HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS5 - Local Coastal Program Certification4 dEW
• u
�Rr
°gR,�aN`r
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
33 0 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92656
(949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644-3229
Hearing Date.
Agenda Item No.:
Staff Person:
STUDY SESSION
REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
December 11, 2001
ss5
Patrick J. Alford
(949) 644 -3235
SUBJECT' Local Coastal Program Certification
SUMMARY: Review of coastal policy issues identified by the California Coastal
Commission staff in its initial review of the City's Local Coastal
Program Land Use Plan.
ACTION: Provide City Council /Planning Commission oversight to staff in the
Local Coastal Program Certification process.
Background
On October 4, 2001, Governor Davis signed SB 516. This bill requires the City to submit
a Local Coastal Program (LCP) to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for approval
and certification on or before June 30, 2003. Certification of the LCP requires the
• submission of an implementation plan to the CCC. The implementation plan consists of
various ordinances that are adopted to implement the policies of the LCP Land Use Plan
(LUP).
On October 5, 2001, the CCC staff provided comments on the City's coastal - related
ordinances, policies and programs. The CCC staff focused on the LUP, which was
certified by the CCC in 1990. The CCC staff concluded that a comprehensive update of
the LUP is necessary.
The Coastal Act
The Coastal Act and the California Coastal Commission were established by voter
initiative in 1972 (Proposition 20) and made permanent by the Legislature in 1976. The
Coastal Act sets forth six major policies concerning coastal resource planning and
management:
Public Access. Sections 30210 to 30214 of the Coastal Act require that
public access and recreational opportunities be provided for all the people
of the state, that development not interfere with the public's right of
access, and that new development provide public access to the shoreline.
Recreation. Sections 30220 to 30224 of the Coastal Act protect areas for
water - oriented and oceanfront recreational uses; establish priority of
visitor - serving commercial recreational and coastal- dependent aquaculture
• over residential, general industrial, or general commercial development;
and encourages dry storage areas, public launching facilities, berthing •
spaces, and other facilities to support recreational boating.
Marine Management. Sections 30230 to 30237 of the Coastal Act require
the preservation, enhancement, and restoration of water and marine
resources, including coastal waters, streams, and wetlands.
Land Resources. Sections 30240 to 30244 of the Coastal Act provide for
the protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas, agricultural
lands, and archaeological and paleontological resources.
Development Sections 30250 to 30255 of the Coastal Act provide
criteria for the location of new development, the protection of scenic and
visual qualities of coastal areas and the preservation of special
communities, and require new development to minimize risks in areas of
high geologic, flood, and fire hazard and to prevent damage to bluffs and
cliffs, and limit the construction or expansion of public works facilities to
the capacity required to provide service to only those uses permitted by
the Coastal Act.
Industrial Development. Sections 30260 to 30265.5 of the Coastal Act
establish criteria for coastal- dependent industrial facilities, tanker
facilities, oil and gas development, refineries, and electric generating
plants.
The Coastal Commission •
The Coastal Commission consists of the following 16 members:
• The Secretary of the Resources Agency.
• The Secretary of the Business and Transportation Agency.
• . The Secretary of Trade and Commerce.
• The Chairperson of the State Lands Commission.
• Six representatives of the public from the state at large.
The six at -large representatives are selected from six coastal regions:
• North Coast The Counties of Del Norte, Humboldt, and Mendocino.
• North Central Coast. The Counties of Sonoma and Marin and the City
and County of San Francisco.
• Central Coast. The Counties of San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Monterey.
■ South Central Coast. The Counties of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara,
and Ventura.
• South Coast. The Counties of Los Angeles and Orange. •
• San Diego Coast. The County of San Diego. _
LCP Certification
December 11, 2001
Page 2
• The Governor, the Senate Committee on Rules, and the Speaker of the Assembly each
appoint two of these members. The Governor selects one member from the North
Coast Region and one member from the South Central Coast Region. The Speaker of
the Assembly selects one member from the Central Coast Region and one member from
the San Diego Coast Region. The Senate Committee on Rules selects one member from
the North Central Coast Region and one member from the South Coast Region.
