zone code amendment that refines or clarifies existing land use standards. does not lead to physical improvements beyond those typically exempt from CEQA, and clearly would not have a significant environmental effect. Accordingly, it is not subject to CEQA review pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 19.04.070 A.l.c.(l) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). d Agency Contact Person: Scott Donnell Telephone: (760) 602-4618 DON NEU, City Planner Date Date received for filing at OPR: Revised 04/12 DEPUTY I ' E.st J. Dronenburg, J.e COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ASSESSOR/RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK ASSESSOR'S OFFICE 1600 Pacific Highway, Suite 103 San Diego, CA 92101-2480 Tel. (619) 236-3771 *Fax (619) 557-4056 www.sdarcc.com RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE 1600 Pacific Highway, Suite 260 P.O. Box 121750 *San Diego, CA 92112-1750 Tel. (619)237-0502 *Fax (619)557-4155 Transaction#: 284593420121205 Deputy: VORENDAI Location: COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 05-Dec-2012 09:28 FEES: 50.00 Qty of 1 Fish and Game Filing Fee for Ref# 20120990 ------ 50.00 TOTAL DUE PAYMENTS: 50.00 Check 50.00 TENDERED SERVICES AVAILABLE AT OFFICE LOCATIONS * Tax Bill Address Changes * Records and Certified Copies: Birth/ Marriage/ Death/ Real Estate * Fictitious Business Names (DBAs) * Marriage Licenses and Ceremonies * Assessor Parcel Maps * Property Ownership * Property Records * Property Values * Document Recordings SERVICES AVAILABLE ON-LINE AT www.sdarcc.com * Forms and Applications * Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) * Grantor/ Grantee Index * Fictitious Business Names Index (DBAs) * Property Sales * On-Line Purchases Assessor Parcel Maps Property Characteristics Recorded Documents e NOTICE OF EXEMPTION To: SD County Clerk Attn: Jennifer Samuela Mail Stop A-33 1600 Pacific Highway San Diego CA 921 0 1 From: • CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 Subject: Filing of this Notice of Exemption is in compliance with Section 21152b of the Public Resources Code (California Environmental Quality Act). Project Number and Title: ZCA 10-06(A)!LCPA 10-0S(A) -Suggested Modifications to Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance Project Location -Specific: Project is applicable to residential uses city-wide Project Location -City:_C=ar=ls=b=ad=------Project Location -County: San Diego Description ofProject: Amend reasonable accommodation ordinance (CS-125), adopted by the city in March 2011, to incorporate changes recommended to the ordinance by the California Coastal Commission. This notice is filed following the City Council's adoption and second reading of the amended ordinance CCS-196) on December 4, 2012. Name of Public Agency Approving Project:_C=ity~o~f C=ar'-!Jls~b~a~d ___________ _ Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project:~C~i.!:Jty~o~fc.!C~a::!.r~ls~ba~d:!__ _________ _ Name of Applicant:_"""'C'"""ity:.,l-..."o~f=C'-=a~rl"""sb:<.::a""'d'--------------------- Applicant's Address:---"'s=ee:....;a::.:b=o:....:.v..:.e _____________________ _ Applicant's Telephone Number:__,_(7~6=0.~-) =60~2=---'-'46=0=0'-----~----------- Exempt Status: (Check One) D Ministerial (Section 21 080(b )( 1 ); 15268); 0 Declared Emergency (Section 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)); 0 Emergency Project (Section 21080(b)(4); 15269 (b)(c)); D Categorical Exemption -State type and section number: ___________ _ D Statutory Exemptions-State code number: ________________ _ 1Z1 General rule (Section 15061 (b )(3)) Reasons why project is exempt: Project is a minor zone code amendment that refines or clarifies existing land use standards, does not lead to physical improvements beyond those typically exempt from CEQA, and clearly would not have a significant environmental effect. Accordingly, it is not subject to CEQA review pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 19.04.070 A.l.c.(l) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)C3). ~g;;tntact Person: Scott Donnell Telephone: (760) 602-4618 IZ-7-/2 DON NEU, City Planner Date Date received for filing at OPR: Revised 04/12 .,.,. State o~ Californi~-The Resources A.y DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE. TYPE OR PRINT CLEARJt: LEAD AGENCY CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNTY/STATE AGENCY OF FILING SAN DIEGO PROJECTTITI.E RECEIPT# SD2012 099 STATE CLEAR IN 0 G HOUSE# (If applicable! DATE 12/05/2012 DOCUMENT NUMBER *20120990* ZCA 10-06(A)/LCPA 10-05(A)-SUGGESTED MODIFICATION TO REASONABLE ACCOMIDATION OR DINANCE PROJECT APPLICANT NAME CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT APPLICANT ADDRESS 1635 FARADAY AVENUE PROJECT APPLICANT (Check appropn'ate box): Ill Local Public Agency D School District CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: D Environmental Impact Report D Negative Declaration CITY CARLSBAD D Other Special District D Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board Only) D Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs Ill County Administrative Fee D Project that is exempt from fees Ill Notice of Exemption D DFG No Effect Determination (Form Attached) D Other------------------- PAYMENT METHOD: D PHONE NUMBER 760/602-4600 STATE ZIP CODE CA 92008 State Agency D Private Entity $2,919.00 $ $2,101.50 $ $850.00 $ $992.50 $ $50.00 $ $50.00 $ D Cash D Credit Ill Check D Other 239257 TOTAL RECEIVED $ $50.00 SIGNATURE V. Orendain X 1111111 IIIII 1111 I IIIII IIIII 1111111111111111111 1111 ORIGINAL-PROJECT APPLICANT COPY-DFG/ASB COPY-LEAD AGENCY COPY-CO UNTYCLERK FG 753.5a (Rev. 7/08) r-----------------------,,------------------- e NOTICE OF EXEMPTION To: SD County Clerk Attn: Jennifer Samuela Mail Stop A-33 1600 Pacific Highway San Diego CA 92101 CITY OF CARLSBAD . JAN 0 9 2013 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CARLSBAD IF ~ l [E [) Planning Division l:meatJ Oronenburg, Jr. Recorder County Cieri< 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 Subject: DEC U5Z01 Z avV. Orendain DEPUTY Filing of this Notice of Exemption is in compliance with Section 21152b of the Public Resources Code (California Environmental Quality Act). Project Number and Title: ZCA 10-06(A)/LCPA 10-0S(A) -Suggested Modifications to Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance Project Location -Specific: Project is applicable to residential uses city-wide Project Location -City:_C=arc!!ls~b"""ad~---Project Location -County: San Diego Description of Project: Amend reasonable accommodation ordinance (CS-125), adopted by the city in March 2011, to incorporate changes recommended to the ordinance by the California Coastal Commission. Name of Public Agency Approving Project:~C~it'J_y~o:.!..f~C~a:!..!rl~sb:!.!a~d~------------ Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project:....!C:::.!ic!:,;tyLo~f~C~a~r~ls~b~a~d __________ _ Name of Applicant:_~C:.!Cit~y~o~f~C::!:a~rl~s~ba~d:!....__ ___________________ _ Applicant's Address: see above .... Applicant's Telephone Number:~7~6~0~6~0~2-~4~6~00~----~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ____ Removed JAN 0 7 2013 Exempt Status: (Check One) 0 Ministerial (Section 21 080(b )( 1 ); 15268); IAN 0 7 701J 0 Declared Emergency (Section 21 080(b )(3); 15269(a)); D Emergency Project (Section 21080(b)(4); 15269 (b)(c)); D Categorical Exemption -State type and section number: ____________ _ D Statutory Exemptions-State code number: ________________ _ [8J General rule (Section 1506l(b)(3)) Reasons why project is exempt: Project is a minor zone code amendment that refines or clarifies existing land use standards, does not lead to physical improvements beyond those typically exempt from CEQA, and clearly would not have a significant environmental effect. Accordingly, it is not subject to CEQA review pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 19.04.070 A.l.c.(l) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Telephone: (760) 602-4618 DON NEU, City Planner Date Date received for filing at OPR: Revised 04/12 e NOTICE OF EXEMPTION LJ FILE To: SD County Clerk Attn: Jennifer Samuela Mail Stop A-33 1600 Pacific Highway San Diego CA 921 0 I From: CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 Subject: Filing of this Notice of Exemption is in compliance with Section 21152b of the Public Resources Code (California Environmental Quality Act). Project Number and Title: ZCA 10-06(A)/LCPA 10-0S(A) -Suggested Modifications to Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance Project Location -Specific: Project is applicable to residential uses city-wide Project Location -City:_C=ar~ls~b:.::ad;::e._ __ _ Project Location -County: San Diego Description of Project: Amend reasonable accommodation ordinance (CS-125), adopted by the city in March 2011, to incorporate changes recommended to the ordinance by the California Coastal Commission. Name of Public Agency Approving Project:_C=ity,~-.:::..o::....f C=ar'-!!ls:::.::b:.::a=.d ___________ _ Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project:_,C""'i"'-ty._o><-'f'-'C""'a=r~ls~b:.::a=.d __________ _ Name of Applicant:_....::C:..:.it'.J.y_,o=f_,C=a=r=ls=b=ad=---------------------- Applicant's Telephone Number:--.l.-(7,_,6~0CJ-) -'::.60><-'2=--...:...46:o::..:O~O:.__ ______________ _ Exempt Status: (Check One) D Ministerial (Section 21 080(b )(1 ); 15268); D Declared Emergency (Section 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)); D Emergency Project (Section 21080(b)(4); 15269 (b)(c)); D Categorical Exemption -State type and section number: ____________ _ D Statutory Exemptions-State code number: ________________ _ 1:8:1 General rule (Section 15061(b)(3)) Reasons why project is exempt: Project is a minor zone code amendment that refines or clarifies existing land use standards, does not lead to physical improvements beyond those typically exempt from CEQA, and clearly would not have a significant environmental effect. Accordingly, it is not subject to CEQA review pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 19.04.070 A.l.c.(l) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Telephone: (760) 602-4618 DON NEU, City Planner Date Date received for filing at OPR: Revised 04/12 EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL SAN DIEGO COAST DISTRICT 7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-4421 (619) 767-2370 C\TY OF CARLSBAD FEB 2 0 2013 PLANNING DEPARl MENT IMPORTANT PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. CAR-MAJ-2-llA <REASONABLE ACCOMODATIONS) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S CERTIFICATION REVIEW HEARING TIME AND LOCATION: DATE: Thursday, March 7, 2013 TIME: 8:30 a.m. LOCATION: The Bahia Resort Hotel SUBJECT: 998 West Mission Bay Drive San Diego, CA 92109 (415) 407-3211 City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program Amendment No. CAR-MAJ-2-llA (Reasonable Accommodations). Concurrence with Executive Director's determination that materials submitted by the City of Carlsbad comply with the Commission's action to certify the Local Coastal Program Amendment with suggested modifications. When a Local Coastal Program or Amendment is approved by the Coastal Commission with suggested modifications, the Executive Director of the Commission must determine if the action of the local government is legally sufficient to finalize Commission review of the LCP amendment. In this case, the City's actions have been reviewed and determined to be adequate by the Executive Director. Section 13554 of the Commission's Code of Regulations then requires this determination be reported to the Commission for its concurrence at a public hearing. Questions regarding the report or the hearing should be directed to Toni Ross, Coastal Analyst, at the San Diego Area Office. (G:\San Diego\Reports\LCPs\Carlsbad\CAR-MAJ-2-IIA Reasonable Accommodation NOTICE LCP ED Cert.dot) STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE NATURAL RESOURCES CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO AREA 7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-4421 (619) 767-2370 EDMUND G. February 14, 2013 Governor ~ • Th 19a TO: COMMISSIONERS AND INTERESTED PARTIES FROM: CHARLES LESTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SUBJECT: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION that the action by the City of Carlsbad, certifying the City's Local Coastal Program Amendment No. CAR- MAJ-2-11A (Reasonable Accommodation), is adequate to effectively certify its local coastal program (for Commission review at its meeting ofMarch 2013) BACKGROUND At its October, 2012 meeting, the Coastal Commission certified, with suggested modifications, the City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program Amendment #CAR-MAJ-2-11A (Reasonable Accommodation), providing citywide changes for reasonable accommodation in the City's inclusionary housing ordinance. By its action adopting Resolution No. CS-196 on December 6, 2012, the City Council has acknowledged and accepted all of the Commission's suggested modifications. The modifications revised the City's definition of"reasonable accommodation" to specify that the request flexibility or waiver will not fundamentally alter the nature of the LCP, clarified that both individuals or any developer ofhousing is obligated to comply with other applicable regulations not at issue in the requested accommodation, and clarified that any request for reasonable accommodation shall also include the zoning, land use, or building code provision, regulation, policy or practice from which modification or exception is being requested as well as an explanation ofhow application of the existing zoning, land use or building code provision, regulation, poFcy, or practice that would preclude the provision of reasonable accommodation. The City already has coastal development permit authority over this geographic area and will continue issuing permits consistent with the local coastal program as amended. As provided for in Section 13544 of the Commission's Code ofRegulations, the Executive Director must determine if the action of the City of Carlsbad is legally sufficient to finalize Commission review of the LCP amendment. The City's actions have been reviewed and determined to be adequate by the Executive Director. Section 13554 of the Commission's Code of Regulations then requires this determination be reported to the Commission for its concurrence. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission CONCUR with the Executive Director's determination as set forth in the attached letter (to be sent after Commission endorsement). (G:\San Diego\Reports\LCPs\Carlsbad\CAR-MAJ-2-llA _reasonable Accommodation ExecDirCheckoff.docx) STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO AREA 7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-4402 (619) 767-2370 March 1 CIOfPF CARLSBAD ' Mayor Hall City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 FEB 19 2013 PLANNING DEPAR1 MENT RE: Certification ofthe City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program Amendment No. CAR-MAJ-2-11A (Reasonable Accommodations) Dear Mayor Hall, The California Coastal Commission has reviewed the City's Resolution No. CS-196 together with the Commission's action of October 2012 certifying City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program Amendment #CAR-MAJ-2-11A providing citywide changes for reasonable accommodations in the City's inclusionary housing ordinance. In accordance with Section 13544 of the Commission's Code of Regulations, I have made the determination that the City's actions are legally adequate, and the Commission has concurred at its March 2013 meeting. By its action on December 6, 2012, the City has formally acknowledged and accepted the Commission's certification of the Local Coastal Program Amendment including all suggested modifications. The modifications revised the City's definition of"reasonable accommodation" to specify that the request flexibility or waiver will not fundamentally alter the nature of the LCP, clarified that both individuals or any developer ofhousing is obligated to comply with other applicable regulations not at issue in the requested accommodation, and clarified that any request for reasonable accommodation shall also include the zoning, land use, or building code provision, regulation, policy or practice from which modification or exception is being requested as well as an explanation of how application of the existing zoning, land use or building code provision, regulation, policy, or practice that would preclude the provision of reasonable accommodation. The City is already issuing coastal development permits in conformance with the certified local coastal program for this area. In conclusion, I would like to congratulate you and all other elected or appointed officials, staff and concerned citizens for continuing to work towards full implementation of the Coastal Act. We remain available to assist you and your staff in any way possible as you continue to develop and implement the City's local coastal program. Sincerely, Charles Lester Executive Director (G:\San Diego\Reports\LCPs\Carlsbad\CAR-MAJ-2-11 A_reasonable Accommodation ExecDirCheckoff.docx) ~ - f· • Complete items 1, 2, 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can-return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mail piece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: C!.flll fo~~~~~ Qb41:>TfH .. C!om,..nt5s 10N AmJ :To()\ K.oss 7 6 7 S t"ff£.:TRopbt.. n1VJ DRrV £. Su\1£ \03 .SAN 'Dit.