California Coastal Commission
Hilton Santa Cruz/Scotts Valley
6001 La Madrona Drive
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Wednesday
August 10, 2016 9:00 a.m.
CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT
15. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAMS (LCPs).
See Agenda Categories
Public hearing and action on request by City of Carmel-by-the-Sea to amend the Implementation Plan’s incentives for affordable housing, including by establishing new standards for density bonuses in areas with Core Commercial and Residential/Commercial land use designations, for "Bonus Density" allowances within the R-4 zoning district, and for "Floor Area Bonus" allowances for R-4 and Commercial zoning districts. (KK-SC)
See Agenda Categories
Public hearing and action on request by City of Carmel-by-the-Sea to amend the Implementation Plan’s incentives for affordable housing, including by establishing new standards for density bonuses in areas with Core Commercial and Residential/Commercial land use designations, for "Bonus Density" allowances within the R-4 zoning district, and for "Floor Area Bonus" allowances for R-4 and Commercial zoning districts. (KK-SC)
City of
Carmel-by-the-Sea LCP Amendment Number LCP-3-CML-16-0005-1-Part A (Carmel Affordable Housing Incentives)
SUMMARY OF STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
The City of
Carmel-by-the-Sea proposes to amend the Local Coastal Program’s (LCP) Implementation
Plan (IP) by clarifying and adding to the incentives for the development of affordable
housing. Specifically, the amendment modifies IP Section 17.64.190 by: (1) establishing new
standards for granting Density Bonuses (as allowed by Government Code Section 65915);
(2) clarifying that the IP’s “Bonus Density” incentives (a separate City program aimed at
encouraging affordable housing construction) apply only to areas zoned
multi-family residential
(R-4) and when one of the existing standards specified in 17.64.190 is
satisfied; and (3) specifying
that affordable housing units produced pursuant to the Density Bonus, Bonus Density, or
Floor Area Bonus incentives (another City program to encourage affordable
housing) be administered
by a City approved affordable housing agency. The amendment also adds definitions to “transitional
housing” and “supportive housing”, and adds “Group Residential” as an allowable
land use in the R-4 zone.
The LCP
currently includes a series of policies and standards aimed at encouraging the
creation of affordable
housing, and offers a suite of incentives to do so. For example, the Land Use
Plan (LUP) allows
Density Bonuses of up to 35% above the otherwise LCP-specified density maximum in areas
with Core Commercial and/or Residential/Commercial land use designations. The existing IP
also includes a series of programs aimed at encouraging affordable housing, including “Floor
Area Bonuses” for development within commercial and R-4 zoning districts that provide a
specified amount of affordable housing (e.g., up to a five percent increase in
floor area if 25% of
the housing units are affordable to moderate income persons), and “Bonus Density”
incentives of up to 44 units per acre (above the otherwise allowed 33 units per
acre) specifically in
R-4 zoning.
As set forth in the proposed amendment, Bonus Density is applicable only in the R-4 zoning district, and the findings in IP Section 17.64.190 have to be met, including that 20% of the units will be reserved for “lower-income households” (or 10% for “very-low income households” or 50% for “senior citizens”). For Density Bonus, the applicable findings of IP Section 17.64.190 have to be met, including: conformance with State Density Bonus Law and LCP policies (other than density); and restriction to Core Commercial and/or Residential/Commercial land use designations. Finally, affordable housing produced via any of the aforementioned incentives (Density Bonus, Bonus Density, or Floor Area Bonus) must be administered by a City-approved affordable housing agency. In essence, IP Section 17.64.190 serves as an implementing ordinance to ensure, in context of the LCP’s existing framework, that projects receiving incentives/modifications to development standards from the LCP’s numerous affordable housing incentives provide affordable housing in a clear, enforceable manner, while ensuring coastal resources are protected.
Commission staff has worked collaboratively and extensively with City staff to craft an amendment that incentivizes the construction of affordable housing within Carmel-by-the-Sea in a manner that clearly communicates the different incentives available to do so, and in a manner that respects and protects the City’s unique coastal resources. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission find the proposed amendment consistent with and adequate to carry out the policies of the LUP, and that the Commission approve the amendment as submitted. The motion and resolution are found on page 4 below.
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
W15a
Prepared July
22, 2016 for August 10, 2016 Hearing
To: Commissioners
and Interested Persons
From: Susan Craig,
Central Coast District Manager
Kevin Kahn,
Central Coast District Supervisor
Subject: City of
Carmel-by-the-Sea LCP Amendment Number LCP-3-CML-16-0005-1-
Part A (Carmel
Affordable Housing Incentives)
16.
NEW APPEALS.
d. Appeal No. A-3-CML-16-0057 (Henderson,
Carmel-by-the-Sea)
Appeal by Commissioners Shallenberger and Howell of decision by City of Carmel-by-the-Sea granting permit with conditions to Wellington Henderson Jr. for construction of 8-ft.-tall, 63-ft.-long upper bluff wall with faux bluff facing and drainage and landscaping improvements on bluffs fronting 26336 Scenic Rd., along Carmel Beach in Carmel-by-the-Sea, Monterey County. (MW-SC)
Appeal by Commissioners Shallenberger and Howell of decision by City of Carmel-by-the-Sea granting permit with conditions to Wellington Henderson Jr. for construction of 8-ft.-tall, 63-ft.-long upper bluff wall with faux bluff facing and drainage and landscaping improvements on bluffs fronting 26336 Scenic Rd., along Carmel Beach in Carmel-by-the-Sea, Monterey County. (MW-SC)
APPEAL STAFF
REPORT: SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE DETERMINATION & DE NOVO HEARING
Appeal Number:
A-3-CML-16-0057
Applicant:
Wellington S. Henderson, Jr.