Local Coastal Programs
Implementation of Coastal Act policies is accomplished primarily through the
preparation of LCPs, reviewed and approved by the CCC. An LCP includes a land use
plan, which is the relevant portion of the local general plan, including any maps
necessary to administer it, and the zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and other
legal instruments necessary to implement the land use plan. Coastal Act policies are the
standards by which the CCC evaluates the adequacy of LCPs. Amendments to certified
LUPs and LCPs only become effective after approval by the CCC. To ensure that coastal
resources are effectively protected in light of changing circumstances, such as new
information and changing development pressures and impacts, the CCC is required to
review each certified LCP at least once every five years.
After certification of an LCP, coastal development permit authority is delegated to the
appropriate local government. The CCC retains original permit jurisdiction over certain
specified lands (public trust lands such as tidelands) and has appellate authority over
• development approved by local government in specified geographic areas.
Discussion
As stated earlier, the CCC staff concluded that a comprehensive update of the LUP is
necessary in order to proceed with the implementation plan for the certification of the
LCP. The CCC staff gave the City the option of either submitting an updated LUP as a
separate application or submitting it concurrently with the implementation plan.
The CCC staff outlined a number of issues that need to be addressed in the update of
the LUP. The key issues are summarized as follows:
Parking. The CCC staff would like to see stronger policies and implementing
ordinances to insure that there is adequate on -site parking with new development. The
CCC staff's position is that the on- street parking and public parking lots should be
reserved for visitors of the Coastal Zone. This could affect parking management
programs being developed for the Peninsula's and Corona del Mar commercial districts,
if they rely on public parking lots and on- street parking to help serve needs for
commercial businesses. The CCC staff would also like to see restrictions on curb cuts to
protect on- street parking.
Residential Parking Permits. The CCC staff would like to see policies prohibiting
preferential parking districts.
LCP Certification
December 11, 2001
Page 3
Environmentally Sensitive Habitats. The City will need to identify environmentally
sensitive habitats and adopt ordinances to restrict development adjacent to these areas. •
This may require additional zoning regulations on single - family residential areas
adjacent to areas such as Buck Gully and Morning Canyon. The CCC staff would also
like to see policies regarding the protection and restoration of Eelgrass habitat
throughout Newport Harbor and the restoration of dune habitat areas near the Santa
Ana River mouth and at the end of the Balboa Peninsula.
Coastal Bluffs. The CCC staff would like to see property development regulations
restricting the type, location, and Intensity of development on coastal bluffs. This
includes a broader definition for coastal bluffs, which could affect development in
Corona del Mar, Mariner's Mile, Newport- Banning Ranch, and areas surrounding Upper
Newport Bay.
Hazard Areas. The CCC staff would like to see stronger policies relating to areas that
are subject to flooding, bluff instability, and /or erosion. Generally, the CCC staff would
like to see development restricted in a manner that would avoid the necessity of
protective devices, such as seawalls and retaining walls.
Water Quality. The CCC staff would like to see the water quality polices of the LUP
updated and revised to be consistent with current water quality standards.
Coastal Views. The CCC staff would like to see the City adopt comprehensive policies to
restrict development to protect and preserve all public views to and along the shoreline.
Public Access. The CCC staff would like to see the public access policies expanded to •
address private islands and gated communities in the Coastal Zone. The CCC staff
would also like to see restrictions on private dock development to insure that it does
not impede lateral coastal access. In an earlier meeting with CCC staff, they indicated
application of these policies only to projects involving significant changes or new
development would be acceptable.
Harbor Element. The CCC staff would like to see the policies of Harbor and Bay Element
integrated into the LUP.
Since many of these issues may require significant policy and procedural changes, staff
believes that some form of oversight by the Planning Commission and City Council
would be appropriate.
•
LCP Certification
December 11, 2001
Page 4
•
•
•
Recommendation
Discuss the CCC staff comments and provide direction staff. The Planning Commission
and City Council may wish to consider forming a steering committee consisting of
representatives of the Planning Commission and City Council to provide oversight and
direction to staff during the LCP Certification process.
Submitted by: Prepared by:
SHARON Z. WOOD PATRICK J. ALFORD
Assistant City Manager Senior Planner
Exhibit
October 5, 2001 letter from the CCC staff.
LCP Certification
December 11, 2001
Page 5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast Area Office
200 Oceangate, Suite 1000
Long Beach, CA 90802 -4302 -
(562) 590 -5071
October 5, 2001
Patrick J. Alford
Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard —P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
RE: Newport Beach LCP Certification Efforts
Dear Mr. Alford:
Thank you for submitting the package of "Coastal - related Ordinances, Policies, and Programs"
received September 7, 2001. These items are helpful in assessing the City's current coastal
management policies and determining the next steps in the City's efforts to receive certification of
the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP).