~b")CA 9a.t06 -lfl/l>d-- Is delivery address different from item 1? D Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: D No 3. Service Type D Certified Mail D Registered D Insured Mail D Express Mail D Return Receipt for Merchandise 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) DYes 2. Article Number (iransfer from labeO 7010 2780 DODD 8476 9922 .df~.A. C I T Y 0 F ~'CARLSBAD Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov December 17, 2012 Toni Ross, Coastal Program Analyst California Coastal Commission, San Diego Coast District 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103 San Diego, CA 92108 SUBJECT: CITY OF_: CARLSBAD LCP AMENDMENT NO. CAR-MAJ-2-ll(A) -SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS TO REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION ORDINANCE Dear Toni: On March 22, 2011, the City Council amended the Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program by approving a new Zoning Ordinance chapter on reasonable accommodation. Subsequently, in October of this year, the Coastal Commission certified the amendment, conditioned upon the city making certain changes, or "suggested modifications." In response, the City Council approved Ordinance CS-196, amending the Zoning Ordinance and accepting the Coastal Commission's suggested modifications. Ordinance CS-196 was introduced on November 27 and adopted December 4. The signed ordinance is attached. The adopted ordinance reflects the suggested modification wording except for a minor change. This minor change was requested by the City Attorney. On November 19, Deborah Lee, California Coastal Commission District Manager, reviewed the revision and concluded it maintained conformance with the suggested modification wording. The minor change affects only Section 21.87.040 A. and is indicated by the stril<eol:lt and bold text shown below. The change is incorporated in the signed ordinance. A. Application for a request for reasonable accommodation shall be made in writing on a form provided by the planning director. The form shall be signed by the property owner or authorized agent. The application shall state fully the circumstances and conditions relied upon as grounds for the application and shall be accompanied by adequate plans and all other materials as specified by the planning director. The application shall include the zoning, land use or building code provision, regulation, policy or practice from which modification or exception for reasonable accommodation is being requested including an explanation of how application of the existing zoning, land use or building code provision, regulation, policy or practice precl1:1eles would preclude the provision of reasonable accommodation. Please contact me if you have any questions at (760) 602-4618 or scott.donnell@carlsbadca.gov. Sincerely, ~~ Senior Planner SD:sm Attachment 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE NATURALRESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION • N DIEGO AREA 75 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-4402 (619) 767-2370 • • Th24a Addendum October 3, 2012 Click here to go to the original staff report. To: Commissioners and Interested Persons From: California Coastal Commission San Diego Staff Subject: Addendum to Item Th24a City of Carlsbad Major LCP Amendment No. CAR-MAJ-2-11-A (Reasonable Accommodation) for the Commission Meeting of October 10-12, 2012 Since the time of the original staff report, the City submitted comments in response to the staff report regarding its LCP amendment request which would add a new chapter into its LCP in order to review and grant reasonable accommodations. The City's correspondence is attached. The City asserts that they do not expect many requests for reasonable accommodation to be sought and since coastal development permits will still need to be obtained, adequate protection of coastal resources will be provided. The City has therefore requested that the majority of suggested modifications be removed from the staff report. Commission staff has reviewed the City's comments, and, in response to this request, as well as the review of other state-wide Coastal Commission precedents regarding reasonable accommodations, staff concurs. Specifically, the modifications inserting language describing the coastal development permit review process into the City's chapter for reasonable accommodation requests can be removed. That being said, three suggested modifications clarifying the definition of "reasonable accommodation" and the procedure for reviewing reasonable accommodations are still included. As such, staff recommends the Commission ADOPT the following changes to the above- referenced staff report. Language to be added will be shown in underline and language to be deleted will be shown in strike out. 1. Modify the "Summary of Staff Recommendation" beginning on Page 2 as follows: The Commission can only reject such amendments where it can be shown that the amendment would be inconsistent with the certified Land Use Plan (LUP) and/or render the Implementation Program (IP) inadequate to carry out the LUP. • Addendum to CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation Page 2 ' Staff recommends denial of the amendment as proposed, and then approval ofthe amendment with fWe three suggested modifications. For the most part, the Commission is not chiefly concerned with the review and approval of a request for a reasonable accommodation as it relates to the threshold criteria of whether or not a requestor of a reasonable accommodation is medically qualified to make such a request. However, when the authorization of reasonable accommodations includes allowing flexibility in the City's application ofland use, zoning, and building code regulations, the Commission does have an interest in assuring that any potential impacts to coastal resources be identified, feasible alternatives reviewed, the least environmentally damaging alternative implemented; and, if impacts to any coastal resources are determined to be unavoidable, the appropriate feasible mitigation is provided. Without the inclusion of this process, protection of coastal resources cannot be assured. In this case, the City has included language in three separate sections of the proposed Reasonable Accommodation ordinance (21.87 .030(C), 21.87 .050(A), and 21.87 .060(D)) that specifies when a reasonable accommodation is requested within the coastal zone, the request must still fundamentally comply with the LCP and issuance of a coastal development permit will still be necessary. It is through the review and issuance of the coastal development permit that impacts to coastal resources will be adequately analyzed. That being said, Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the implementation plan as submitted, and then approval of the zoning amendment with fWe three suggested modifications to address this eoReem. The basis for the inclusion of the three suggested modification are discussed below. The primary iRteRt of the s1:1ggested modifieatioRs is to elarify that re¥ie\v of aRy proposed reasoRaale aeeommodatioR still Reeds to ae fo1:1Rd eoRsisteRt with the polieies aRd adhere to all the reg1:1latioRs iRel1:1ded iR the City's LCP HRless it is demoRstrated that reasoRaale aeeommodatioR WOl:lld ae preell:lded. As proposed ay the City, the pro¥isioRs do Rot req1:1ire the applieaRt to ideRtify aRy potefl:tial impaets to aH:y eoastal reso1:1rees assoeiated vlith a de¥elopmeRt proposal, Ror does it req1:1ire aR altemati¥eS aRalysis to ae iael1:1ded iR the proposal aH:d the least eR¥iroameatally damaging altemati¥e to ae implemented. The language also fails to require that, sho1:1ld impaets to eoastal reso1:1rees ee HRa¥oidaale, appropriate feasiele mitigatioa meas1:1res are iael1:1ded. 'Nithol:lt this type ofre¥iew, the proteetioa ofeoastal reso1:1rees 6aH:ROt ae g1:1araateed, whieh is iaeoasisteat with the l:lRderlyiag p1:1rpose of the City's eertified LCP. The tefffl: "eoastal reso1:1rees" iael1:1des: vis1:1al or physieal aeeess to aH:d aloag the eoast; seasitive vegetatioa aad vrildlife; aatl:lral feat1:1res ofthe eoast s1:1eh as al1:1ffs, as Vl'ell as the proteetioa of existiag stmetl:lres from hazards s1:1eh as flood, fire, aH:d geologie staaility; aad, v1itho1:1t adeq1:1ate proteetioa of these reso1:1rees, the proposed ameadmeRt is iaeoasisteat with Rl:lmerol:ls polieies withia the City's LCP. As s1:1eh, staffis s1:1ggestiag two modifieatioas to the City's proposed laag1:1age. 81:1ggested modifieatioa #2 wo1:1ld req1:1ire aay applieaat to provide, as a eompoaeat of their reasoaaale aeeommodatioa applieatioR, aR assessmefl:t prepared ay a q1:1alified professioRal, ·.vhieh wo1:1ld iRel1:1de ideRtifieatioR of aRy impaets to eoastal reso1:1rees, aH: altemati¥es aRalysis miRimiziRg the ideRtified impaets, aRd proposed feasiale • • • • • • Addendum to CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation Page 3 • mitigation should the imflaets ae unll'toidaale. Suggested modifieation #4 requires that the City find, when reYievring a Sfleeifie reasonaale aeeommodation af)fllieation, that the flrOflOsed develoflment has aeen sited in order to eliminate or minimize any imflaets to eoastal resourees, that the alternatiYe imfllemented is the least environmentally damaging alternative feasiale; and, that all unavoidaale imflaets ae mitigated eonsistent ·.vith the mitigation requirements of the City's eertified LCP. Staff is also suggesting three additional modifieations, ineluding the following: (1) require that re•;iew of the reasonaale aeeommodation request shall ae done eoneurrently ·.vith any diseretionary revie•.v, ineluding a eoastal develoflment flermit aflfllieation (Suggested Modifieation }o~o. 3); (2) elarify that if the reasonaale aeeommodation flrOflOsal also ineludes a eoastal develoflment flermit, an af)fleal of the deeision Will also Be governed ay the af)fleal flrOeedure for eoastal develOflment flermits (Suggested Modifieation }o~o. 5); and (3) Suggested Modification #1 has been included to further define "reasonable accommodation" to include that a reasonable accommodation may be one that requires a deviation from an LCP policy but it may not be a request that fundamentally alters the nature of the LCP. Suggested Modification #2 has been included to clarify that both an individual or any developer of housing for an individual with disabilities is obligated to comply with other applicable regulations not at issue in the requested accommodation (Suggested Modifieation No. 1). Suggested Modification #3 has been included to specify that any request for reasonable accommodation shall also include the zoning, land use, or building code provision, regulation, policy or practice from which modification or exception is being requested as well as an explanation of how application ofthe existing zoning, land use or building code provision, regulation, policy, or practice precludes reasonable accommodation. 2. Modify the "Suggested Modifications" section, beginning on Page 6, as follows. For purposes of revising the suggested modifications, changes to them will be shown in double-underline or lletthle stPilietiiPett~h. In addition, a new Suggested Modification #1 shall be added to the "definitions" section of the City's ordinance. Therefore, the existing Suggested Modification #1 shall be renumbered to Suggested Modification #2 and the existing Suggested Modification #2 shall be renumbered to Suggested Modification #3. Finally, the originally proposed Suggested Modifications 3, 4 and 5 shall be deleted in their entirety. 1. Modify Section 21.87 -Definitions" as follows: 2. "Reasonable accommodation" means, in the land use and zoning context, providing individuals with disabilities or developers of housing for people with disabilities: (1) reasonable, necessary, or feasible flexibility in the application of land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices and procedures, or (2) the waiver of certain requirements when it is necessary to provide equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing and/or eliminate barriers to housing opportunities.,. so long as the requested flexibilitv or waiver would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the city's land use and zoning and building ----------- • Addendum to CAR-MAJ-2-llA Reasonable Accommodation Page4 regulations. policies. nractices. and procedures. and the Citv's Local Coastal Program +~. Modify Section 21.87.030-"Applicability" as follows: A. A request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any individual with a disability, his or her representative, or a developer or provider of housing for individuals with disabilities, when the application of a land use, zoning or building regulation, policy, practice or procedure acts as a barrier to housing opportunities. B. A request for reasonable accommodation may include a modification or exception to the rules, standards, development and use of housing-related facilities that would eliminate regulatory barriers and provide a person with a disability equal opportunity to the housing of their choice. C. A request for reasonable accommodation in regulations, policies, practices and procedures may be filed at any time that the accommodation may be necessary to ensure equal access to housing. A reasonable accommodation does not affect the obligations of an individual~ or a developer of housing for an individual with disabilities €1hligttti8Ms to comply with other applicable regulations not at issue in the requested accommodation. ~,l. Modify Section 21.87.040-"Request for reasonable accommodation" as follows: A. Application for a request for reasonable accommodation shall be made in writing on a form provided by the planning director. The form shall be signed by the property owner or authorized agent. The application shall state fully the circumstances and conditions relied upon as grounds for the application and shall be accompanied by adequate plans and all other materials as specified by the planning director. The application shall include the zoning. land use or building code provision, regulation, policy or practice from which modification or exception for reasonable accommodation is being requested including an explanation of how application of the existing zoning, land use or building code provision, regulation. policy or practice precludes reasonable accommodation~ lui8iti8M, thB 8J!