SANTA BARBARA COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Coastal Zone Staff Report

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "SANTA BARBARA COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Coastal Zone Staff Report"

Jerome Manning
5 years ago
Views:

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Coastal Zone Staff Report Deputy Director: Alice McCurdy Staff Report Date: October 31, 2014 Division: Development Review Case No.

1 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Coastal Zone Staff Report Deputy Director: Alice McCurdy Staff Report Date: October 31, 2014 Division: Development Review Case No.: 10CDH Supervising Planner: Anne Almy Supervising Planner Phone #: Planner Contact: Nicole Lieu Environmental Document: CEQA Sec Planner s Phone #: OWNER/APPLICANT: Ned Quakenbush 1220 Hill Road Santa Barbara, CA (805) AGENT: Ginger Andersen Penfield and Smith 111 East Victoria Street Santa Barbara, CA (805) VICINITY MAP Sandpoint Road Carpinteria Salt Marsh Site Pacific Ocean Application Complete: May 19, 2014 Processing Deadline: 60 days from NOE This site is identified as Assessor Parcel Number , 501 Sandpoint Road, Carpinteria Area, First Supervisorial District 1.0 REQUEST Hearing on the request of Ginger Andersen, agent for the owner, Ned Quakenbush, to consider, [application filed on October 28, 2010] for a Coastal Development Permit in compliance with Section of Article II, the Coastal Zoning Ordinance, on property zoned 10-R-1 to allow a Coastal Development Permit for construction of a 2,807 square foot single family residence with a 430 square foot attached garage and 722 square foot deck, new permeable-paver driveway, landscaping and grading including 87 cubic yards of cut and 40 cubic yards of fill. Proposed development would be located within a 5,907 square foot (0.14 acres) development envelope; and to accept the exemption for pursuant to Section of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. The

2 Page 2 application involves AP No , located at 501 Sandpoint Road in the Carpinteria area, First Supervisorial District. 2.0 RECOMMENDATION AND PROCEDURES Follow the procedures outlined below and deny marked "Officially Accepted, County of Santa Barbara (November 17, 2014) Zoning Administrator Attachment-D", based upon the project s inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan, including the Coastal Land Use Plan, and the inability to make the required findings. The Zoning Administrator s motion should include the following: 1. Make the required findings for denial of the project as specified in Attachment-A of this staff report, including CEQA findings; 2. Determine the denial of the project to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270, exemption included as Attachment-B; and, 3. Deny the project,. Alternatively, refer back to staff if the Zoning Administrator takes other than the recommended action. 3.0 ISSUE SUMMARY The proposed project is for construction of a new residence on an undeveloped oceanfront parcel located adjacent to the mouth of Carpinteria salt marsh. Staff is recommending denial of the project due to inconsistency with Coastal Land Use Plan and Article II Coastal Zone requirements pertaining to impacts to Environmentally Sensitive Habitat, coastal and geologic hazards (e.g. liquefaction, wave run-up) and unpermitted seawall construction. 4.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 4.1 Site Information Comprehensive Plan Designation Zone Site Size Site Information Coastal, Rural, RES-3.3, 3.3 units per acre Article II (Coastal Zoning Ordinance), 10-R-1, 10,000 SF minimum parcel size, Coastal Commission Appeals Jurisdiction, ESH Overlay, note: a portion of the seawall is located within California State Lands jurisdiction 8.94 acres (the majority of the parcel acreage is located

