Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCP Land Use Plan Update (PA2003-093)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 3 March 18, 2004 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Planning Department Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3235 palfordecity newport -beach ca us SUBJECT: Update of Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan— LCP Amendment No. 2004 -001 (PA 2003 -093) ISSUE: Should the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed comprehensive update of the LCP Land Use Plan? RECOMMENDATION: Conduct the public hearing; adopt Resolution No. 2004- recommending approval of LCP Amendment No. 2004 -001 to the City Council. DISCUSSION: Introduction: At the March 4, 2004 meeting on this item, staff received questions, comments and recommendations from the Planning Commission and members of the public. This report will address the outstanding issues. Section 1.3 General Policies Page 1 -2 Policy 3 states that where there are conflicts between the policies of the land use plan and those set forth in any element of the City's general plan, zoning, or any other ordinance, the policies of the land use plan shall take precedence. Commissioner Eaton expressed concern that this policy undermined the City's General Plan update effort. LCP Coastal Land Use Plan March 18, 2004 Page 2 This policy appears to be a required policy by the Coastal Commission and appears in recently adopted LCPs in other communities. However, the City of Malibu's LCP contains a variation of this policy. The Malibu LCP policy provides that if there is a conflict between the LCP and the General Plan, and it is not possible for the development to comply with both, LCP takes precedence and the development cannot be approved unless it complies with the LCP provision. The Malibu LCP is significant because it was prepared by the Coastal Commission and certified in 2002. Therefore, it can provide insight into how the Coastal Commission may react to this issue. Staff believes that the current language adequately addresses this issue. However, should the Planning Commission wish to pursue an approach similar to Malibu, Policy 3 could be revised to read as follows: Where there are conflicts between the policies set forth in this Coastal Land Use Plan and those set forth in any element of the City's General Plan, zoning, or any other ordinance, and it is not possible for the other such plan or ordinance, the- pelisies of the Coastal Land Use Plan shall take precedence and the development shall not be approved unless it complies with the Coastal Land Use Plan. However, in no case, shall the policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan be interpreted to allow a development to exceed a development limit established by the General Plan or its implementing ordinances. Section 2.1 Land Use Page 2 -1 Mr. Tom Billings presented the Planning Commission with a list of five areas. Mr. Billings stated that these areas contain what he described as "density discrepancies" with the current General Plan. Staff reviewed this information and found the following: Lido Village Commercial. This area contains the Lido Marina Village development and adjacent commercial properties. The Land Use Element designation is Retail and Service Commercial with an allowed floor area ratio (FAR) range of 0.5 to 0.75. The proposed Coastal Land Use Plan (CLOP) designation is CV (Visitor- Serving Commercial), which has a FAR range of 0.3 to 1.25. Although the CV designation has a higher FAR, CLUP Policy 2.1.1 -1 would prevent any new development from exceeding the Land Use Element FAR limit. All other proposed CV areas have actual FARs higher than 0.75. The CV designation was proposed on this site because of the current high concentration of visitor - serving uses and bayfront location. If the Planning Commission is LCP Coastal Land Use Plan March 18, 2004 Page 3 concerned about the FAR of the CV designation, the site could be designated CG -A (General Commercial A) with a FAR range of 0.5 to 0.75, which is the same as Land Use Element FAR limit. Lido Villaae Residential. This residential area is located in the 3300 block of Via Lido. The Land Use Element designates this area Multi - Family Residential and allocates 12 dwelling units. The proposed CLUP land use designation is RM -C (Medium Density Residential C), which has a residential density range of 15.1 to 20 units per gross acre. The current residential density is 22.6 units per net acre and 15.8 units per gross acre, which is consistent with the proposed RM -C designation. Bayside /PCH. These commercial areas are located at the southwest and southeast corners of the intersection of Coast Highway and Bayside Drive. The Land Use Element designation is Recreation and Marine Commercial on the southwest corner and Retail and Service Commercial on the southeast comer. The maximum FAR for both areas is 0.3. The proposed CLUP land use designation on the southwest corner is CM -A (Recreational and Marine Commercial A) and CG -A (General Commercial A) on the southeast corner. Both the CM -A and CG -A designations have FAR ranges of 0.5 to 0.75. CLUP Policy 2.1.1 -1 would prevent any new development from exceeding the Land Use Element FAR limit. However, if the Planning Commission is concerned about the FAR, staff could develop a new CG and CM designation with a 0.3 FAR limit, which could be applied to these areas. Balboa Bay