~lietttiBM shall iMeltuie aH assBssmeMt, ~re~are8 8v a etuali-Hes ~f8H88i€1Mal. sftfte ~8ti!Htial atlvePBB iMJ!aets ts I;; etlaM8s, eMviP8MMeMtally SBMsitivB hahitat 8fells. ~uhlie aeeess, ~u8lie views, aMsl€1r h~llrss sueh as gB8l8gie, -Q€!88 aMs MFB. The ~tssessmBMt sh~tll alss iHelttse a 8etailB8 fuasihlB altBmtttives aMalysis llMS ~F€1~€1se8 M!asi8le mitigttti€1M meast~Fes ifttMil'lBi8a8le itH!!!Ilets llFi! i8eHtiiie8. B. Proof of applicable disability shall be provided in the form of a note from a medical doctor or other third party professional documentation deemed acceptable to the planning director. • • • • • • • Addendum to CAR-MAJ-2-IIA Reasonable Accommodation Page 5 C. Any information identified by an applicant as confidential shall be retained in a manner so as to respect the privacy rights of the applicant and shall not be made available for public inspection. D. If an individual needs assistance in making the application for reasonable accommodation, the city will provide assistance to ensure the process is accessible. 3. The City's comments also noted that Section 21.87.060-Required Findings of its proposed ordinance was incorrectly cited in the report. Language was inadvertently left out; the correct citation is as follows: A. The housing, which is the subject of the request for reasonable accommodation, will be occupied by an individual with a disability protected under fair housing laws; B. The requested accommodation is necessary to make housing available to an individual with a disability protected under the fair housing laws; C. The requested accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city; D. The requested accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the city's land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices, and procedures; and for housing in the Coastal Zone, the City's Local Coastal Program. E. The requested accommodation would not result in a detriment to the surrounding uses or character of the surrounding neighborhood. 4. Modify the "Specific Findings for Denial" beginning on Page 12 as follows: The City of Carlsbad is proposing to amend its implementation plan to include a new chapter (Chapter 21.87) to formalize the process by which requests for reasonable accommodations are reviewed and approved. For the most part, the Commission is not chiefly concerned with the review and approval of a request for a reasonable accommodation as it relates to the threshold criteria of whether or not a requestor of a reasonable accommodation is medically qualified to make such a request. However, when the approval of reasonable accommodations includes flexibility in the City's application of land use, zoning, and building code regulations, the Commission does have an interest in assuring that any potential impacts to coastal resources are avoided and/or minimized to the maximum extent feasible if seme imJlaet is deteFR'liRed te be Reeessary. In order for such approvals to be found consistent with the City's LCP, all potential impacts need to be identified, feasible alternatives reviewed, and the least damaging feasible alternative implemented. AdditieRally, if imJlaets te aRY eeastal reseurees are HRRYeidable, the apJlreJlriate feasible mitigatieR must be rettHired. The City failed te iRelude this JlFeeess iR its revie>tv fur reaseRable aeeemmedatieRs. Addendum to CAR-MAJ-2-llA Reasonable Accommodation Page 6 '.Vithottt tkis detailed revie'>v by tke City, tHe proper proteetioR of eoastal resottrees eaRRot be assttred. The Commission realizes that the City and other regulated parties must, by federal law, make reasonable accommodations available as necessary to assure that structures are accessible by all people, including those with disabilities. The City's proposed language will allow flexibility such that if land use restrictions preclude or limit accessibility to people with disabilities, the restrictions will not be imposed unless relaxing such restrictions fundamentally alters the nature of the city's land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices, and procedures, or the City's Local Coastal Program. Ho·;t'e'ler, tHe proposed laRgttage does Rot elearly address kow tHe flexibility or eomplete remo¥al of denlopmeRt restrietioRs viill be appro•ted skottld tHose impro¥emeRts resttlt iR impaets to eoastal resottrees. As is reflected in the City's certified LUP policies cited above, the City's certified LUP places high value on maximizing public access and recreation, protecting and enhancing public views, protecting natural habitats and wildlife, and protecting structures from geologic, flood and fire hazards. Additionally, these policies require that impacts to coastal resources be minimized to the maximum extent feasible and require feasible mitigation for any unavoidable impacts. The Commission further recognizes that such impacts may be necessary to provide accessibility to those with disabilities, again, as required by federal law. However, if there is a feasible alternative that accomplishes the goals of accessibility without impacting coastal resources, that should be the alternative implemented. If there are no feasible alternatives that eliminate impacts to coastal resources, then the least environmentally impacting feasible alternative should be the alternative implemented. However, approval of a project that fundamentally alters the nature of the land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices, and procedures of the City's Local Coastal Program shall not be allowed. Federal law addressing reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities does not expressly prohibit the consideration of a project's environmental impacts in its project review nor does it prohibit requiring an applicant to construct a feasible project alternative that would avoid or minimize environmental impacts. Finally, for projects where impacts are unavoidable, the federal law does not prohibit requiring feasible mitigation measures for such impacts. To provide illttstrative examples, witkottt iRelttsioR of tke abon stated proeess (impaets ideRtified, feasible altematives re¥iewed, impaets miRimized, feasible mitigatioR pro¥ided), a proposal may be approved OR a eoastal blttff tkat is Rot safely sited or loeated iR aR area tkat wottld resttlt iR obstmetiRg expaRsi¥e pttblie views to aRd aloRg tHe oeeaR aRd seeRie eoastal areas, wkeR a feasible altemative loeatioR tkat kas a more appropriate geologie setbaek or does Rot provide sttek aR ¥iew impaet was o¥erlooked. Tke sitiRg of de¥elopmeRt eaR also resttlt iR developmeRt loeated OR a portioR of a lot tHat eoRtaiRs seRsiti¥e habitat or wetlaRds. All of tHese seeRarios eottld be a¥oided if a proper altemati•tes aRalysis Vt'as reqttired. FiRally, tke City eottld approve a developmeRt witkottt tHe impositioR of feasible mitigatioR measttres for • • • • • • Addendum to CAR-MAJ-2-llA Reasonable Accommodation Page 7 s1:1eA. im19aets. As }'lrevio1:1sly stated, tHe City's }'lrOf!Osed ameHdmeHt does Hot elearly iHel1:1de tHe reYiew of }'lOteHtial im}'laets aHd }'loteHtial feasible alternatives, Hor does it req1:1ire feasible mitigatioH for l:lHaYoidable im}'laets. AbseHt tHese meas1:1res, eoastal reso1:1ree 19roteetioH is Hot maJdmi2ied. AdditioHally, tA.e City failed to elarify A.ow tA.e eoastal develo}'lmeHt }'leffl'lit 19roeess is iHeof}'lorated iflto a}'l}'lrO'Ial of reasoHable aeeommodatioH }'lrO}'losals. The coastal development permit process is the time when the City would review the project for consistency with the City's LCP. If tHis 19roeess is Hot elearly ideHtified, tHere is }'lOteHtial tHat tHe City m~' a}'l}'lrove a }'lrOf!Osal tHat is Hot eoHsisteHt vlitA. its LCP. Without detailed review of all potential impacts to coastal resources or clear inclusion of the coastal development permit process, the proposed amendment cannot be found consistent with the City's LCP, aHd; tHerefore sA.all be deHied as s1:1bmitted. In this case, the City has included language in three sections of the proposed ordinance indicating that if the proposed development is located in the coastal zone, then the request must fundamentally comply with the city's certified LCP and issuance of a coastal development permit process will also be necessary. Specifically, Section 21.87.030 -Applicabilitv-states that "a reasonable accommodation does not affect the individual's obligations to comply with other applicable regulations not at issue in the requested accommodation." Additionally, Section 21.87.050 -Review Authority and Procedure -states that "approval of a reasonable accommodation may be conditioned upon the approval of other related permits. Finally, Section 21.87.060 Required Findings -states that a reasonable accommodation can only be approved if "the requested accommodation would not require fundamental alteration in the nature of the city's land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices, and procedures, and for housing in the Coastal Zone, the city's Local Coastal Program. The combination of these three sections of language can be found adequate to assure that the request for reasonable accommodation will not supersede other applicable regulations, will be fundamentally consistent with the City's LCP, and will include adequate review of potential impacts to coastal resources. That being said, the City failed to include a requirement for the applicant of any reasonable accommodation to submit the provision or policy from which modification or exception is being requested or an explanation on how application of the existing provision or policy precludes reasonable accommodation. Additionally, the submitted amendment does not clarify that either an individual or a developer of housing for the disabled must comply, to the maximum extent feasible, with all other required development policies and standards. Finally, for purposes of consistency with the LCP, the City did not include language in its definition of reasonable accommodation that mirrors language in its proposed "Request for reasonable accommodation" section to further define that a reasonable accommodation may be one that requires a deviation from an LCP policy but it may not be a request that fundamentally alters the nature of the LCP. Without these inclusions, the administration for granting reasonable accommodations is not clear; and, therefore, the amendment shall be denied as submitted. Addendum to CAR-MAJ-2-llA Reasonable Accommodation Page 8 5. Modify the "Findings for Approval of the City of Carlsbad Implementation Plan Amendment, if Modified," beginning on Page 14, as follows: As proposed, the City's language allows for flexibility in application ofland use and zoning standards, policies and regulations in order to provide for reasonable accommodation in development intended for people with disabilities so long as such flexibility in the coastal zone does not fundamentally alter the nature of the land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices, and procedures of the City's Local Coastal Program. e\it the ordinanee does not adeqHately address review of potential impaets to eoastal resoHrees or inelHde an alternatives analysis. In addition, it does ROt reqHire that the least en-viroRmeRtally damaging feasiele alternative ee implemented, nor does it reqHire that if impaets are HRavoidaele, feasiele mitigation has to ee proYided eonsistent with the eertified LCP. A project located in the coastal zone which requests land use and zoning flexibility should identify whether impacts to coastal resources would result and, if so, identify the specific resource(s) impacted. The alternatives review should also describe feasible alternatives to the project as proposed and identify the feasible alternative with the least impacts to coastal resources. And, finally, a reqHest for reasona-Ble aeeommodation shoHld also identify and inelHde feasiele mitigation for any HRa-voidaele impaets the projeet woHld ereate. As previously discussed, the City has included language in Sections 21.87.030 and 21.87.050 of the proposed ordinance that reaffirms the issuance coastal development permit is still necessary; and, thus, it is at that time that adequate alternatives analysis will be accomplished. Additionally, Section 21.87.060 also requires that the request for reasonable accommodations will not require fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's certified LCP. That being said, the procedure for reviewing and granting reasonable accommodations is still not clearly described. The Commission is therefore suggesting three H¥e modifications to the City's proposed amendment. The o·;erarehing intent of these modifications is to clearly identify that the approval of reasonable accommodations may also reqHire reYie'.v and issHanee of a eoastal de·;elopment permit. To that end, two sHggested modifieations v;ere inelHded to address the projeets censisleney' with the City's LCP and three modifieatiORS have eeeR inelHded to highlight to clarify the process for approving a coastal development permit for any reasonable accommodation proposal. 8Hggested modifieations (Nos. 2 and 4 respeetively) modify the City's langHage to ineh:1de 1) the reqHirement for any applieant to provide, as a eompoReRt of their reasoRaele aeeommodatioR applieatioR, an assessmeRt prepared ey a qHalified professioRal, whieh 'NoHld iRelHde ideRtifieatioR of aRy impaets to eoastal resoHrees, an alternatiYes aRalysis miRimiziRg the ideRtified impaets, aRd proposed mitigation shoH}d the impaets Be \iRaYoidaele. 8Hggested modifieatioR (No. 4) reqHires that the City find, when reYie•.ving a speeifie reasoRaele aeeommodation applieation, that the proposed deYelopment has eeen sited in order to elimiRate or minimize any impaets to eoastal resoHrees, that the feasiele alternati•;e implemented is the least eRYironmentally • • • • • • Addendum to CAR-MAJ-2-llA Reasonable Accommodation Page 9 damagiRg alternative feasible; aRd, tHat all uRaYoidable impaets be mitigated eoRsisteRt with tHe mitigatioR requiremeRts ofthe City's eertified LCP. With tHe iRelusioR of Suggested ModifieatioR Nos. 2 aRd 4, all eoastal resourees impaets will be miRimi:led to the maximum exteRt feasible, aRd aRy uRa>toidaale iffi}3aets will be adequately mitigated. It is ORly VlitR the iRelusioR of tHese modifieatioRs that tHe proposed ameRdmeRt eaR ee fouRd eoRsisteRt vt'itH. tHe City's LUP. The remaiRiRg tHree modifieatioRs serve to elarify tHe eoastal de•telopmeRt permit proeess. To ensure maximum compliance with LCP policies when approving a reasonable accommodation, Suggested Modification No. 1 includes additional language that if a reasonable accommodation requires a deviation from an LCP policy then the City can only approve such a project so long as the requested deviation does not fundamentally alter the nature of the City's LCP. Suggested Modification No.~+ clarifies that an individual or any developer of housing for an individual with disabilities is obligated to comply with other applicable regulations not at issue in the requested accommodation. Suggested Modification No.3 requires the applicant to include in any request for reasonable accommodation the regulation, policy or practice from which modification or exception is necessary and an explanation of how the application of such regulation, policy, etc. precludes reasonable accommodation. J. require tHat a request for reasoRaele aeeommodatioR shall be proeessed eoReurreRt witH aRy otHer required diseretioRaf)' approYal. FiRally Suggest ModifieatioR }Jo. 5 elarifies tHat if tHe reasoRaale aeeommodatioR proposal also iReludes a eoastal deYelopmeRt permit, aR appeal of tHe deeisioR will also be goYemed by the appeal proeedure for eoastal deYelopmeRt permits. To conclude, the certified LUP requires that coastal resources such as public access and recreation, public views, and sensitive habitats; including wetlands, be protected. In this case, the City is proposing language that will make it clear to any applicant that if the proposed development is located in the coastal zone. the proposal will also have to be found consistent with the City's LCP, to the maximum degree feasible, and that any deviation from the LCP. in approving a reasonable accommodation, does not fundamentally alter the nature of the land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices, and procedures of the City's Local Coastal Program. For the reasons described above, only if modified as suggested can the proposed Implementation Plan amendment be found to be consistent with and adequate to carry out the puelie aeeess aHa reereatioR, publie view aREl habitat proteetioR polieies of the City's certified Land Use Plan iR additioR to polieies relateel to assuriRg that aRy proposed reasoRable aeeommodatioR will ee safe from poteRtial flood, fire aRd geologie ha:lards. Therefore, the Commission finds that, as modified, the proposed Implementation Plan amendment will be consistent with and adequate to carry out the provisions ofthe certified Land Use Plan (LUP) . Addendum to CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation Page 10 6. Modify Part VI "Consistency with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" as follows: 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. 