3 Page 3 Present Use & Development Surrounding Uses/Zoning Access Public Services Site Information within the Pacific Ocean and El Estero) Undeveloped (unpermitted seawall located onsite) North: Salt Marsh, Undeveloped South: Ocean East: Salt Marsh, Undeveloped West: 10-R-1, Single Family Residence Driveway via Sandpoint Road Water Supply: Carpinteria Water District Sewage: Carpinteria Sanitary District Fire: Carpinteria-Summerland Fire District Police Services: County Sheriff 4.2 Project Description The applicant requests approval of a Coastal Development Permit for construction of a 2,807 square foot single family residence with a 430 square foot attached garage and 722 square foot deck, new permeable-paver driveway, landscaping, and grading including 87 cubic yards of cut and 40 cubic yards of fill. As proposed, the development would be located within a 5,907 square foot (0.14 acres) development envelope. 4.3 Background Information Prior to A single-walled seawall/revetment is constructed abutting the homes along Sandpoint Road and extends across the vacant sandspit along the frontage of the parcel (501 Sandpoint Road) The subject property is not included in the Sandyland Assessment District #1 (established by Board of Supervisors [Board] action to fund construction and maintenance of the seawall). Other properties along Sandpoint Road are included. May 8, The subject property is annexed to the Sandyland Assessment District pursuant to a Board Resolution. See Attachment-E for the Board Resolution. September 2, The subject property is not included in a Board Resolution for seawall maintenance and repair in the fiscal year. See Attachment-F for the Board Resolution A winter storm event damages the seawall and disconnects the subject property from the rest of Sandpoint Road (see aerial photo included as Attachment-G). August 8, The subject property is excluded in a Board Resolution for seawall maintenance and repair in the fiscal year. See Attachment-H for the Board Resolution. 1983/1984- A double seawall is constructed along Sandpoint Road Seawall/revetment damaged in winter storm.

4 Page Environmental Review 5.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS Denial of the proposed project is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section Please see Attachment-B, Notice of Exemption, for further details. 5.2 Comprehensive Plan Consistency Note: only policies with which the project is inconsistent are analyzed in the tables below. Coastal Act Policy 30235: 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. Existing marine structures causing water stagnation contributing to pollution problems and fish kills should be phased out or upgraded where feasible. Coastal Plan Policy 3-1: Seawalls shall not be permitted unless the County has determined that there are no other less environmentally damaging alternatives reasonably available for protection of existing principal structures. The County prefers and encourages non-structural solutions to shoreline erosion problems, including beach replenishment, removal of endangered structures and prevention of land divisions on shorefront property subject to erosion; and, will seek solutions to shoreline hazards on a larger geographic basis than a single lot circumstance. Where permitted, seawall design and construction shall respect to Inconsistent: The existing double-walled seawall/rock revetment was constructed on the subject property in 1984 following a strong winter storm that disconnected the majority of the property from the rest of the properties along Sandpoint Road. The seawall was constructed without the benefit of permits from the Coastal Commission and Santa Barbara County. Legalization of the seawall would require application for, and granting of, permits from both agencies (including the payment of violation fees to the Coastal Commission). The project applicant asserts that County Public Works constructed the seawall at 501 Sandpoint in However, the County (Public Works and Planning and Development) has determined that the information on record shows that it is inconclusive as to who constructed the seawall on-site. Notably, the property owner at 501 Sandpoint never paid fees to the Sandyland Assessment District while other properties along Sandpoint Road paid funds based upon the amount of work completed on the revetment at each home site. Also, the property was excluded from the Board resolution for seawall repair in 1980 and In addition, all other properties along