Club. The Land Use Element designation for the Balboa Bay Club is "for a mixture of Recreational and Marine Commercial and Multi Family Residential" and is "allowed a floor area ratio of 0.5 with residential development allowed in conjunction with commercial development up to a maximum total floor area ratio of 1.0 and 144 dwelling units." In recognition of these unique land use characteristics, the proposed CLUP designates the Balboa Bay Club as PSA -5 (Planning Study Area 5). The FAR and dwelling unit limits are the same as those in the Land Use Element. Lower Bawiew Landing. This area is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Jamboree Road and Bayside Drive. The Land Use Element designates this area Retail and Service Commercial and allocates 10,000 square feet for restaurant use or 40,000 square feet for athletic club use. The site can also be used for affordable senior citizen housing facilities. The proposed CLUP land use designation is CG -A (General Commercial A), which has a FAR range of .05 to 0.75. Gross acreage contains the entire area of the site, including interior streets, and the area to the centerline of abutting streets and one - quarter of abutting street intersections. LCP Coastal Land Use Plan March 18, 2004 Page 4 The Bayview Senior Affordable Housing project approved for the site was originally designed with a 0.7 FAR. The revised project will have a FAR of approximately 0.6, which is consistent with the proposed CG -A designation. Section 2.1.1 Land Use Planning Study Area 2 (Cannery Village) Page 2 -5 Commissioner Tucker requested the last paragraph on this page be revised by deleting the words "specifically" and wall." The revised paragraph will read as follows: Cannery Village is highly subject to redevelopment pressures. The Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan specifically regulates all development in this area. In order to maintain the particularly "marine" atmosphere of the area, careful consideration should be given to all proposals for new development, especially in waterfront areas. Section 2.3 Visitor-serving and Recreational Development Page 2 -19 Ms. Carol Hoffman of Government Solutions, Inc. expressed concern that Policy 2.3.1 -2 would preclude replacing waterfront commercial uses with new uses and "consolidation uses." She proposed the following revisions: 2.3.1 -1. PFeseFve ex ;sti.... ^ ^^' Encourage consolidation of waterfront Parcels to stimulate new or revitalized waterfront - oriented commercial uses, including eating and drinking establishments and recreation and entertainment establishments, as a means of providing public access to the waterfront. 2.3.1 -2. drinking establishments and recreation and entertainment establishments, as a means of providing public access to the waterfront. Section 2.3.1 addresses the provision of visitor - serving and recreational uses in the coastal zone. The Coastal Act requires the protection of land suitable for LCP Coastal Land Use Plan March 18, 2004 Page 5 recreational use and development and that visitor - serving commercial recreational facilities have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development. Policy 2.3.1 -1 is an extension of an existing LCP Land Use Plan that states that "the City shall encourage and protect both public and private water - oriented recreational and entertainment facilities as a means of providing public access to the waterfront." The proposed revisions shift the emphasis from protecting water -front commercial areas to encouraging lot consolidation. This is not consistent with the preceeding narrative and does not address the requirements of the Coastal Act covered in this section. Staff recommends against incorporating this revision. Section 2.8.6 Coastal Erosion Page 2-48 Policy 2.8.6 -9 would require property owners in hazard areas to record a waiver of future shoreline protection as a condition of approval of a coastal development. Commissioner Kiser expressed concern over this policy and requested that staff investigate other options. This policy was specifically requested by the Coastal Commission staff. It reflects the Coastal Commission position that that new development should not need a shoreline protective device for the duration of its economic life. The Coastal Commission bases this position on Section 30253(2) and Section 30235 of the Coastal Act. Section 30253(2) states new development may not "in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs." Section 30235 limits the use of shoreline protective devices to those 'required to serve coastal- dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion." Staff recommends revising Policy 2.8.6 -9 to make it clear that the waiver of future shoreline protection would only apply to new structures and that existing structures could still be protected. This is consistent with Section 30235, which allows shoreline protective structures when they are needed to protect existing development. Staff also recommends including a statement that the waiver would only be for the duration of the economic life of the structure, which the Coastal Commission generally sets at 75 years. The revised policy will read as follows: 2.8.6 -9. Require property owners to record a waiver of future shoreline protection for new development during the economic life of the structure (75 years) as a condition of approval of a coastal development permit for new development on a beach or shoreline