Of primary importance is the adequacy of the City's certified Land Use Plan (LUP). The LUP was
originally certified by the Commission in 1990 and has yet to undergo a comprehensive update. As
specified by Section 30519.5 (a) of the Coastal Act,
The commission shall, from time to time, but at least once every rive years after
certification, review every certified local coastal program to determine whether such
program is being effectively implemented in conformity with the policies of this division. if •
the commission determines that a certified local coastal program is not being carried out in
conformity with any policy of this division it shall submit to the affected local government
recommendations of corrective actions that should be taken. Such recommendations may
include recommended amendments to the affected local government's local coastal
program.
The standard of review for the Implementation Plan (IP) will be whether it effectively carries out the
LUP. if the current LUP does not include all of the necessary policies and issue areas, the
Implementation Plan will not serve its intended purpose. Based on our review of the LUP, we
recommend that the City undertake a comprehensive update of the LUP through a Land Use Plan
Amendment (LUPA). This can be done either prior to, or concurrently with, the I submittal.
The comments provided below identify preliminary concerns which Coastal Commission staff
believes should be addressed as the City initiates efforts to receive LCP certification. The
comments are broken into three categories —Issue Areas, Geographic Areas and Administration.
ISSUE AREAS
Circulation and Parkin
Section 30211 of the Coastal Act mandates that development shall not interfere with the public's
right of access to the sea. Section 30252 of the Coastal Act requires that new development should
maintain and enhance public access to the coast by providing adequate parking. When new
development does not provide adequate on -site parking, users of that development are forced to
occupy public parking that could be used by visitors to the coast.
Policies 7 and 8 on page 13 can be enhanced to include language which promotes parking lots •
that serve a specific amount, or square footage, of commercial deveiopment. The LUr should
encourage private developers to coordinate with the City on new development projects to provide
Page 2 of 7
•adequate off - street parking to serve commercial development and to preserve on- street Darkinq for
visitors to the coast. Additionally, the LUP should include a policy to prohibit the establishmerif of
preferential parking districts.
Policy 7 ties required parking to the City's Zoning Code. As will be discussed in Section 3 of this
letter, the reference to the Zoning Code should be removed from the LUP unless the Zoning Code
becomes certified by the Commission.
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA)
The policies provided in the "Environmentally Sensitive Areas" section of the LUP are inadequate
for long -term protection of sensitive resources. Policies must be incorporated which are consistent
with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act. which states
(a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant
disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be
allowed within those areas.
(b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and
recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly
degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and
recreation areas.
ESHA policy 2 gives the City Council and/or Planning Commission the ability to determine the
existence of an ESHA regardless of Coastal Act standards or Coastal Commission input. The
policy references using an EIR for a basis of whether a particular area is an ESHA, but not
everything the Coastal Commission may determine to be an ESHA (based on scientific standards)
• is affiliated with an EIR.
Policy 3 on page 20 is written too broadly and could be interpreted in a manner inconsistent with
Section 30233 of the Coastal Act. As currently written, the policy may allow public works and utility
projects to completely degrade a sensitive area, such as a wetland, if it were "mitigated." This
would be inconsistent with Section 30233, which limits diking, filling, or dredging to eight
enumerated uses and allows only incidental public service purposes.
The Coastal Act requires that new
(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.
The City's LUP currently lacks adequate development standards for the kinds, locations and
intensity of development allowed at coastal bluff sites. While page 25 of the "Development of
Coastal Bluff Sites" section contains acceptable language on standards for development of coastal
buff sites, most of the requirements (beginning with 2a on page 26 through 2f on page 27) only
apply to new tracts and new subdivisions and only for 4 or more units. Additionally, Policy 2e on
page 27 discusses appropriate landscaping and watering techniques on and adjacent to bluffs, but
there is no comparable policy for development other than subdivisions of 4 or more units.