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 a LCP submittal or, as in this case, a LCP amendment submittal, to find that the approval of the proposed LCP, or LCP, as amended, conforms to CEQA provisions, including the requirement in CEQA section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) that the amended LCP will not be approved or adopted as proposed if there are feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which the activity may have on the environment. (14 C.C.R. §§ 13542(a), 13540(f), and 13555(b)). The Commission finds that approval of the proposed LCP amendment, as submitted, would result in significant impacts under the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act. 8peeifieally, the proposed LCP ameRdFReRt as proposed vlould result iR poteRtial impaets to puelie aeeess/reereatioR, puelie views, seRsitive haeitat aRd wildlife, aRd eould iRerease eoastal hazard eoReems sueh as safe geologie seteaeks, flood, aRd fire. However, with the inclusion of the suggested modifications, the revised zoning ordinance would not result in significant impacts to the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, the Commission finds that approval of the LCP amendment will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. (G:\San Diego\Reports\LCPs\Carlsbad\CAR-MAJ-2-IIA Reasonable Ace. IP addendum.doc) • • • ·(~CITY OF · ~CARLSBAD • • Planning Division September 27, 2012 Sherilyn Sarb, Deputy Director California Coastal Commission, San Diego Coast District 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103 San Diego, CA 92108 . www.carlsbadca.gov SUBJECT: CITY OF CARLSBAD LCP AMENDMENT NO. CAR-MAJ-2-llA-REQUESTED CHANGES. Dear Ms. Sarb: Oty staff has reviewed the September 20, 2012, staff report prepared for the above item, which Is scheduled for Coastal Commission review October 11, 2012. We appreciate the opportunity to both review the staff report and provide comments. Based on our review, we request the following changes, all of which affect Part Ill, Suggested Modifications. Due to the shortness oftime, the recommended changes are shown handwritten on the attached portion of the staff report copy. Also attached is Ordinance CS-125, the city's adopted Reasonable Accommodation standards. The requested changes by city staff bear explanation, as noted below. 1. Suggested modification l (Modify Section 21.87.030-"Applicability"). On page 6, subsection C should be rewritten as shown to make It clearer. 2. Suggested modification 2 (Modify Section 21.87.040-"Request for reasonable accommodationn). At the top of staff report page 7, part of the suggested modification requires an assessment prepared by a "qualified professional." As written, it would apply to all reasonable accommodation requests, whether inside or outside the Coastal Zone. Additionally, we believe this requirement would be unnecessary in most cases and thus overly burdensome for the applicant and the city. Based on experience, city staff anticipates processing very few reasonable accommodations; those that are will likely affect elCiSting homes, be proposed by homeowners, and be minor in nature (e.g., a ramp to provide access to the front door). Moreover, a reasonable accommodation request does. not necessarily tun with the land (see· Section 21.87.030 E.}. The Reasonable Accommodations standards (Section 21.87.060 D) already adopted by the city contain this finding (emphasis added): The requested accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the city's land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices, and procedures, and for housing in the Coastal Zone, the city's Local Coastal Program. We believe this finding adequately ensures compliance with Coastal Act provisions. Therefore, we believe the majority of Suggested Modification 2 as the attached page shows· is unnecessary and should Jf be deleted. [ 1 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 CITY OF CARLSBAD LCP AMENDMENT NO. CAR-MAJ-2-llA September 27, 2012 Page2 Moreover, city staff notes the September 13, 2012, coasta·l· commlsslot:~ approval of Port Huerieme~s reasonable accommodation ordinance (LCPA MAJ-1-12) lacks the three additional findings recommended · in the suggested modification and instead contains a single, similar finding to that already existing In the Carlsbad ordinance; Port Hueneme's finding states (emphasis added}: The requested accommodation will not require a fundamental alteration of the zoning or building Jaws, polldes, and/or other procedures of the City Including those Implementing the City's Local Coastal Program. In fact, the staff report for LCPA MAJ-1-12 on page 5 notes: Additionally, in consultation with CommiSsion staff, the City has revised their originally proposed amendment In order to specifically add the requirement that reasonable accommodations In the Coastal Zone may only be granted if they do not fundamentally alter or conflict with any provision of the certified LCP. Additionally, staff report page 9 states: Further, the addition of procedures regarding reasonable accommodation measures for disabled or handicapped lndividuals".does not in any way reduce the adequacy of the IP in carrying out the provisions of the LUP, which lnclud~ Chapter 3 Policies of the Coastal Act. • We believe the rationale applied to Port Hueneme's reasonable accommodation LCPA Is also applicable • In our case and that the City of Carlsbad's adopted reasonable accommodation procedures likewise do not reduce the adequacy of our IP in carrying out the provisions of the LUP, which include Chapter 3 Policies of the Coastal Act. 3. Suggested modification 3 (Modify Section 21.87.050 -"Review authority and procedure"). City staff recommends no changes to this section. We disagree with the suggested modification requiring concurrent review. We purposely wrote the ordinance to allow a reasonable accommodation request to be processed administratively and Independent of any discretionary permit. This was done to avoid embarrassment to the disabled person which coukl have a chilling effect on their ability to require a reasonable accommodation. Public opposition may not be relevant where the law mandates a reasonable accommodation. A May 15, 2001, California Attorney General letter (attached) advising cities .to adopt reasonable accommodation procedures warns of problems that could arise if a request Is processed as a discretionary permit le.g., a variance or conditional use permit) versus a reasonable accommodation request. While not directly aimed at the issue of concurrent processing, the letter points out the pitfalls of inappropriate review that city staff believes could result if a request were processed with other permits: Further, and perhaps even more important, It may well be that reliance on these alternative procedures {e.g., conditional use permit], with their different governing .criteria, serves-at least In some· circumstances :to encourage community. opposition to projects involving desperately' needed housing for the disabled. As you are well aware, oppositlbn to such housing is often grounded on stereotypical assumptions about people with disabilities and apparently equally unfounded concerns about the Impact of such homes on surrounding property values. Moreover, once triggered, it is difficult to quell. Yet this Is the very type of opposition that, for • example, the typical conditional use permit procedure, with its general health, safety, and . welfare standard, would seem rather predictable to lnvHe. whereas a procedure conducted /3. • • • CITY OF CARLSBAD LCP AMENDMENT NO. CAR-MAJ-2-llA September 27,2012 Page 3 pursuant to the more focused criteria applicable to the reasonable accommodation determination would not. Inasmuch as we expect most reasonable accommodation requests to be of such a nature as not to trigger a discretionary review (e.g., they would only need a building permit), it makes sense that the reasonable accommodation request be handled .as a separate procedure. In cases where a reasonable accommodation request would also require other development permits (including a coastal development permit), granting the request would be conditioned upon approval of the other development permits, as provided in Section 21.87.0950. In this manner the Coastal Commission can be assured that coastal resources will be adequately protected. Furthermore, city staff notes the September 2012 Coastal Commission. approval of Port Hueneme's reaspi'Jable accommodatior ordinance did not contain a requirement fo~ coo~urrent review. · 4. Suggested modification 4 (Modify Section 21.87.060 -"Required Findings"). Because of the existing finding already in place that ensures a reasonable accommodations request substantially complies with local Coastal Program requirements {see Item 2 above), the additi~n of findings D, E, and F are unnecessary. Additionally, proposed finding G (originally finding D) needs correction as It lacks important Coastal plan compliance language already approved by the City Council. !Note that this comment was previously emailed to Coastal Program Analyst Toni Ross on September 25, 2012.) 5. Suggested modification 5 (Modify Section 21.87.070-"Effective date of order-appeal of decision"). The suggested modification to add "and 21.80" should be stricken. This section contains appeal requirements for coastal development permits, which would not be applicable to an appeal of a reasonable accommodations request. The section already referenced, 21.54, is correct and adequate. (Note that this comment also was previously emailed to Toni Ross on September 25, 2012.) Please contact me with any questions at (760) 602·4618 or scott.donnell@carlsbadca.gov. Sincerely, SCOTT DONNELl Senior Planner Enclosures c: Toni Ross, Coastal Program Analyst, California Coastal Commission, San Diego Coast District, 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103, San Diego, CA 92108 Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney Gary Barberio, Community and Economic Development Director Don Neu, Planning Director David de Cordova, Principal Planner CAR-MAJ-2~11A Reasonable· Accommodation Pag~6 RESOLUTION TO CERTIFY THE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM AMENDMENT WITH SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS: The Commission hereby certifies the Implementation Prograin Amendment for the City of Carlsbad if modified as suggested and adopts the findings set forth below on grounds that the Implementation Program Amendme~t, with the suggested modifications~ . . conforms with and is adequate to carryout the certified Land Use Plan. Certification of the Implementation Program Amendment if modified as suggested complies with 1;he California Environmental Quality Act, because either 1) feasible mitigation.measures · and/or'alternatives l_lave been incorporated to substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the Implementation Program Amendment on the environment, or 2) there are no further feasible alternatives and mitigation measures tha~ would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts on the environment. P ART·m. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS Staff recommends the following suggested revisions to the proposed Implementation Plan be adopted. The underlined sections repres~t language that the Commission suggests be l!).dded, and the 9truek el:lt sections represent language which the Commission suggests be deleted from the language as originally submitted. · · 1. Modify Section 21.87:030-~'Applicability»' as follows: A. A request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any i'nclividual with a . disability, his or her representative, or a developer or provider of housing for individuals with disabilities, when the application Qf a land use, zoning or building regulation, policy, practi~e or procedure acts as a barrier to housing opportunities. . . B. A request for reasonable accommodation may include a modification or el_{ception to the rules, standards, development and use of housing-related facilities that would eliminate regulatory barriers and provide a person with a disability equal opportunity to the housing of. their choice. · C. A request for reasonable accommodation in regulatjons, policies, practices and procedures may be filed at any time that the accommodation may be necessary to . . ensure equal access to housing. -A reasonable accommodation does not affeot.a. fu o'bl~~1-l~l'\.t individu~ or deve er hou ' fi ., • 'd 'th disabi 'ties eeYgat:ieBS to comply with ther applicable regulations not at .issue in the requested · · acconunodation. ~ 2. Modify Section 21.87 .04;0-"Request for reasonab1~ acconunodation" ~s follows: A. Application for a request for reasonable accommodation shall be made in writing on a form provided by the planning director. The form shall be signed by the property owner or authorized agent. The application shall state fully the circumstances and conditions relied upon as grounds for the application and shall be accompanied by • • • • CAR~MAJ"2"11A Reasonabl~ Accommodation Page7 adequate plans and all other materials as specified by the planning director .. The app¥cation shall includ~ the zoning. land use or building code provision. regulapon .. poliqy or practice from which modification or ex.cepfion for reasonable accommodation is being requested including an explanation ofhowapplioation ofthe · existing zoning. land use or building· code provision. regulation. policy or mactice .. precludes reasonable accommodatioil. In addition. the acplieatjeft she:Y ifielacle !Hi } -assessment; pre,pm;eq by a g'AA!tfiebref-essiomti. efthe-l'etemiel eAverse imtm@ te -JJ.~aruis. &Rv,lrean:umtally sesitive hah!tat areBB, puelie aeeess. p:ablie views. MEller de,!~ b.m:arEis meh 88 seologie. flood: at1t'l fire. The assessmeft't shaH 8lso i1'21!1J1sie a deutilecl B. Proof of applicable disability shall be provided in the form .of a note from a medical doctor or other third party professional documentation deemed acceptable to · the planning director. C. Any information identified by an applicant as confidential shall be retained in a manner so as to respect the privacy rights of the applicant and shall not be m~e . available for public inspection . D. If an individual: neetls assistance in making the application for reasonablt} . accommodation, the city will provide assistance to ensure the process is accessible. . 3. Modify Section 21,87.050 -~'Review authority and procedure" as follows: A. Request for reasonable.accommodation may be approved or conditionally approved by the planning director and. shall be processed i&ElepeBeleat of concurrent with any other required discretionary approval (including but not limited to, Conditional Use Permit. Coastal Development Permit. Design Review. V ai-iance. General Plan Amendment. Zone change. etc.). de-.. elepmes.t Jf8Bilits. H0\Ve',•er, e:.Approval of a reasona.bl~ accommodation may be conditio~ed upon approval of other related permits. · 4. Modify Section 21.87.060 -"Req'ijired Findings'' as follows: A. The housing, which is the subject of the request for reasonable acconlm.odation, will be occupied by an individual with a disability protected under fair housing laws; B. The requested accommodation is necessary to make housing available to an individual with a disability protected under the fair housing laws; · C. The requested accommodation would not impose an undue financial or adminiStrative burden on the city; · · ~tslp\-v 0~\5\r'\ 1>-' I..Nor ~ \ "Jl; It" • ................ -··· ........ : J l CAR-MAJ-2-llA Reasonable Accommodation Page 8 00. The requested accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the • nature of the city's land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices, . ·. ) andprocedure«_and %>\-~'\.1~'~ j~ +"'-'-' C.)f\.5-\-~\ :tt>C"\t.-1 +~ C1ry~ Lu~._\ Coi'-S-\-[l..\ 'Pro:Jr·~~ . . Boll, The requested accommodation would not result in a dc1riment to the surrounding uses or character of the surrounding neighborhood. · 5. Modify Seeman 21.87.070-E:ffective Date of~der--appeal of decision as follows: Effective date of order -appeal of decision. A. The effective date of the planning director's decision and method for appear of such decision shall be governed by Sectiol}l21.54 ~oftbis title... · . ,...- )?ART IV. FINDINGS J.I'OR REJECI'ION-OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD' JMPLEMENTAt:ION PLAN AMENDMENT. AS SUBMITTED A. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION The proposet;i LCP amendment includes changes to the City's Implementation Plan only. The amendment incorporates a new chapter (Chapter 21.87 -Reasonable Accommodation) into the City's certified implementation plan. This new chapter establishes procedures and regulations goveming requests for reasonable .a~commodations by·people with disabilities. Specifically, Chapter 21.87 includes: 1) a description of the purpose and intent of the · reasonable accommodati~n zoning chapter; 2) definiti~ns commoniy associa:ted with reasonable accommodations; 3) the applicability of reasonable accommodations; 4) a list of what's necessBI'Y to request a reasonable a09ommodation; 5) the identification of the review authority and procedure to review such requestsj 6) the findings necessary to approve a reasonable accommodation; and, 7) lists the appeal procedmes for any decision granting/denying a request for reasonable accommodations. 0 o 'I-• 9-o •• -~..... ... ·-......... --· ~----·-·--·-·-.. ·-· ........ _ ·-··· ... . • ' I A J.. · .... ~----_,., . . I , I • • • EXHIBIT 1 ORDINANCE NO. CS-125 2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONE CODE 3 AMENDMENT TO ADD AND ENACT CHAPTER 21.87 - REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION OF THE ZONING 4 ORDINANCE. . CASE NAME: REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION 5 CASE NO.: ZCA 10-06 6 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows: · 7 SECTION 1: That the list of Chapters contained in Title 21 of the Carlsbad 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Municipal Code is amended to add the following chapter in numerical order: 21.87 Reasonable Accommodation SECTION II: That Chapter 21.87 o~ the Carlsbad Municipal Code is added and enacted to read as follows: .Sections: 21.87.010 21.87.020 21.87.030 21.87.040 21.87.050 21.87.060 21.87.070 Chapter 21.87 REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION Purpose and Intent. Definitions. Applicability. Request for reasonable accommodation. Review authority and procedure. Required findings. Effective date of order-appeal of decision. 21.87.010 Purpose and Intent A The purpose and intent of this chapter is as follows: 1. To provide individuals with disabflities reasonable accommodation in land use and zoning and building regulations, policie~, practices, and procedures to provide equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing and facilitate the development of housing for individuals with disabilities pursuant to the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (hereafter ''fair housing laws"). 2. To establish a procedure for making requests for reasonable accommodation in land use, zoning and building regulations, policies, practices and procedures of the city to comply fully with the intent and purpose of fair housing laws. 3. To establish findings that ensure a requested accommodation, if granted, is necessary and reasonable, and would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the city's land use and zoning and building regulations, pol,icies, practices, and procedures. . 21.87.020 Definitions. A . For the purposes of this chapter, the terms used in this chapter relating to the provisions of reasonable accommodation are defined as follows: 1. "Individual with a disability" means someone who has a physical or mental impairment that limits one or more major life activities; anyone who is regarded as having such impairment; or anyone with a record of such impairment. This section is intended to apply to those persons who are defined as disabled under the fair housing laws. ·1'7 2. "Reasonable accommodation" means, in the land use and zoning context, providing individuals with disabilities or developers of housing for people with disabilities: (1) 2 reasonable, necessary, or feasible flexibility in the application of land use· and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices and procedures, or (2) the waiver of certain 3 requirements when it is necessary to provide equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing and/or eliminate barriers to housing opportunities. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21.87.030 Applicability A. A request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any individual with a disability, his or her representative, or a developer or provider of housing for individuals with disabilities, when the application of a land use, zoning or building regulation, policy, practice or procedure acts as a barrier to housing opportunities. B. A request for reasonable accommodation may include a modification or exception to the rules, standards, development and use of housing-related facilities that would eliminate regulatory barriers and provide a person with a disability equal opportunity to the housing of their choice. C. A request for reasonable.accommodation in regulations, policies, practices and procedures may be filed at any time that the accommodation may be necessary to ensure equal access to housing. A reasonable accommodation does not affect an individual's obligations to comply with other applicable regulations not at issue in the requested accommodation. D. Requests for reasonable accommodation shall be made in the manner prescribed by Section 21.87.040 of this chapter. E. If a request for reasonable accommodation is granted, the request shall be granted to an individual and shall not run with the land unless it is detennin~ that (1) the modification is physically integrated into the. residential structure and cannot easily be .removed or altered to comply with applicable city or state codes or (2) the accommodation is to be used by another individual with a disability. F. Nothing in this ordinance shall require the city to waive or reduce development or building fees associated with the granting of a reasonable accommodation request. 21.87.040 Request for reasonable accommodation. A. Application for a request for reasonable accommodation shall be made in writing on a fonn provided by the planning director. The form shall be signed by the property owner or authorized agent. The application shall state fully the circumstances and conditions relied upon as grounds for the application and shall be accompanied by adequate plans and all other materials as specified by the planning director. B. Proof of applicable disability shall be provided In the form of a note from a medical doctor or other third party professional documentation deemed acceptable to the planning director. · C. Any information identified by an applicant as confide'ntial shall be retained in a manner so as to respect the privacy rights of the applicant and shall not be made available for public inspection. D. If an individual needs assistance in making the application for reasonable accommodation, the city will provide assistance to ensure the process is accessible. 21.87.050 Review authority and procedure. A. A request for reasonable accommodation may be approved or conditionally approved by the planning director and shall be processed independently of any other required dev~lopment permits. However, approval of a reasonable accommodation may be conditioned upon approval of other related permits. B. The filing of an application for request for reasonable accommodation shall not require public notice. -2-/B • • • • • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C. If necessary to reach a determination on the request for reasonable accommodation, the planning director may request: 1. Further information from the applicant consistent with fair housing laws, specifying in detail the information that is required. 2. Information from other city departments and divisions or other agencies. · D. Conditions may be imposed to ensure that any removable structures or physical design features that are constructed or installed in association with the reasonable accommodation be removed once those structures or physical design features are unnecessary to provide access to the dwelling unit for the current occupants. 21.87.060 Required findings. A. The housing, which is the subject of the request for reasonable accommodation, will be occupied by an individual with a disability protected under fair housing laws; B. The requested accommodation is necessary to make housing available to an individual with a disability protected under the fair housing laws; C. The requested accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city; . D. The requested accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the city's land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices, and procedures, and for housing in the Coastal Zone, the city's Local Coastal Program. 21.87.070 Effective date of order-appeal of decision. A. The effective date of the planning director's decision and method for appeal of such decision shall be governed by Section 21.54 of this title. B. Nothing in this procedure shall require the planning director to disclose any information provided to support the request for reasonable accommodation which, in the opinion of the city attorney, would violate State or Federal privacy rights of the individual with a disability. C. Nothing in the procedure shall preclude an aggrieved individual from seeking any other state or federal remedy available. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shalf certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption. Notwithstanding the preceding, this ordinance shall not be effective until approved by the California Coastal Commission. INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the 2200 day of March 2011, and thereafter. Ill Ill Ill Ill -3-If 1 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the 2 City of Carlsbad on the 5tn day of April2011 by the following vote to.Wit: 3 4 A YES: Council Members Hall, Kulchin, Blackburn, Douglas, Packard. 5 NOES: None. 6 ABSENT: None. 7 ABSTAIN: None. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY D R. BALL, City Attorney ....... _ ....... ~.·-·-----------...,_..---~-~---··· • • • .----------------------------------------------------------- • • • . •' ... •• $TATE OF CALIFoRNIA 0PFIC:E OP THE ATTORNEY GBNERAL Bru. Loc::lcvwiR A~~o ... -.-... May 15,2001 . . RE: Adgptjon of A ROMQPible AccommodatiOn PrnrwJrm. Dear . Bath tbcfcdfnl Pair~ AJ:t("PHA., 8lld the CaHfamiaFm~md Housing kt ("FEHA ") ~ m .m.mativa dmY Dlllocal auv=me:at~to make JeiiOSIIble ICCOIDDIDdatioo (t.e., modificaticms or exceplicms) in 1bcirZDIIivl Jaws llldotbar Jmd use regulatioulaad pmctices 19bmsuch aCOOJ'I'!IOdaMas "iD&y be llece&SilY to aftim!" clisabled pcucms "m equal op;pizilwlit1 ,'Ill 'IISC ad CD,joy a clwotlhlg. • (42 U.S.C. § 3604(~); SCI!= also GoV. Code, §§ J2927(c)(l), 12955(1).) 1 A1tbaush this JIIIIJidate has bemm cilreDco for acme ~-·it is Olll"~that only, two «'lbmo loc:aljudrdicdoas ill Q!Jifimri• puYidO a process spC!Cific:ally·clesipd for people wi1h dipbUifics llld otpu oli&fbJo.JIIDO.IlS ta ~in malr:iug sacb scqaeats. In my~ as Attomoy Gcacnloftbe Stitt: ofCaHfbm!a, IJillro mspaasibility for the cmfi:"nmnaat of1hc FSHA's l'OISODiblc 8CW!!D!Docfations requi&awWt wilb the Depllrbuat ofP'IIir Emplo7JU11t 8Dd Housing. AcccmJiusl1, I am 'WiifiDs to eaxxap )'UDr jarisdiclion to adopt aprocadurcfor ~sUch rcquesiS IDd to make ils anBahiJl,1y laaowD within your CIIIIIIIIDI:IIt· 2 • • ·,·. 1 Title n oftba .AmcricaDs with Disabilities Ad (42 u.s.c. §§ 121.31~ aD4 secti.an S04. ofthc ~.Act(29U.S.C. § 7.94) havoallo beeD.foulldto IIP.Pirto mamaarcliDal1car llllll1o ~ loc:alj'lllisdictioDS 'ID make tcaSODib1e IICCOmznodafiomm thcir:rrquimmera in , CCIIahi cit'cUmslmlces (Sec BIZ}' Aria AdllidiDn Ba.at'Ch v. Ctty of .J.IIIiDt:h (9th Cir. 1999) 179 F.3d72S; ~also 28 CJI.R. ., 3S.l3p(b)(7)(1997).) . . . z A limJ1ar appeal bas beaa issued by the agcncics respoi1sib1e for~ oftbe. FHA. {Sec: Joint SSIItcmeDt of the Dapattmeat ofJlllticc and tile Dl'lpllllllalt ofHouaiug lllld Urban Developm=t, arotq, HDliiiS, !:.ocal 1.-d 1Ju and 1M Fair Hwnng .J.d (Aug. 18, 1999), p. 4, at< btm;!lwww.bazelon.org/cpfbalcpfba.htm!> tas ofPebmuy '1.7, 2001).) · ' . :' May1S,2001 Pap2 ·· . . It is becGJaiDg inczeasiDgiy imponam 1bat a. pmc:css be made I.VBUable for .hlmdlfnJ such leql1ells that Opezates promptly llld efficiOI.I.tly. A IqiOlt issued in 1999 by the Q!Hfom!a Indepoodeat IJriug CoiiiiCil makes it abuodaat1i clear !hat tbo ueed lor accessible and a1fimfablo housJDg forc.Hfomiaus with disablliliea wiU fm:.tcac sirificentty over~ cotlllSO ofthl pnseat decade.' The report's major 1iDdillp iJialudc tbc milowiDs: · · • Benvac:u1999 ud2010, c&a mmaberofCaW'omiaas wiehiiOID8formof;pb.yaical or · psychological cli.ubDityis c:xpecle4 tO iDcrealo by at ltiat 19 pcrccat.thlaiapproxhDIDdy 6.6 miJJioa to 7 .B miDicm, aad m11 dae ashfshu 11.2milliiiiL 'the DIIDibcr wldumn dfpbt1!tlcs is expected tO iDcmlsc at~ tbo IIIDII-from 3.1.million to 3.1 mllllo~:~, llllliDII;Y-= 6.3 milllmi. 4 Puztbllr.IIIOJt oftbis inl=iie willlibly ba OODCeDfDted iD. CaUfami&'1 Diu 1lrgest c:aaasies.,S · .'• Ifthe pc=c::atqes oftis JIOPIIh!doa, wlm.h:mMI!I!I!!!I!ily ~ ~inpriwle llo!=s'ar1lpCtiiUIIIIS(muply 66.4 pe=at)a.damupllamics(~ 10.8 pe:cmtHs to be znainD!uad, tbcn willlll.wt to boallllhmmdal rzpasion in the lltock or llli1abJ.o housiDg iu 1ho:lllllt~ 'Die Pm.;ccecc1 pDWih offlis populldiontnmslm:s 1mD au=! to erxommcvflle IDwldiricml BOO.oooto 3.llllillilm people with disabilities in affmdablo md IICceSSihlcpdyate nsfdeaccl or llp8ltDIIIdl md a additioDillOO,OOO io · · soo,ooo mgroup homes. : i rccopizc 1batJIIIG1 jmisdictil:ms CIIIICIIdy haadlatap~CS~s bypeop.e; "'ridd. ctisahilitics formlleffiom.ihD 8l1ict 1eaas oftlleir 2mlfDa onliDiaoes pmiaat to cxistiDg variaco or c:onrfttiorg1 use permit pmc:edun:s. ~also n,copize dllt JCIWDl CII1IZfl Cl!1lccl upaa. tD address lhc matter haft c:oacbufed that ftiCJ1IidDI people withhlv"Hticsto 'Diilize =cistiD&. JIQD· . . . . ' . . . +r& lovlwpojccaioDs aa "based em the Ullliiiptiw tmt1be po~CC~~Zt~go of'Califixni• residoms-clsabiiJtics wilh:amalll CODIIIIIi cmrfimc. 11Uppoaimpr:Jy 1!1 pen;cat (I.e., ODII . in eYf%1 im) owa11. with about 9.2 )lCD'Ccllt hmDc lOVeD d!""""fcs, The blp:i fisan:s'. mlecliDg ~lor tho qiag of the state's PaPalm11111111d 1be hishcrpmpodloo of the c1dcriy who arc disabled, IISSIIIDC that tbcsc ~~ilu:laseto lll'01IDit 2& PF.c=t (f.&, one hu:vezy four) overall, with 16 pc:zceut ba'YiDg IIIVtl't ciJsQiJitics (Ibid.) 1 . . 'These arc: .Alameda, Colllza Colla, Los Aaples. Ozlmp, ltiveaido, SI.Cralllllllto, San Bcnwdiuo, Sa Diogo, and Sllllti:Clam. (1bid.) •• • )1. • • • I i I I I I ' i I May 15,2001 . 'Pagc3 . discrimil:laior)' proc:edun:s such as these is not of i1self a violation oftQe FHA.' Several ~ coumel against exclusive zeliance on these altcmadve procedates, bowevcr. Chief among tbcsc is the inczeased :d.sk: ofvmmgfu]Jy ~a disabled applicmt's n:qucst forzelief IIlli imniDill( tbc CODSeq1lmlt liability for monet11r1 clamai=. poDI1tles. . attomeys' fees, and COSIS "Which violmiobs oftbe Ado and :fodcnl.&ir housilll.lawl aftcn email. 