that is subject to wave action, erosion, flooding, landslides, or other LCP Coastal Land Use Plan March 18, 2004 Page 6 hazards associated with development on a beach or bluff. previous coastal development permit. Section 2.8.7 Geological and Seismic Page 2 -51 Mr. Sean Burke requested that Section 2.87 include a policy requiring that any update of the fire codes or fuel modification standards include consideration of how those changes will impact erosion hazards in Buck Gully. Staff discussed Mr. Burke's request with the Fire Department. The Fire Marshall said that the Fire Department would not support such a policy, stating that it could interfere with the removal of volatile vegetation. Policy 2.8.7 -1 specially calls for conducting hydrological studies of Big Canyon, Buck Gully, and Morning Canyon to develop methods to control erosion and other hazards. This and general erosion control policies provided elsewhere in the CLUP are adequate to address this issue. Section 3.1.5 Private /Gated Communities Page 3 -19 Policy 3.1.5 -1 and Policy 3.1.5 -2 prohibit developments with gates, guardhouses, barriers, or private streets if they have the potential to inhibit public coastal access. Commissioner Kiser requested revisions to these policies that would make them applicable only "when it has been determined by a court having jurisdiction that prescriptive rights exist ". Prescriptive rights refer to public rights that are acquired over private lands through use. Section 30211 of the Coastal Act states that "development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through use, or legislative authorization." When reviewing coastal development permits, the Coastal Commission is required to protect those areas of use where investigation shows that public use is substantial enough to create potential prescriptive rights. The City will assume this responsibility when the LCP is certified and coastal development permit authority is delegated to the City. Therefore, it will be the City's responsibility to determine if prescriptive rights exist, not the courts. The City's determination could be appealed to the Coastal Commission, since it would more than likely involve a property located in the appealable area of the coastal zone. Staff recommends against incorporating this revision. LCP Coastal Land Use Plan March 18, 2004 Page 7 Section 3.1.6 Preferential Parking Districts Page 3 -20 Policy 3.1.6 -2 requires a coastal development permit to establish new, or modify existing, preferential parking districts. Commissioner Kiser requested that this policy be removed, suggesting that it undermined the City's authority to approve preferential parking districts even if they conform to the policies of that section. This policy was specifically recommended by the Coastal Commission staff. It is intended to insure that consistency with the LCP is required in order to establish a new, or modify an existing, preferential parking district. Section 4.1.4 Eelgrass Meadows Staff received comments regarding what appears to be an inaccurate statement in Section 4.1.4. This section states that eelgrass meadows are considered a critical foraging habitat for California least tern. The City's biological consultant looked into the matter and replied that while least terns do regularly forage in eelgrass beds, eelgrass is not considered critical habitat for least terns. California least terns are opportunistic foragers, often feeding in the shallow waters of bays, which may or may not support eelgrass. California least terns typically forage on small schooling fish that occur both in and out of eelgrass beds, and do not require the presence of eelgrass in order to successfully or adequately forage. The biological consultant concluded that it would be appropriate to remove the sentence in question from this section. Section 4.1.5 Coastal Foredunes Page 4 -39 Commissioner Eaton expressed concern over the use of the word "encourage" in Policy 4.1.5 -1, which deals with the removal of exotic vegetation on the dune habitat. He recommended that this policy be more strongly worded. Should the Planning Commission wish to strengthen this policy, the world "encourage" could be replaced with "require." All recommended revisions and corrections to typographical errors are provided in Exhibit 1. Environmental Review Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposal is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15265(a) (1) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, and Chapter 3. LCP Coastal Land Use Plan March 18, 2004 Page 8 Public Notice: Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot and mailed to over 200 community and business associations, advocacy groups, governmental agencies, and individuals, a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Copies of the draft Coastal Land Use Plan are available for review at the Planning Department office at City Hall and at all branches of the Newport Beach Public Library. Copies are also available at the Planning Department office for a two -week loan or purchase. The entire draft Coastal Land Use Plan is also available in PDF format at the City of Newport Beach Internet site at httP:/1www.citv.newPort- beach.ca.us/Pin/LCPILCP.htm. Prepared by: Patrick J. Afford Senior Planner Exhibits: Submitted by: Patricia L. Temple Planning Director 1. Coastal Land Use Plan Revisions and Errata. 2. Draft resolution. 3. Correspondence. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM COASTAL LAND USE PLAN REVISIONS AND ERRATA MARCH 18, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Section 2.1.1: Revise the sixth paragraph under Planning Study Area 2 (Cannery Village) to read as follows: Cannery Village is highly subject to redevelopment pressures. The Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan regulates development in this area. In order to maintain the particularly "marine" atmosphere of the area, careful consideration should be given to all proposals for new development, especially in waterfront areas. Section 2.2.4: Delete repeated first paragraph of this section. Section 2.8.6: Revise Policy 2.8.6 -9 to read as follows: 2.8.6 -9. Require property owners to record a waiver of future shoreline protection for new development during the economic life of the structure (75 years) as a condition of approval of a coastal development permit for new development on a beach or shoreline that is subject to wave action, erosion, flooding, landslides, or other hazards associated with development on a beach or bluff. Shoreline protection may be permitted to protect existing structures that were legally constructed prior to the certification of the LCP, unless a waiver of future shoreline protection was required by a previous coastal development permit. Section 3.1.1: Delete repeated second paragraph on Page 3 -6. Exhibit 1 vl 1 Section 3.1.2: The third sentence of the fourth paragraph on Page 3 -12 should read "Newporter North View Park," not "Newport North View Park." Section 4.1.2: Revise the last two paragraphs on Page 4 -6 to read as follows: Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is a marine plant that grows in Newport Harbor at depths below the low tide line and into the navigational channels. This true marine grass forms meadows and attracts many invertebrates and fishes that use the vegetation as foraging and nursery habitat. Eelgrass is discussed in more detail in Section 4.1.4 (Eelgrass Meadows) and Section 4.2.5 (Eelgrass Protection and Restoration). The Newport Beach Marine Conservation Area is located along the Corona del Mar shoreline and extends 200 feet offshore. Numerous types of invertebrates, algae, seagrass, fishes, and seabirds occur within the limits of the refuge, and marine mammals occasionally pass through. The Newport Beach Marine Conservation Area is discussed further in Section 4.1.3 (Environmental Study Area 11). Section 4.1.2: Revise the Invasive Marine Species section to read as follows Invasive Marine Species Caulerpa taxifolia is an extremely harmful, invasive species that has recently been introduced into southern California waters. It has been located within Huntington Harbour and in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon in northern San Diego County. This species has a characteristic bright green color, flat, leafy fern -like fronds (branches), and below - ground root system. Caulerpa algae can be extremely harmful to marine ecosystems because it invades and out - competes native habitats by forming a dense blanket of growth on mud, sand, or rock surfaces. It can grow in shallow coastal lagoons as well as in deeper ocean waters, and can grow rapidly and up to 9 feet in length. However, its usual form observed so far is much smaller in length. The ecological consequences of the spread of this invasive algae can be extremely serious and can result in a significant loss of plant and animal productivity. Therefore, the spread of this species is being closely monitored and areas that have become infested are being treated chemically to eradicate any growth. The management, control, and eradication of this species is the responsibility of the Southern California Caulerpa Action Team (SCCAT). Exhibit 1 2 Newport Bay is not currently known to be infested by this species, however, continued surveillance for undetected or new infestations is a high priority to the SCCAT. Project site surveys for the presence of Caulerpa taxifolia are required by NOAA and CDFG prior to bottom - disturbing projects such as dredging, dock replacement, bulkhead repair. Assembly Bill 1334 (Chapter 338, Statutes of 2001) prohibits the sale, possession, and transport of Caulerpa taxifolia throughout California. The Bill also bans species of Caulerpa that look similar to C. taxifolia and are believed to have the capability to become invasive. The importation of the Mediterranean strain of Caulerpa taxifolia into the United States and interstate trade, including via the Internet, is also a federal offense under the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1999 and the Plant Protection Act of 2000. Section 4.1.2: Revise Policy 4.1.2 -6 to read as follows: 4.1.2 -6 Continue.to require Caulerpa protocol surveys as a condition of City approval of projects in the Newport Bay and immediately notify the SCCAT when found. Section 4.1.3: The policy numbering sequence should be set at 4.1.3, not 4.1.2. Section 4.1.3: Revise Policy 4.1.3 -1 (Q) to read as follows: 4.1.3 -1 (Q) Continue to require Caulerpa protocol surveys as a condition of City approval for projects in Newport Bay and immediately notify the SCCAT when found. Section 4.1.4: Revise first paragraph to read as follows: The flowering, marine vascular plant "eelgrass" (Zostera marina) is an important marine resource due to its nursery function for invertebrates and fishes. Eelgrass forms meadows on mudflats and