• in some instances, the LUP establishes setback standards for the various neighborhood areas
(page 62 -63) from the property line. This is not protective enough of coastal bluffs, as 25 feet from
the rear property line could still be located on the bluff face. The LUP should contain language that
d
Page 3 of 7
clarifies what this standard means on the ground. Policy 2a on page 26 is preferable because it
defines the setback from a physical feature (the bluff edge), rather than from the property line. •
However, the definition of "bluff" needs to be re- visited, as the basis for definition differs from that
typically applied by the Coastal Commission. When approving development with a blufftop
setback, the Commission typically applies the standard set forth in Section 13577 paragraph (h), of
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations to determine where the bluff edge is located. Section
13577 states, in relevant part:
"Bluff line or edge shall be defined as the upper termination of a bluff, cliff,' or seac /iff. In
cases where the top edge of the cliff is rounded away from the face of the cliff as a result of
erosional processes related to the presence of the steep cliff, the bluff line or edge shall be
defined as that point nearest the cliff beyond which the downward gradient of the surface
increases more or less continuously until it reaches the general gradient of the cliff. Ina
case where there is a steplike feature at the top of the cliff face, the landward edge of the
topmost riser shall be taken to be the cliff edge."
The LUP does not contain clear language regarding development on the bluff face (such as
stairways to the beach). While Policy 1b on page 25 discusses grading at coastal bluff sites, the
policy does not go far enough to establish what is allowable and what is not. Specifically, in
Corona del Mar, there has been recent concern over development on or adjacent to the bluff face.
The LUP should contain policies that address this geographic area in detail. As stated on page 61,
Corona del Mar South was to be the subject of a "development standards study." However, to the
best of our knowledge, this has yet to be carried out.
Hazards / Wave UDrush I Protective Devices
At present, the "Hazard Areas" section of the City's LUP does not contain a definitive policy to •
assess the need for future structural protective devices, nor does it prohibit construction of these
structures if they are not required to protect an existing structure. Consistent with Section 30235 of
the Coastal Act, the City's LUP should incorporate a policy requiring the following:
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.
The LUP should contain specific policies to address development in potentially hazardous areas
(i.e. subject to flooding, bluff instability and /or erosion) such as on Galaxy Drive, near Buck Gully,
Corona Del Mar, and beach fronting sites. Language should be added to the effect that
development be sited and designed to avoid the necessity of a protective structure for the
economic life of the structure. This would apply to both waterfront development and blufftop
development. Technical reports should be submitted by the applicant to document that the site is
not currently subject to hazard, and to verify that the need for a protective device is not anticipated.
The LUP does not include a discussion of private seawalls and their impacts on shoreline
processes, public access or habitat impacts. Additionally, there is no policy guidance to address
proposals in the lower Newport Harbor area to construct seawalls and backfilled yard areas. LUP
policies should specifically discourage the installation of new bulkheads which would allow people
to enlarge their back yards. Policies should also be included which address the need to analyze
wave uprush hazards to new development. •
Policy 2 on page 27 should be revised. As currently worded, the policy allows mitigation for
adverse impacts in a hazardous area. This policy, as well as others, should be revised to require
a
Page 4 of 7
•avoidance of the impact, rather than mitigation. For example, a retaining wall would be mitigation
for building in a hazardous area. The policy should be revised to require that development be sited
and designed to avoid the necessity for a retaining wall.
The LUP should contain policies requiring that development near floodplains be sited and designed
to avoid the floodplain and that encroachments into floodplains be removed. Policy 3 on page 27
does not provide policy direction for regulating development. The policy should include language
comparable to the following: "Based on the results of the hydrologic analysis, development shall be
sited and designed to avoid the floodplain."
Water Quality
As currently written, the LUP lacks policies which effectively incorporate Sections 30230 and
30231 of the Coastal Act.
Section 30230 states,
Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. Special
protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or economic
significance. Uses of the marine environment shall be carried out in a manner that will
sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy
populations of all species of marine organisms adequate for long -term commercial,
recreational, scientific, and educational purposes.
Section 30231 states,
The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries,
• and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the
protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through,
among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and
entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and
substantial interference with surface water flow, encouraging waste water reclamation,
maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing
alteration of natural streams.
The "Water Quality" section of the LUP needs to be updated and significantly revised to be
consistent with current water quality standards. The section is now considered inadequate and
out -of -date, as it only deals with boats in the water and not the impacts of inland development on
water quality (i.e. non -point source pollution). LUP policies should be incorporated which
encourage on -site treatment, infiltration, etc. In addition, the policies should recommend that
public works projects include catch basin inserts and low flow diversion to sewer treatment plants.
Policy 3 on page 25 should be deleted, as it appears to be a primarily political statement.
However, it could be revised to oppose development that would have defined adverse impacts.
Additionally, as worded, the LCP would not apply for development in areas where the Commission
has original jurisdiction and the Federal government owns the oil and gas resources.