1 'Ibis risk =isis because the criteria :lbr determining whethar1D pm a wdm,:e or I':C'l!!dftlomo! use · ~ttypici!lly differ :fi:om those~ govem tbe dc:tfmnination whelbcr .. ~ accommodad.Oil. is nucmablc wiCbbl the mDIIDiDg of tho fair bouslug Jaws. • Tlms, mmdcipalides zeJ,yiq upon thcac: ~ pocechues have found tb:msclvcs .in the position ofha:riDgftfilled to approve a project as alerilt of~ whi~ wbDe suflicieDt to justify the telbsal UDder the cdteria agplic:ablD to pmt of a viriaac:o or mndffional usc pcmdt, -wCre iusdcicntto justify the dsuia1 whim judged mnjbtor thD Bar hDusiD( Jaws' rcascma'ble accammodlllimls ~ {See, e.g., Hov.ront I& v. T~ ofBritS (3m Cir. 1996) 89 P'Jd 1096 (1DWDsbip fomul to havo vioJitcci tbe FHA'S RISOD•ble lllCO"DDndadion maudatc inm\Jsiag to~ acaaditillbllliiiC pcmlitm allow caasrracdcm at a J1111i11Di homo in . a "Rmal ~ Caamiuaity ZDDe• despitotbe&ct1hattbe &mill 'MIS IIISiai=d by the state comu UDder liJIPUcah1e 2XIZiiDg odtcda); 7i'Dw2tD v. 09' ofJ/tw:ltutr. N.H. (D.N.H. . 1997) 992 F..811p,P. 493 (city 'Which 1U:Died disahleclappliaalts pennission1D buHcla paved par:ldng space in fEoDt of'lbelt llamD because oftbcir1i.ihn to meet SID Jaw~for a varJaDco fouDd to haw 'rioiated tbe FBA's RiiiSOblblc ~rvf.itirmmmiatc) • tscc, U.S. v. Pilllrp rt'P~ m. (71h Cir. 199.4) 37 P'.3d.1230, ·1234; ~ Ilolue, Inc. .Y. C1zy ofYirginia But:h {BJ). VL 1993) 125 F.Bupp. 12Sl, 1262; see .-.n:r Armot. (1998) 14& A..LlL Focl. 1. 115-121, aud.latcr cases (2000 poabt.IIIJ'P.) p. ~.) . ' See 42 u.s.c. § 3604(t){3)(B)> Gov. Cocfc, §§ 12987(&): 12989.3(f). . . . . 1 UJJdl:rthc PHA,IIl ec:comzi.cv!lf!OD is.deeauid. "'eesrmable" 10 lcmg II lt.cloes DOC. impose '"lmdue fiDmcill aud ldminimadivcburdeus" 011 them~ or~a *ilmdamcalal a1tmDon in the JIIIIUrc" ofiis ZDDiD& schema. (See, e.g., City 11{1!dttttmtll v. Wtuldngtcm &a# Bldg. CoM Cormdl (9th CU. 1994) 11 P .3d-802. 806; Tllrlling Point, k v. . City ofCDJdwll (9th C"~r.1~74 F.3d ~1; Btmonr, /nl:. V: TDWII.I'hqJ oJBrit:t.Qrd Cir.1996) 89F.3d 1096.1104;Smith &:IM.b.todiztu, bu:. v. Cl<Jiti'TD.)Ilor, J&higan'(6thCir.l996) 102 F .3d 781 •. 795; Erdmmn. etzy D{Fort ..Uitntcm (7lb C1r. 1996} 84 f.-3060; ~ v. Cadman Towen, ~ (2d Cir. ~995) Sl F.3d32S, 334; see also Gov. Code, § l29SS.6 [cxpJicitlr dechamg that the FEHA.'s bousiu.i discrimillldioa.p,IVYisions abail be ccmstruecl to Gfoxd ~with disabilities,amDDg others, mi laser rights ornmedies thu.tbc FHA].)· . ).3 May 15,2001 . . Page4 Pllnhcr, ami perhaps ~mom imporludy. Jtmaywell ~that~ em 1bese ll1temlti'Ye proc:eciures. with'lbdr dfffcraat J1M11:DiDi cdlaia, AI"VCS It kut ill some cilcamstauces to cacourag~ community oppositjon 10 pmjoct3 fDVo1vmg ~ ~ hDusiDg 1br1bc disabled. AA l'OU &ll'C"\llDDl aware, opposition.to such~ is o!= PJUIIded • OD. stmeot)'p1cal essumptious ab01It peop1o with~ adap;paiwft.y oquaJ1y uafalmded ~ about1hoimpact o:("'suchhomel cm.suaouzu1iua:piOpClty't'lblel.' ~ 01100 . tliggcred, Jt il dffJioalt to quelL Yet this is'fbc vrqtp of oppositkm tblt, ibr aaiupto, thD. - ~ «JDditi'!""' use peaDit ~with its pacDdheallh, llfety, ad we1fiae s!anclmf,- would seeml'ldbclrprcdk:labl)'tD ~ whr:mu a ptoccci;ire ~ puiiSUIDtto ihe more 1bcased cdteda lpp]bble to 1Jie zea'IODibte accanpnoddcm cfotmninetim "MJD1d 110t. Far 1hesc zcuca. I oqe yourjudsdic:ficm to~ yoarztmiag ~to hdude a pro~ 1br bmdHng zequeltS !ortc!I!!IJD8blo I!QQ)DJDJOcfaticm:IIIIIA!cpmllllllltto tbe ~ .hoasiDg Jaws. 'I11is task .iS DOt a~ ca.: Rmnp1es of:J:e8SOJIIble ~m cmfinances lire easily attablahle 1iomjudsdiclicm.r whichllaw ~ 111kab.1bis saepJ.O a:ad.lom wdou:t . . noaproDI: groups which~ nrvkes to ,Peopla with dlabilitl"'', amcmg CJthas. tl It is. however, liD. im,pwlallt ODe. By takiug,thfs cmc, retmveJy a:imp1e step. 3"JJ101D.ludp to c:asuze 'diD inclvsinnmourcmwnmjcjesofthoscamcmgusWhoamdisablecl . . . . ~ . . BiDcerclY • . ( Sitpralwte on !Jib. • • .;z~~• STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION ~ • • DIEGO AREA METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103 DIEGO, CA 92108-4421 (619) 767-2370 • • September 20, 2012 Th24a TO: COMMISSIONERS AND INTERESTED PERSONS FROM: SHERIL YN SARB, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SAN DIEGO COAST DISTRICT DEBORAH LEE, DISTRICT MANAGER, SAN DIEGO COAST DISTRICT TONI ROSS COASTAL PROGRAM ANALYST, SD COAST DISTRICT SUBJECT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON CITY OF CARLSBAD LCP AMENDMENT No. CAR-MAJ-2-llA (Reasonable Accommodation) for Commission Meeting of October 10-12,2012 SYNOPSIS The subject LCP implementation plan amendment was submitted and filed as complete on August 1, 2011. A one-year time extension was granted on September 15, 2011. As such, the last date for Commission action on this item is October 30, 2012. This is the first of two unrelated items submitted as LCP Amendment No. 2-11 to be heard by the Commission. The second item is LCP Amendment No. CAR-MAJ-2-llB (Prop D) and it is scheduled separately for this same hearing. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT REQUEST Currently, in the City of Carlsbad, applications for reasonable accommodations have been processed by either the Planning or Building Division on a case-by-case basis. The City does not have a formalized procedure to review and approve or conditionally approve a reasonable accommodation request. During a recent review of the City's Housing Element by the Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), the Department requested that the City formalize its procedures. The subject LCP amendment is the City's response to this request. This LCP amendment proposes a new chapter, Chapter 21.87-Reasonable Accommodation to the City's certified implementation plan, which establishes procedures and regulations governing requests for reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. Specifically, this new chapter includes a description of the purpose and intent of the reasonable accommodation zoning chapter, definitions commonly associated with reasonable accommodations, the applicability of reasonable accommodations, a list of what's necessary to request a reasonable accommodation, identification of the review authority and the procedure to review such requests, the findings necessary to approve a reasonable accommodation, and lists the appeal procedures for any decision granting/denying a proposal for reasonable accommodations. This new chapter and its provisions will apply citywide . CAR-MAJ-2-llA Reasonable Accommodation Page 2 SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Commission can only reject such amendments where it can be shown that the amendment would be inconsistent with the certified Land Use Plan (LUP) and/or render the Implementation Program (IP) inadequate to carry out the LUP. Staff recommends denial of the amendment as proposed, and then approval of the amendment with five suggested modifications. For the most part, the Commission is not chiefly concerned with the review and approval of a request for a reasonable accommodation as it relates to the threshold criteria of whether or not a requestor of a reasonable accommodation is medically qualified to make such a request. However, when the authorization of reasonable accommodations includes allowing flexibility in the City's application of land use, zoning, and building code regulations, the Commission does have an interest in assuring that any potential impacts to coastal resources be identified, feasible alternatives reviewed, the least environmentally damaging alternative implemented; and, if impacts to any coastal resources are determined to be unavoidable, the appropriate feasible mitigation is provided. Without the inclusion of this process, protection of coastal resources cannot be assured. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the implementation plan as submitted, and then approval of the zoning amendment with five suggested modifications to address this concern. The primary intent of the suggested modifications is to clarify that review of any proposed reasonable accommodation still needs to be found consistent with the policies and adhere to all the regulations included in the City's LCP unless it is demonstrated that reasonable accommodation would be precluded. As proposed by the City, the provisions do not require the applicant to identify any potential impacts to any coastal resources associated with a development proposal, nor does it require an alternatives analysis to be included in the proposal and the least environmentally damaging alternative to be implemented. The language also fails to require that, should impacts to coastal resources be unavoidable, appropriate feasible mitigation measures are included. Without this type of review, the protection of coastal resources cannot be guaranteed, which is inconsistent with the underlying purpose of the City's certified LCP. The term "coastal resources" includes: visual or physical access to and along the coast; sensitive vegetation and wildlife; natural features of the coast such as bluffs, as well as the protection of existing structures from hazards such as flood, fire, and geologic stability; and, without adequate protection of these resources, the proposed amendment is inconsistent with numerous policies within the City's LCP. As such, staff is suggesting two modifications to the City's proposed language. Suggested modification #2 would require any applicant to provide, as a component of their reasonable accommodation application, an assessment prepared by a qualified professional, which would include identification of any impacts to coastal resources, an alternatives analysis minimizing the identified impacts, and proposed feasible mitigation should the impacts be unavoidable. Suggested modification #4 requires that the City find, when reviewing a specific reasonable accommodation application, that the proposed development has been sited in order to eliminate or minimize any impacts to coastal resources, that the alternative • • • • • • CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation Page 3 implemented is the least environmentally damaging alternative feasible; and, that all unavoidable impacts be mitigated consistent with the mitigation requirements of the City's certified LCP. Staff is also suggesting three additional modifications, including the following: ( 1) require that review of the reasonable accommodation request shall be done concurrently with any discretionary review, including a coastal development permit application (Suggested Modification No.3); (2) clarify that if the reasonable accommodation proposal also includes a coastal development permit, an appeal of the decision will also be governed by the appeal procedure for coastal development permits (Suggested Modification No.5); and (3) clarify that both an individual or any developer of housing for an individual with disabilities is obligated to comply with other applicable regulations not at issue in the requested accommodation (Suggested Modification No. 1 ). The appropriate resolutions and motions begin on Page 5. The suggested modifications begin on Page 6. The findings for denial of the Implementation Plan Amendment as submitted begin on Page 8. The findings for approval of the plan, if modified, begin on Page 15. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Further information on the City of Carlsbad LCP Amendment 2-11 A may be obtained from Toni Ross, Coastal Planner, at (619) 767-2370 . PART I. OVERVIEW A. LCP HISTORY CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation Page 4 The City of Carlsbad's certified LCP contains six geographic segments as follows: Agua Hedionda, Mello I, Mello II, West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties, East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties, and Village Redevelopment. Pursuant to Sections 30170(±) and 30171 of the Public Resources Code, the Coastal Commission prepared and approved two portions ofthe LCP, the Mello I and II segments in 1980 and 1981, respectively. The West Batiquitos Lagoon/ Sammis Properties segment was certified in 1985. The East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties segment was certified in 1988. The Village Redevelopment Area LCP was certified in 1988; the City has been issuing coastal development permits there since that time. On October 21, 1997, the City assumed permit jurisdiction and has been issuing coastal development permits for all segments except Agua Hedionda. The Agua Hedionda Lagoon LCP segment is a deferred certification area until an implementation plan for that segment is certified. This amendment modifies the City's Implementation Plan (IP) only. B. STANDARD OF REVIEW 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. The Commission shall take action by a majority vote of the Commissioners present. C. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The City has held Planning Commission and City Council meetings with regard to the subject amendment request. All of those local hearings were duly noticed to the public. Notice of the subject amendment has been distributed to all known interested parties. • • • • • • CAR-MAJ-2-llA Reasonable Accommodation Page 5 PART II. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM SUBMITTAL-RESOLUTIONS Following a public hearing, staff recommends the Commission adopt the following resolutions and findings. The appropriate motion to introduce the resolution and a staff recommendation are provided just prior to each resolution. I. MOTION I: I move that the Commission reject the Implementation Program Amendment for City of Carlsbad LCPA No. 2-JJA as submitted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF REJECTION: Staff recommends a YES vote. Passage of this motion will result in rejection of Implementation Program and the adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion passes only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present. RESOLUTION TO DENY CERTIFICATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM AS SUBMITTED: The Commission hereby denies certification of the Implementation Program Amendment submitted for the City of Carlsbad and adopts the findings set forth below on grounds that the Implementation Program as submitted does not conform with, and is inadequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified Land Use Plan. Certification of the Implementation Program would not meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act as there are feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that would substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts on the environment that will result from certification ofthe Implementation Program as submitted II. MOTION II: I move that the Commission certify the Implementation Program Amendment for City of Carlsbad LCPA No. 2-JJA, if it is modified as suggested in this staff report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a YES vote. Passage ofthis motion will result in certification ofthe Implementation Program Amendment with suggested modifications and the adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion passes only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present. CAR-MAJ-2-llA Reasonable Accommodation Page 6 RESOLUTION TO CERTIFY THE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM AMENDMENT WITH SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS: The Commission hereby certifies the Implementation Program Amendment for the City of Carlsbad if modified as suggested and adopts the findings set forth below on grounds that the Implementation Program Amendment, with the suggested modifications, conforms with and is adequate to carry out the certified Land Use Plan. Certification of the Implementation Program Amendment if modified as suggested complies with the California Environmental Quality Act,. because either 1) feasible mitigation measures and/or alternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the Implementation Program Amendment on the environment, or 2) there are no further feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts on the environment. PART III. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS Staff recommends the following suggested revisions to the proposed Implementation Plan be adopted. The underlined sections represent language that the Commission suggests be added, and the stmek out sections represent language which the Commission suggests be deleted from the language as originally submitted. 