subtidal sediments in bays, estuaries, and occasionally, in offshore marine sand bottom habitats. The meadows (and sub units called "beds" and "patches ") provide a habitat for invertebrates as a source of food and attachment, and for marine fishes that seek the shelter of the beds for protection and forage on invertebrates that colonize the eelgrass blades and sediments in and around eelgrass vegetation. Exhibit 1 3 Section 4.1.4: The policy numbering sequence should be set at 4.1.4, not 4.1.3. Section 4.1.4: Revise Policy 4.1.4 -5 to read as follows: 4.1.4 -5 Continue to require Caulerpa protocol surveys as a condition of City approval for projects in Newport Bay and immediately notify the SCCAT when found. Section 4.1.5: Revise Policy 4.1.5 -1 to read as follows: 4.1.5 -1. Require the removal of exotic vegetation and the restoration of native vegetation in dune habitat. Section 4.2.1: Revise Policy 4.2.1 -1 to read as follows: 4.2.1 -1. Recognize and protect wetlands for their commercial, recreational, water quality, and habitat value. Exhibit 1 4 RESOLUTION NO. _ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 2004001 (PA2003 -083) FOR A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES, AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The California Coastal Act of 1976 established policies relating to shoreline public access and recreation, lower cost visitor accommodations, terrestrial and marine habitat protection, visual resources, landform alteration, agricultural lands, commercial fisheries, industrial uses, water quality, offshore oil and gas development, transportation, development design, power plants, ports, and public works. Section 2. In order to achieve maximum responsiveness to local conditions, accountability, and public accessibility, the Coastal Act relies heavily on local government and local land use planning procedures and enforcement through the preparation of local coastal programs. Section 3. The Land Use Plan portion of City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program was adopted in 1981 and certified by the Coastal Commission in 1982. However, the Implementation Plan of the Local Coastal Program was never completed. Section 4. Senate Bill 516 amended the Coastal Act to require the City of Newport Beach to submit a local coastal program for all of the geographic area within the coastal zone and the city's corporate boundaries as of June 30, 2000 to the Coastal Commission for approval and certification. Section 5. A comprehensive update of the Land Use Plan is necessary before the Implementation Plan can be completed and the Local Coastal Program certified. Section 6. Public hearings on the proposed updated Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan were held on March 4, 2004 and March 18, 2004, in the City Hall Council Chamber, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting. 15 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 2 of 2 Section 7. The Planning Commission finds as follows: The proposed Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan indicates the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses and applicable resource protection and development policies. 2. The proposed Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan is intended to be carried out in a manner fully in conformity with the California Coastal Act. 3. The proposed Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200) of the California Coastal Act. 4. The Local Coastal Plan Amendment will not become effective until approval of the amendment by the Coastal Commission. 5. Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposal is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15265(a) (1) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, and Chapter 3. Section 8. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan by approving Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 2004 -001 (PA -2003- 093) with the revisions contained in attached Exhibit 1. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2004. AYES: NOES: BY: Earl McDaniel, Chairman BY: Michael Toerge, Secretary ,A Page 1 of 1 Alford, Patrick From: Bluhms2 @cs.com Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 12:34 PM To: palford @city .newport- beach.ca.us Cc: everette _phillips@yahoo.com; michols @coastwalk.org; gdpace@oox.net Subject: Newport Beach LCP Mr. Alford, Congratulations to you and your staff for assembling an excellent LCP. Coastwalk is particularly pleased to see policy 3.1.1 -9 that specifically mentions the Califomia Coastal Trail. In compliance with the Coastal Conservancy report, Completing the California Coastal Trail mandated by SB 908, it is important that the CCT be continuous, and be as close to the shoreline as possible. Coastwalk makes the following recommendations: 1. That the Coastal Trail route be shown along the beach from the Santa Ana River, connecting to the existing Ocean Front trail at 36th Street. 2. That diligent efforts be made to establish a Coastal Trail route in the southeast portion of Newport Beach that avoids exposure of pedestrians to high speed vehicular traffic along Highway 1, and connects to trails in Crystal Cove State Park. 3. Provide connections from the Coastal Trail to inland trails within the city, and to trails in adjacent jurisdictions Thank you for your consideration. Stan Bluhm Coastwalk, CCT Project Coordinator 310 -379 -1153 www.coastwalk.org t5 03/12/2004