Coastal Views
The LUP should include policies which effectively protect scenic and visual resources throughout
the City. The Coastal Views section beginning on page 28 is written in a somewhat narrow
manner, focusing on specific viewpoints, rather than visual resources in general. The LUP policies
should be modified to protect and preserve all public views to and along the shoreline. Also,
• policies for dealing with cellular phone antennas and billboards should be added to the LUP.
E
Page 5 of 7
Public Access •
The "Public Access" section of the LUP focuses on existing public resources. There is no
discussion about the private islands /private communities located throughout the City. These areas
should be discussed and policies,on access to those areas should be established. Also, there
should be policies concerning the prohibition of new and the removal of all existing unpermitted
signs prohibiting public access to public shoreline areas. All of the pocket parks on City -owned
land on Lido Isle which have 'yorresidents only" signs appear to be inconsistent with the policies
listed under "Public Property Leaseholds' on pages 7 -8 of the LUP. The policies of the LUP should
more pro - actively require advertisement of public access. For instance, the LUP should contain
policies requiring that any new public property leasehold include a signage requirement that
encourages, rather than discourages, public access to the property.
In addition, an LUP policy should be added to specify that private boat dock development that
crosses public land (including beaches) shall be designed not to obstruct lateral public access.
Curb Cuts
One issue that has come up recently involves proposals to change the garage access on single -
family homes located at the street ends. In some cases, applicants want to change the garage
access from an alley access to a street end access. This requires curb cuts which impact the
availability of public parking spaces at the street ends. The public access policies of the LUP
should include a policy which discourages any new curb cuts which result in any loss of public
parking spaces. In addition, the LUP should encourage changing any existing street end garage
accesses to an alley access so that precious curb space can be used for more on- street public
parking.
Dune Restoration
Sand dunes exist near the Santa Ana River mouth and at the end of the Balboa Peninsula. The •
majority of these are currently covered in ice plant and non - natives. LUP policies should
encourage restoration of these dune habitat areas.
Docks and Piers
Many of the policies of the Harbor and Bay Element should be integrated into the LUP. In addition,
LUP policies regarding use of T- piles, restricting uses of pier platforms, etc. should be
implemented.
Eelgrass
The LUP should include policies should encourage avoiding impacts to eelgrass and restoring
habitat throughout the Newport Harbor.
Non conforming structures
There should be an LUP policy which addresses when a non - conforming structure must be made
to conform to current standards. The policy should reference a definition of "new development" to
be used in determining when conformance is required.
2. GEOGRAPHIC AREAS
Oceanfront Encroachments
Recently, the City applied for a CDP to re- construct several street ends in the northern part of the
City. The reconstruction would include landscaping and at least 2 metered public parking spaces.
This street reconstruction is part of the mitigation program set up under the "Oceanfront
Encroachments" part of the LUP. The LUP policies require at least 2 parking spaces per street
end. However, circumstances at 61 st Street presented problems for the City and your engineering •
staff only offered to provide one space at this street end and -in lieu of the second space at 61st
street, provide a third space at one of the other street ends. Commission staff thought the City
could make some adjustments that would allow 2 spaces at 61st Street, however, the City was
is
Page 6 of 7
•reluctant to make the adjustments. Commission staff then told the City that if they only wanted to
provide one space at 61st Street, the LUP would need to be amended because the LUP very
specifically requires a minimum of 2 spaces per street end. Ultimately, the City withdrew their
proposal for 61st Street and nothing has happened since. No LUP amendment was submitted.
Staff would encourage that the 61St Street parking issue be included as part of a comprehensive
update.
Semeniuk Slough
Permits applications have recently been processed for houses along Semeniuk Slough adjacent to
the Santa Ana River. During a site visit, staff noticed that many houses along the slough have
small docks (for paddle boats assumedly since there is no large boat access) and various patio
encroachments into the slough. Semeniuk Slough is a wetland that should be preserved and
protected. Property owners should be required to remove unpermitted patios and various half -
sunken docks. There should be improved development standards in the LUP regarding prohibition
of encroachments into this slough and other sensitive wetland areas.
Back Bay Drive
Several recent City /County projects have included impacts to wetlands found within a drainage
ditch that runs along Back Bay Drive. After much negotiation between the City and Commission
staffs for the permits, these projects were re- designed to avoid wetland impacts. The City should
consider the inclusion of LUP policies specifically requiring minimization /avoidance of habitat
impacts along Back Bay Drive. Policies should discourage the build it/pave ittgrade it approach to
public works design and encourage avoidance of impacts. The LUP should address appropriate
mitigation for impacts (when impacts are unavoidable and least environmentally damaging).