1. Modify Section 21.87.030-"Applicability" as follows: A. A request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any individual with a disability, his or her representative, or a developer or provider of housing for individuals with disabilities, when the application of a land use, zoning or building regulation, policy, practice or procedure acts as a barrier to housing opportunities. B. A request for reasonable accommodation may include a modification or exception to the rules, standards, development and use of housing-related facilities that would eliminate regulatory barriers and provide a person with a disability equal opportunity to the housing of their choice. C. A request for reasonable accommodation in regulations, policies, practices and procedures may be filed at any time that the accommodation may be necessary to ensure equal access to housing. A reasonable accommodation does not affect an individual's or developer of housing for an individual with disabilities obligations to comply with other applicable regulations not at issue in the requested accommodation. 2. Modify Section 21.87.040-"Request for reasonable accommodation" as follows: A. Application for a request for reasonable accommodation shall be made in writing on a form provided by the planning director. The form shall be signed by the property owner or authorized agent. The application shall state fully the circumstances and conditions relied upon as grounds for the application and shall be accompanied by • • • • • • CAR-MAJ-2-IIA Reasonable Accommodation Page 7 adequate plans and all other materials as specified by the planning director. The application shall include the zoning, land use or building code provision, regulation, policy or practice from which modification or exception for reasonable accommodation is being requested including an explanation of how application of the existing zoning, land use or building code provision, regulation, policy or practice precludes reasonable accommodation. In addition, the application shall include an assessment, prepared by a qualified professional, of the potential adverse impacts to wetlands, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, public access, public views. and/or hazards such as geologic, flood and fire. The assessment shall also include a detailed feasible alternatives analysis and proposed feasible mitigation measures if unavoidable impacts are identified. B. Proof of applicable disability shall be provided in the form of a note from a medical doctor or other third party professional documentation deemed acceptable to the planning director. C. Any information identified by an applicant as confidential shall be retained in a manner so as to respect the privacy rights of the applicant and shall not be made available for public inspection. D. If an individual needs assistance in making the application for reasonable accommodation, the city will provide assistance to ensure the process is accessible. 3. Modify Section 21.87.050-"Review authority and procedure" as follows: A. Request for reasonable accommodation may be approved or conditionally approved by the planning director and shall be processed inde~endent of concurrent with any other required discretionary approval (including but not limited to, Conditional Use Permit, Coastal Development Permit, Design Review, Variance, General Plan Amendment, Zone change, etc.). develo~ment ~effl'lits. Ho•;;e•;er, aApproval of a reasonable accommodation may be conditioned upon approval of other related permits. 4. Modify Section 21.87.060-"Required Findings" as follows: A. The housing, which is the subject of the request for reasonable accommodation, will be occupied by an individual with a disability protected under fair housing laws; B. The requested accommodation is necessary to make housing available to an individual with a disability protected under the fair housing laws; C. The requested accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city; CAR-MAJ-2-llA Reasonable Accommodation Page 8 D. The requested accommodation would eliminate or minimize impacts on wetlands, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, public access, public views and/or hazards to the maximum extent feasible, as documented in a detailed alternatives analysis; E. The alternative to be implemented is the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative; F. If any impacts to wetlands, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, public access, public views or hazards associated with the accommodation are unavoidable, feasible mitigation for all unavoidable impacts have been included consistent with the City's Local Coastal Program; .QG. The requested accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the city's land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices, and procedures; and E:H, The requested accommodation would not result in a detriment to the surrounding uses or character of the surrounding neighborhood. 5. Modify Section 21.87.070-Effective Date of Order -appeal of decision as follows: Effective date of order-appeal of decision. A. The effective date of the planning director's decision and method for appeal of such decision shall be governed by Section§. 21.54 and 21.80 of this title ... PART IV. FINDINGS FOR REJECTION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT, AS SUBMITTED A. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION The proposed LCP amendment includes changes to the City's Implementation Plan only. The amendment incorporates a new chapter (Chapter 21.87-Reasonable Accommodation) into the City's certified implementation plan. This new chapter establishes procedures and regulations governing requests for reasonable accommodations by people with disabilities. Specifically, Chapter 21.87 includes: 1) a description of the purpose and intent of the reasonable accommodation zoning chapter; 2) definitions commonly associated with reasonable accommodations; 3) the applicability of reasonable accommodations; 4) a list ofwhat's necessary to request a reasonable accommodation; 5) the identification of the review authority and procedure to review such requests; 6) the findings necessary to approve a reasonable accommodation; and, 7) lists the appeal procedures for any decision granting/denying a request for reasonable accommodations. • • • • • • B. FINDINGS FOR REJECTION. CAR-MAJ-2-llA Reasonable Accommodation Page 9 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. a) Purpose, Intent, and Major Provisions of the Ordinance. The City's intent of the proposed new ordinance is to provide some flexibility in the application of land use, zoning, and building codes regulations, policies, practices, and procedures for project that require approval of permits and/or other entitlements in order to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. The City is proposing these changes in response to State and Federal laws (including the federal Americans with Disabilities Act) that require cities to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. b) Adequacy of the Ordinance to Implement the Certified LUP Segments. The Commission can only reject such amendments where it can be shown that the amendment would be inconsistent with the certified Land Use Plan (LUP) and/or render the Implementation Program (IP) inadequate to carry out the LUP. In this case, the LUP includes the Mello I, Mello II, Agua Hedionda, Village Redevelopment Area, East Batiquitos Lagoon and West Batiquitos Lagoon LUP segments. Many sections within the respective LUPs contain policies that address protection of public views, public access and recreation, sensitive habitat and wildlife, and reduction in potential flood, fire and geologic hazards. The addition of the City's proposed language raises several inconsistencies with the policies certified in the City's LUP. The most applicable policies are stated, wholly or in part, below: c) Applicable Land Use Plan Policies. Development Along the Shore Policy 4-1 Coastal Erosion -Development Along the Shoreline a. For all new development along the shoreline, including additions to existing development, a site-specific geological investigation and analysis similar to that required by the Coastal Commission's Geologic Stability and Blufftop Guidelines shall be required, for all permitted development, this report must demonstrate bluff stability for 75 years, or the expected lifetime of the structure, whichever is greater. Additionally, permitted development shall incorporate drought-resistant vegetation in landscaping, as well as adhering to the standards for erosion control contained in the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan. A waiver of public liability shall be required for any permitted development for which an assurance of structural stability cannot be provided. CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation Page 10 Policy 4-1 Coastal Erosion -Ill. Shoreline Structures Revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, and other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall be permitted when required to serve coastal-dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion, and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. Policy 4-1 Coastal Erosion-Undevelopable Shoreline Features No development shall be permitted on any sand or rock beach or on the face of any ocean bluff, with the exception of accessways to provide public beach access and of limited public recreation facilities. Public Access Policy 7-3-Access Along the Shoreline The City will cooperate with the state to ensure that lateral beach access is protected and enhanced to the maximum degree feasible, and will continue to formalize shoreline prescriptive rights. Irrevocable offers of dedication for lateral accessways between the mean high tide line and the base of the coastal bluffs, and vertical accessways where applicable, shall be required in new development consistent with Section 30212 ofthe California Coastal Act of 1976. There is evidence of historic public use adjacent to Buena Vista Lagoon. Paths crisscross the area near the railroads tracks to the ocean shoreline. Development shall provide access and protect such existing access consistent with the needs to protect the habitat. Public Views Mello II Policy 8-1-Site Development Review: The Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone should be applied where necessary throughout the Carlsbad coastal zone to assure the maintenance of existing views and panoramas. Sites considered for development should undergo review to determine if the proposed development will obstruct views or otherwise damage the visual beauty of the area. The Planning Commission should enforce appropriate height limitations and see- through construction, as well as minimize alterations to topography. Sensitive Habitat 3-1.2 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) Pursuant to Section 30240 of the California Coastal Act, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, as defined in Section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act, shall be protected • • • • • • CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation Page 11 against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas. 3-1.3 Coastal Sage Scrub Coastal Sage Scrub is a resource of particular importance to the ecosystems ofthe Coastal Zone, due in part to the presence of the Coastal California gnatcatcher (Federal Threatened) and other species. Properties containing Coastal Sage Scrub shall conserve a minimum 67% of the Coastal Sage Scrub and 75% of the gnatcatchers onsite, Conservation of gnatcatchers shall be determined in consultation with the wildlife agencies. 3-1.7 Wetlands [ ... ] Wetlands shall be delineated following the definitions and boundary descriptions in Section 13577 ofthe California Code ofRegulations. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 30233, no impacts to wetlands shall be allowed except as follows: a. The diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following: (1) New or expanded port, energy, and coastal-dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities. (2) Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged, depths in existing navigational channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps. (3) In wetland areas only, entrance channels for new or expanded boating facilities; and in a degraded wetland, identified by the Department ofFish and Game pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 30411, for boating facilities if, in conjunction with such boating facilities, a substantial portion of the degraded wetland is restored and maintained as a biologically productive wetland. The size of the wetland area used for boating facilities, including berthing space, turning basins, necessary navigation channels, and any necessary support service facilities, shall not exceed 25 percent of the degraded wetland. ( 4) In open coastal waters, other than wetlands, including streams, estuaries, and lakes, new or expanded boating facilities and the placement of structural pilings CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation Page 12 for public recreational piers that provide public access and recreational opportunities. (5) Incidental public service purposes, including but not limited to, burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing intakes and outfall lines. (6) Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas. (7) Restoration purposes. (8) Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource dependent activities ... 3-1.8 Wetland Mitigation Requirements If impacts to a wetland are allowed consistent with Policy 3-1.7, mitigation shall be provided at a ratio of3:1 for riparian impacts and 4:1 for saltwater or freshwater wetland or marsh impacts. 