5 Page 5 the degree possible natural landforms. Adequate provision for lateral beach access shall be made and the project shall be designed to minimize visual impacts by the use of appropriate colors and materials. Coastal Plan Policy 3-12: Permitted development shall not cause or contribute to flood hazards or lead to expenditure of public funds for flood control works, i.e., dams, stream channelizations, etc. Sandpoint contain an easement granted to County Public Works for location of the revetment, while the subject property does not. Regardless, the seawall/revetment constitutes a violation on the subject property and requires permits to be legalized prior to issuance of any permits for new development. However, Coastal Act Policy only permits seawalls/revetments when required to serve coastal dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches. There are no existing structures and there is no public beach on the subject property. Therefore permitting of the seawall/revetment would be inconsistent with Coastal Act Policy Similarly, Coastal Plan Policy 3-1 states, seawalls shall not be permitted unless the County has determined that there are no other less environmentally damaging alternatives reasonably available for protection of existing principal structures, [emphasis added] and, adequate provision for lateral beach access shall be made. As there are no existing principal structures and no lateral beach access is proposed, permitting of the seawall/revetment would be inconsistent with Coastal Plan Policy 3-1. Pursuant to a September 30, 2010 Geotechnical Engineering and Geologic Report by Earth Systems Pacific, Periodic maintenance of the revetment will be necessary, particularly after a severe winter when scouring and breaking waves are likely to impact the revetment. The proposed development would be subject to flood hazards by placing a new habitable structure in a known flood hazard zone and could potentially require expenditure of public funds for protection of structures, inconsistent with

6 Page 6 Coastal Plan Policy 3-3: To avoid the need for future protective devices that could impact sand movement and supply, no permanent above-ground structures shall be permitted on the dry sandy beach except facilities necessary for public health and safety, such as lifeguard towers, or where such restriction would cause the inverse condemnation of the parcel by the County. CLUP Policy 3-8: Applications for grading and building permits, and applications for subdivision shall be reviewed for adjacency to, threats from, and impacts on geologic hazards arising from seismic events, tsunami runup, landslides, beach erosion, or other geologic hazards such as expansive soils and subsidence areas. In areas of known geologic hazards, a geologic report shall be required. Mitigation measures shall be required where necessary. Coastal Act Policy 30253: New development shall: 1. Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. 2. Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. Coastal Plan Policy 3-14: All development shall be designed to fit the site topography, soils, Coastal Plan Policy Inconsistent: The seawall/revetment on the subject property is an unpermitted structure located on the sandy beach. Therefore the unpermitted seawall/revetment represents an permanent above-ground structures located on the sandy beach; and the project is inconsistent with Coastal Plan Policy 3-3. Inconsistent: Groundwater was encountered at 4.5 and 5.5 feet at the site. Pursuant to a September 30, 2010 Geotechnical Engineering and Geologic Report by Earth Systems Pacific, Lateral spreading would occur due to a zone of liquefiable soils that extend from the surface to the invert of the salt marsh. The existing descending slope in this area is relatively gentle, but would act as a free face during a liquefaction event. Thus, the potential for lateral spreading does exist. As noted by the applicant s Geologist (Earth Systems Pacific) and the County Geologic Reviewer (Geodynamics, Inc.) the project site is susceptible to liquefaction, lateral spreading, and wave run-up. The County Geologic Reviewer analyzed the Geologic Report by Earth Systems Pacific and found the report lacking in its anlayses of liquefaction, lateral spreading, seismically induced settlement, and wave run-up (see Attachment-I for the Geodynamics, Inc. peer review memo). The applicant has chosen not to respond to the peer review at this time. Therefore it cannot be determined that the proposed development would minimize risks to life and property or assure stability and structural integrity and the project would