Appellants: Commissioners
Mary Shallenberger and Erik Howell
Local Decision: Approved by the
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Planning Commission on April 13, 2016 (City
application number DS 15-158).
Project
Location: On
the bluffs at the south end of Carmel Beach fronting 26336 Scenic Road,
Carmel-by-the-Sea, Monterey County (APNs 009-423-001 and 002).
Project
Description: Construction
of shoreline protective device designed as an eight-foot tall and 63-foot long
upper bluff retaining wall with faux bluff facing and related drainage and
landscaping improvements.
Staff
Recommendation: Substantial
Issue Exists; Denial
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The City of
Carmel-by-the-Sea approved a coastal development permit (CDP) to construct a shoreline
protective device designed as an eight-foot tall and 63-foot long upper bluff
retaining wall with faux
bluff facing and related development (i.e., drainage and landscaping improvements) on
the bluffs fronting a residential site at the south end of Carmel Beach. The
site is the location
of a circa 1948 Frank Lloyd Wright-designed house, which is a notable
historical residence in the
City of Carmel. The residence is sited on a bedrock outcrop at the south end of Carmel Beach and
is highly visible from most vantages along the beach and the Scenic Road recreation
trail. The City’s CDP decision was appealed to the Commission based on
questions regarding
potential inconsistencies with the LCP’s policies and standards for shoreline
protective devices.
Staff recommends
that the Commission find that the appeal raises a substantial issue and that the
Commission take jurisdiction over the CDP application. Staff further recommends that the
Commission deny a CDP for the proposed seawall at the site.
The LCP requires
a three-step process to allow for shoreline protective devices: 1) identify an existing
structure in danger from erosion; 2) identify a range of alternatives and
select the least environmentally
damaging alternative to abate the identified threat; and 3) mitigate for all coastal resource impacts
caused by the selected shoreline protective device. However, the City’s approval did not
adequately identify an existing structure in danger from erosion, did not analyze any
alternatives, and did not identify and mitigate for all resultant coastal
resource impacts caused by the
approved project. For all these reasons, the City’s approval raises substantial
LCP conformance
issues.
On de novo
review, the Applicant’s stated purpose of the project is to protect the residence’s driveway and
driveway gate from potential bluff failure due to future erosion and storm events. The proposed
upper bluff retaining wall would extend along the upper bluff face fronting the existing
driveway and driveway entrance gate, which are both located roughly
six-and-a-half feet from the bluff
edge. The project’s own technical reports indicate that the underlying bedrock bluffs are
eroding very slowly at this location, approximately 0.1 feet annually. At this
rate, it would be roughly
65 years before the driveway and gate are undercut by erosion. Accordingly, an existing
structure in danger from erosion has not been established in such a way as to
allow for a shoreline
protective device at this location,1 and thus the proposed project is
inconsistent with LCP
requirements in this regard and must be denied.
Furthermore,
even if the existing driveway and gate were shown to be in danger from erosion,
danger, including but not limited to relocation or partial removal of the
driveway and gate, both options which
appear feasible at this location. The Applicant did not provide and the City
did not analyze any
other alternatives to the upper bluff retaining wall, inconsistent with the
LCP. Finally, even if
danger were conclusively established, and even if the upper bluff retaining
wall were
conclusively shown to be the least environmentally damaging feasible
alternative to address and abate the
danger, the LCP requires that all attendant coastal resource impacts, including impacts to
shoreline sand supply, be eliminated and, if the impacts are not able to be
eliminated, mitigated. The
City did not evaluate sand supply impacts that are likely to result from the
upper bluff retaining
wall, and did not identify any mitigation for impacts associated with the
project. Thus, the
proposed shoreline protective device is inconsistent with the LCP.
In short, the
proposed project is inconsistent with LCP shoreline protective device policies
and standards,
primarily because there is no identified erosion threat to an existing
structure that would warrant
and allow for such shoreline protective device. Furthermore, even if danger
were established,
there has been no evaluation of alternatives, such as driveway relocation
(which appears to be
feasible at this location). And finally, even if the proposed development
satisfied those first two
LCP requirements, the project lacks avoidance and mitigation measures for attendant
coastal resource impacts. For all of these reasons, the proposed project fails
to ensure LCP conformance
with LUP Policies P5-5 and P5-6, as well as with IP Sections 17.20.190(C) and (F), and
therefore must be denied.
For these
reasons, staff recommends that the Commission deny a CDP for the proposed
project. The
motions are found on page 5 below.
CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMISSION
Appeal Filed:
5/19/2016
49th Day: Waived
Staff: Mike
Watson - SC
Staff Report:
7/22/2016
Hearing
Date: 8/10/2016
APPEAL STAFF
REPORT: SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE DETERMINATION & DE NOVO HEARING
No comments:
Post a Comment