3-1.9 No Net Loss of Habitat There shall be no net loss of Coastal Sage Scrub, Maritime Succulent Scrub, Southern Maritime Chaparral, Southern Mixed Chaparral, Native Grassland, and Oak Woodland within the Coastal Zone of Carlsbad. Mitigation for impacts to any of these habitat types, when permitted, shall include a creation component that achieves the no net loss standard. Substantial restoration of highly degraded areas (where effective functions of the habitat type have been lost) may be substituted for creation subject to the consultation and concurrence ofthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department ofFish and Game (wildlife agencies). The Coastal Commission shall be notified and provided an opportunity to comment upon proposed substitutions of substantial restoration for the required creation component. Development shall be consistent with Policy 3-1.2 of this section, unless proposed impacts are specifically identified in the HMP; these impacts shall be located to minimize impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub and maximize protection of the Coastal California gnatcatcher and its habitat. d. Specific Findings for Denial. The City of Carlsbad is proposing to amend its implementation plan to include a new chapter (Chapter 21.87) to formalize the process by which requests for reasonable accommodations are reviewed and approved. For the most part, the Commission is not chiefly concerned with the review and approval of a request for a reasonable accommodation as it relates to the threshold criteria of whether or not a requestor of a reasonable accommodation is medically qualified to make such a request. However, when the approval of reasonable accommodations includes flexibility in the City's application of land use, zoning, and building code regulations, the Commission does have • • • • • • CAR-MAJ-2-llA Reasonable Accommodation Page 13 an interest in assuring that any potential impacts to coastal resources are avoided and/or minimized to the maximum extent feasible, if some impact is determined to be necessary. In order for such approvals to be found consistent with the City's LCP, all potential impacts need to be identified, feasible alternatives reviewed, and the least damaging feasible alternative implemented. Additionally, if impacts to any coastal resources are unavoidable, the appropriate feasible mitigation must be required. The City failed to include this process in its review for reasonable accommodations. Without this detailed review by the City, the proper protection of coastal resources cannot be assured. The Commission realizes that the City and other regulated parties must, by federal law, make reasonable accommodations available as necessary to assure that structures are accessible by all people, including those with disabilities. The City's proposed language will allow flexibility such that if land use restrictions preclude or limit accessibility to people with disabilities, the restrictions will not be imposed. However, the proposed language does not clearly address how the flexibility or complete removal of development restrictions will be approved should those improvements result in impacts to coastal resources. As is reflected in the City's certified LUP policies cited above, the City's certified LUP places high value on maximizing public access and recreation, protecting and enhancing public views, protecting natural habitats and wildlife, and protecting structures from geologic, flood and fire hazards. Additionally, these policies require that impacts to coastal resources be minimized to the maximum extent feasible and require feasible mitigation for any unavoidable impacts. The Commission further recognizes that such impacts may be necessary to provide accessibility to those with disabilities, again, as required by federal law. However, if there is a feasible alternative that accomplishes the goals of accessibility without impacting coastal resources, that should be the alternative implemented. If there are no feasible alternatives that eliminate impacts to coastal resources, then the least environmentally impacting feasible alternative should be the alternative implemented. Federal law addressing reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities does not expressly prohibit the consideration of a project's environmental impacts in its project review nor does it prohibit requiring an applicant to construct a feasible project alternative that would avoid or minimize environmental impacts. Finally, for projects where impacts are unavoidable, the federal law does not prohibit requiring feasible mitigation measures for such impacts. To provide illustrative examples, without inclusion of the above stated process (impacts identified, feasible alternatives reviewed, impacts minimized, feasible mitigation provided), a proposal may be approved on a coastal bluff that is not safely sited or located in an area that would result in obstructing expansive public views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, when a feasible alternative location that has a more appropriate geologic setback or does not provide such an view impact was overlooked. The siting of development can also result in development located on a portion of a lot that contains sensitive habitat or wetlands. All of these scenarios could be avoided if a proper alternatives analysis was required. Finally, the City could approve a development without the imposition of feasible mitigation measures for such impacts. As previously CAR-MAJ-2-llA Reasonable Accommodation Page 14 stated, the City's proposed amendment does not clearly include the review of potential impacts and potential feasible alternatives, nor does it require feasible mitigation for unavoidable impacts. Absent these measures, coastal resource protection is not maximized. Additionally, the City failed to clarify how the coastal development permit process is incorporated into approval of reasonable accommodation proposals. The coastal development permit process is the time when the City would review the project for consistency with the City's LCP. If this process is not clearly identified, there is potential that the City may approve a proposal that is not consistent with its LCP. Without detailed review of all potential impacts to coastal resources or clear inclusion of the coastal development permit process, the proposed amendment cannot be found consistent with the City's LCP, and; therefore shall be denied as submitted. PART V. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT, IF MODIFIED As proposed, the City's language allows for flexibility in application ofland use and zoning standards, policies and regulations in order to provide for reasonable accommodation in development intended for people with disabilities, but the ordinance does not adequately address review of potential impacts to coastal resources or include an alternatives analysis. In addition, it does not require that the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative be implemented, nor does it require that if impacts are unavoidable, feasible mitigation has to be provided consistent with the certified LCP. A project located in the coastal zone which requests land use and zoning flexibility should identify whether impacts to coastal resources would result and, if so, identify the specific resource(s) impacted. The alternatives review should also describe feasible alternatives to the project as proposed and identify the feasible alternative with the least impacts to coastal resources. And, finally, a request for reasonable accommodation should also identify and include feasible mitigation for any unavoidable impacts the project would create. The Commission is therefore suggesting five modifications to the City's proposed amendment. The overarching intent of these modifications is to clearly identify that the approval of reasonable accommodations may also require review and issuance of a coastal development permit. To that end, two suggested modifications were included to address the projects consistency with the City's LCP and three modifications have been included to highlight the process for approving a coastal development permit for any reasonable accommodation proposal. Suggested modifications (Nos. 2 and 4 respectively) modify the City's language to include 1) the requirement for any applicant to provide, as a component of their reasonable accommodation application, an assessment prepared by a qualified professional, which would include identification of any impacts to coastal resources, an • • • • • CAR-MAJ-2-11A Reasonable Accommodation Page 15 alternatives analysis minimizing the identified impacts, and proposed mitigation should the impacts be unavoidable. Suggested modification (No.4) requires that the City find, when reviewing a specific reasonable accommodation application, that the proposed development has been sited in order to eliminate or minimize any impacts to coastal resources, that the feasible alternative implemented is the least environmentally damaging alternative feasible; and, that all unavoidable impacts be mitigated consistent with the mitigation requirements ofthe City's certified LCP. With the inclusion of Suggested Modification Nos. 2 and 4, all coastal resources impacts will be minimized to the maximum extent feasible, and any unavoidable impacts will be adequately mitigated. It is only with the inclusion of these modifications that the proposed amendment can be found consistent with the City's LUP. The remaining three modifications serve to clarify the coastal development permit process. Suggested Modification No. 1 clarifies that an individual or any developer of housing for an individual with disabilities is obligated to comply with other applicable regulations not at issue in the requested accommodation. Suggested Modification No.3 requires that a request for reasonable accommodation shall be processed concurrent with any other required discretionary approval. Finally Suggest Modification No. 5 clarifies that if the reasonable accommodation proposal also includes a coastal development permit, an appeal of the decision will also be governed by the appeal procedure for • coastal development permits. • To conclude, the certified LUP requires that coastal resources such as public access and recreation, public views, and sensitive habitats; including wetlands, be protected. For the reasons described above, only if modified as suggested can the proposed Implementation Plan amendment be found to be consistent with and adequate to carry out the public access and recreation, public view and habitat protection policies of the City's certified Land Use Plan in addition to policies related to assuring that any proposed reasonable accommodation will be safe from potential flood, fire and geologic hazards. Therefore, the Commission finds that, as modified, the proposed Implementation Plan amendment will be consistent with and adequate to carry out the provisions of the certified Land Use Plan (LUP). PART VI. CONSISTENCY WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) 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. 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 a LCP submittal or, as in this case, a LCP amendment submittal, to find that the approval of the proposed LCP, or LCP, as • • CAR-MAJ-2-llA Reasonable Accommodation Page 16 amended, conforms to CEQA provisions, including the requirement in CEQA section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) that the amended LCP will not be approved or adopted as proposed if there are feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which the activity may have on the environment. (14 C.C.R. §§ 13542(a), 13540(f), and 13555(b)). The Commission finds that approval of the proposed LCP amendment, as submitted, would result in significant impacts under the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act. Specifically, the proposed LCP amendment as proposed would result in potential impacts to public access/recreation, public views, sensitive habitat and wildlife, and could increase coastal hazard concerns such as safe geologic setbacks, flood, and fire. However, with the inclusion of the suggested modifications, the revised zoning ordinance would not result in significant impacts to the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, the Commission finds that approval of the LCP amendment will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. ( G:\San Diego\Reports\LCPs\Carlsbad\CAR-MAJ-2-11 A Reasonable Ace. IP stfrpt.doc) • • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE NATURAL RESOURCES EDMUND G. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COM SAN DIEGO AREA 7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-4421 (619) 767-2370 IMPORTANT PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM MAJOR AMENDMENT NO. 2-llA (REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION) I. HEARING TIME AND LOCATION DATE: TIME: LOCATION: Thursday, October 11, 2012 9:00a.m. Oceanside City Council Chambers 300 North Coast Hwy Oceanside, CA 92054 II. AMENDMENT REQUEST ,(' . ; !":·. Currently, in the City of Carlsbad, applications for reasonable accommodations have been processed by either the Planning or Building Division on a case-by-case basis. The City does not have a formalized procedure to review and approve or conditionally approve a reasonable accommodation request. During a recent review of the City's Housing Element by the Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), the Department requested that the City formalize its procedures. The subject LCP amendment is the City's response to this request. This LCP amendment proposes a new chapter, Chapter 21.87-Reasonable Accommodation to the City~s certified implementation plan, which establishes procedures and regulations governing requests for reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. Specifically, this new chapter includes a description of the purpose and intent of the reasonable accommodation zoning chapter, definitions commonly associated with reasonable accommodations, the applicability of reasonable accommodations, a list of what's necessary to request a reasonable accommodation, identification of the review authority and the procedure to review such requests, the findings necessary to approve a reasonable accommodation, and lists the appeal procedures for any decision granting/denying a proposal for reasonable accommodations. This new chapter and its provisions will apply citywide. III. HEARING PROCEDURES At the time of the public hearing, staff will make a brief oral presentation to the Commission. Immediately following the presentation ofthe staff, a representative or representatives from the City of Carlsbad may address the Commission regarding the local coastal program amendment. Upon conclusion of the City's presentation, members of the public and agencies will have an opportunity to address the Commission and comment on the amendment. The Commission will then close the public hearing; and, since there are preliminary recommendations and findings prepared for the Commission, the Commission may take final action on the amendment request at this time. • Important Public Hearing Notice Page2 IV. BACKGROUND • The California Coastal Commission and the local governments within the coastal zone share responsibility for managing the state's coastal resources. The Local Coastal Program (LCP) is a specific long-term management plan prepared by a coastal city or county for its jurisdiction in the coastal zone. The LCP contains policies and implementation measures designed to protect sensitive coastal resources and set standards for future development. Each LCP has two components: The land use plan (LUP), and implementation plan (IP) which consists of the zoning ordinance, zoning district maps, and other implementing actions within sensitive coastal resources areas. The Commission certifies each LCP to determine that it meets the requirements of the Coastal Act. After the Coastal Commission certifies an LCP, the local government assumes the authority to issue coastal development permits for most development in the coastal zone pursuant to the certified LCP. A local government may amend its certified LCP, but the change will become effective only after the LCP amendment has been effectively certified by the Coastal Commission. The City of Carlsbad's certified LCP contains six geographic segments as follows: Agua Hedionda, Mello I, Mello II, West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties, East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties, and Village Redevelopment. Pursuant to Sections 30170(f) and 30171 ofthe Public Resources Code, the Coastal Commission prepared and approved two portions ofthe LCP, the Mello I and II segments in 1980 and 1981, respectively. The West Batiquitos Lagoon/ Sammis Properties segment was certified in 1985. The East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt ~roperties segment was certified in 1988. The Village Redevelopment Area LCP was certified in 1988; the City has been issuing coastal development permits there since that time. On October 21, 1997, the City assumed permit jurisdiction and has been issuing coastal development permits for all segments except Agua Hedionda. The Agua Hedionda Lagoon LCP segment is a deferred certification area until an implementation plan for that segment is certified. This amendment modifies the City's Implementation Plan (IP) only. V. AVAILABILITY OF STAF:F REPORT A staff report on the LCP amendment containing recommendations has been prepared for the Commission. If you would like the full text of the staff report, it can be obtained from the Coastal Commission's website at http://www.coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html. Alternatively you can call or write the San Diego Area Office of the Coastal Commission and request a copy of the "City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2- 11A" staff report. A copy will be mailed to you promptly. Questions regarding the report or hearing should be directed to Toni Ross (619) 767-2370. We apologize if you received duplicate notices; however, because ofthe overlap of persons with interest in more than one community on our mailing lists, the duplications are unavoidable. (G:\San Diego\Reports\LCPs\Carlsbad\CAR-MAJ-2-llA Reasonable Ace. lP NOTICE.doc)