7 Page 7 geology, hydrology, and any other existing conditions and be oriented so that grading and other site preparation is kept to an absolute minimum. Natural features, landforms, and native vegetation, such as trees, shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. Areas of the site which are not suited for development because of known soils, geologic, flood, erosion, or other hazards shall remain in open space. Coastal Plan Policy 9-9: A buffer strip, a minimum of 100 feet in width, shall be maintained in natural condition along the periphery of all wetlands. No permanent structures shall be permitted within the wetland or buffer area except structures of a minor nature (i.e., fences, etc.). Coastal Plan Policy 9-14: New development adjacent to or in close proximity to wetlands shall be compatible with the continuance of the habitat area and shall not result in a reduction in the biological productivity or water quality of the wetland due to runoff (carrying additional sediment or contaminants), noise, thermal pollution, or other disturbances. therefore, be inconsistent with Coastal Act Policy Similarly, it is clear that the property is subject to geologic constraints, and it cannot be determined if areas of the site which are not suited for development because of known soils, geologic, flood, erosion, or other hazards would remain in open space. Therefore, the project would be inconsistent with Coastal Plan Policy Inconsistent: The entirety of the project site is covered in remnant sand dune Environmentally Sensitive Habitat (ESH), wetland ESH, or ESH buffer. Development is proposed within the ESH buffer and would result in loss of approximately 0.3 acres of wetland and sand dune ESH (as estimated by Planning and Development staff). The Final Biological Survey and Wetland Delineation Report, 501 San Point Road, Carpinteria, CA (SAIC September, 2010) does not quantify impact acreages, discuss ESH or adequately map plant communities and ESH. At this point, the applicant has elected not to update the SAIC report to provide this informaiton. Therefore, the project would be inconsistent with Coastal Plan Policy 9-9. Additionally, consistency with Coastal Plan Policy 9-14 cannot be determined at this time, based on the incomplete biological survey.

8 Page Zoning: Article II Section (Development Standards for Wetland Habitats). Except for lots which abut the El Estero (Carpinteria Slough), a buffer strip, a minimum of 100 feet in width, shall be maintained in natural condition along the periphery of all wetlands. No permanent structures shall be permitted within the wetland or buffer area except structures of a minor nature, i.e., fences... Section (Development Standards for Dune Habitats) Because of their statewide significance, coastal dune habitats shall be preserved and protected from all but resource dependent, scientific, educational, and light recreational uses. Sand mining and oil well drilling may be permitted if it can be shown that no alternative location is feasible and such development is sited and designed to minimize impacts on dune vegetation and animal species. Disturbance or destruction of any dune vegetation shall be prohibited, unless no feasible alternative exists, and then only if revegetation is made a condition of development approval. Such re-vegetation shall be with native California plants propagated from the disturbed sites or from the same species at adjacent sites. Inconsistent: Development is proposed within ESH and ESH buffer, and would result in loss of approximately 0.3 acres of wetland and sand dune ESH (as estimated by the Planning and Development staff). Pursuant to Article II, Section , parcels which abut El Estero (Carpinteria Slough) are not subject to the 100 foot wetland buffer from Carpinteria Slough. However, a reduced buffer of reasonable size is required to protect wetland habitat. Based upon the fact that the project would directly impact wetland habitat and vegetation, the project provides no buffer in some locations. Therefore, the project would be inconsistent with Section Inconsistent: Development is proposed within an area of sand dune ESH. Therefore, the project would be inconsistent with Section

9 Page Design Review The proposed project is inconsistent with a number of applicable policies and is recommended for denial. Therefore, to minimize costs to the applicant and to ensure efficiency in case processing, the project did not receive review by the South County Board of Architectural Review (SBAR). SBAR review would be required prior to approval of the proposed project. 7.0 APPEALS PROCEDURE The action of the Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the Planning Commission within the 10 calendar days following the date of the Zoning Administrator's decision by the applicant or an aggrieved person. There is no appeal fee as the project is appealable to the Coastal Commission. The action of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors within the 10 calendar days following the date of the Planning Commission s decision by the applicant or an aggrieved person. There is no appeal fee as the project is appealable to the Coastal Commission. The action of the Board of Supervisors may be appealed to the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days of receipt by the Coastal Commission of the County's Notice of Final Action. A. Findings B. Exemption C. APN Sheet D. Project Plans E Board Resolution F Board Resolution G Photo of Seawall Damage H Board Resolution I. July 30, 2014 Geologic Review Memo ATTACHMENTS

CHAPTER GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS Applicability Regulations.

CHAPTER GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS Applicability Regulations. CHAPTER 19.07 GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS 19.07.010 Applicability. Geologically hazardous areas may pose a threat to the health and safety of citizens when incompatible development is sited in areas of