Uooer Newport Bav
•Based on past permit applications for stabilization devices and bluff repairs, the bluffs along all of
Upper Newport Bay seem to be suffering from inadeqaute landscaping and irrigation practices at
the top of the bluff. More restrictive LUP policies regarding minimization of irrigation and use of
natives should be instituted. LUP policies should also encourage retreat from the bluff edge.
Perhaps the LUP could establish variances from street -side setback requirements when a larger
setback on the bluff side is needed. Also, policies should be included in the LUP which discourage
any private encroachments into the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, including blufftop
protective devices. The LUP should also require removal of encroachments into the Upper
Newport Bay ecological reserve.
Categorical Exclusion Areas
The LUP should clearly define and graphically depict the areas included under Categorical
Exclusion E -77 -5, adopted by the Commission on June 14, 1977, including Shorecliff, Corona Del
Mar South, and Corona Highlands. Due to unclear information, there has been recent confusion in
the issuance of approvals in the Buck Gully area.
Annexation Areas
The proposed Newport Coast annex area LCP should be integrated with the remainder of the
City's LCP. In addition, any proposed annexations, such as the Santa Ana Heights and Banning
Ranch, should be addressed.
3. ADMINISTRATION
Organization and Language
Policies should be numbered in a manner that differentiates between each section. For example,
.the "Public Access" policies start at 1 as do the "Public Property Leaseholds" policies. This makes
citing the policies difficult. For easier reference, a progressive numbering system would be
preferable (for example, 1.1 for Public Access, 2.1 for Public Property Leaseholds, etc.)
Page 7 of 7
Policies which utilize the word "consider" should be revised to either "encourage" or "discourage" a
particular activity. To simply "consider" does not provide policy direction. Similarly, policies which •
simply call for "coordination" should be avoided. Additionally, use of the word "mitigation" should
be applied carefully. As currently applied in the LUP, "mitigation" may allow development to occur
in a hazardous or ESHA area. Projects should be sited and designed to the maximum extent
feasible to avoid impacts.
Definitions
There is no "Definitions" or "Glossary" section in the LUP. There are some Coastal Act definitions
provided throughout the document; however, a "Definitions" section is necessary to define all
relevant Coastal Act terms and other locally applicable terms to eliminate any possible confusion
(for things such as environmentally sensitive habitat areas, wetlands, development, etc.).
Reference of Outside Documents
Policy 7 on page 13 and Policy 1 d on page 26 both refer to the City's zoning code or the municipal
code. The City should amend the LUP to remove the reference to these documents and instead
insert the actual standards into the LUP. The reason being, if the City were to make changes to
the code, even for things that the Coastal Act is not concerned with, they would have to get an LUP
amendment from the Commission. Also, the standards of the zoning and municipal code that are
referred to in the existing LUP are only those that were in effect at the time of the Commission's
action on the LUP. Therefore, any subsequent changes are not recognized by the Commission.
When the LUP references other documents, they become a part of the LUP. Consequently, if the
other documents are revised, they must also be submitted to the Commission as an LUP
amendment. Policies which reference other documents must be revised to clarify that changes to
other documents such as the Master Plan of Streets and Highways must be submitted to the
Commission as an LUP amendment. Another approach is to word references to other documents •
in the following manner: "Implement the City of Newport Beach Master Plan of Streets and
Highways consistent with the policies of the City of Newport Beach LUP."
LUP Inconsistencies with Other City Documents
The City should update the LUP so that it is consistent with any adopted specific plans, etc.. For
example, there is an area of the Balboa Peninsula where the City's specific planizoning ordinance
is inconsistent with the certified LUP.
Maps and Graphics
Future LCP submittals should include clear graphic depiction of areas within the Coastal Zone
under the City's LCP jurisdiction.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input into the development of the City's Implementation
Plan and possible Land Use Plan amendment. Again, this letter does not constitute a
comprehensive or final review of the existing LUP, but is intended to provide the City with initial
issuesiareas where we feel a comprehensive LUP amendment would be very useful. If you have
any questions, feel free to call me at (562) 590 -5071.
Sincerely,
Anne L. Kramer
Coastal Program Analyst
cc: File
•
IL"i