G CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

3y ago
48 Views
2 Downloads
2.40 MB
69 Pages
Last View : 9d ago
Last Download : 4m ago
Upload by : Joao Adcock
Transcription

STATE OF CALIFORNIA – NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCYEDMUND G. BROWN, JR., G OVERNORCALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSIONSouth Coast Area Office200 Oceangate, Suite 1000Long Beach, CA 90802-4302(562) 590-5071Th25bJanuary 23, 2015TO:Commissioners and Interested PersonsFROM:John Ainsworth, Deputy DirectorCharles Posner, Supervisor of PlanningErin Prahler, Coastal Program AnalystRE:Amendment Request No. 2-13 (LCP-5-LOB-13-0229-2) to the City of Long Beach LocalCoastal Program, for Commission Action at its February 12, 2015 meeting in Pismo Beach.Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-13The Coastal Commission certified the City of Long Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP) on July 22,1980. Amendment Request No. 2-13 would amend the City’s Zoning Code provisions relating to theregulation of: 1) home occupations; 2) check cashing; 3) fortunetelling; 4) secondhand dealers; and 5)cottage food operations. The LCP amendment request affects only the LCP Implementation Plan (LIP)portion of the certified LCP and does not propose any rezoning or land use changes.The proposed changes to the City’s zoning code are contained in City Council Ordinance Nos. ORD-120011 Home Occupations, ORD-13-0018 Check Cashing, ORD-13-0025 Fortunetelling, ORD-13-0026Secondhand Dealers, and ORD-13-0027 Cottage Food Operations (See Exhibits). The LCP amendmentrequest was submitted for Commission certification by City Council Resolution Nos. RES-12-0046,RES-13-0113, and RES-14-0116. The City held at least two public hearings for each ordinance. TheLCP amendment request was deemed submitted on December 26, 2013. The Commission granted a oneyear time extension on February 13, 2014.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONThe standard of review for the proposed amendment to the LCP Implementing Ordinances (LIP),pursuant to Sections 30513 and 30514 of the Coastal Act, is that the proposed LIP amendment conformswith, and is adequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified Land Use Plan (LUP). The changesproposed in this LCP amendment are minor changes that make the zoning ordinances and the certifiedIP more specific and do not include any substantial changes that would affect coastal resources, and allof the proposed changes are consistent with the certified LUP. However, some of the proposed changesrestrict the location where certain uses (e.g., check cashing) can be permitted. Because the location ofcertain uses is affected by the proposed changes to the LIP, this amendment is categorized as majorrather than minor, even though the proposed amendment does not raise any significant coastal issues.Staff is recommending that the Commission, after public hearing, certify the LCP amendment request assubmitted. The motion to accomplish this recommendation is on Page Two.Page 1 of 4

City of Long Beach LCP Amendment No. 2-13Page 2I.MOTION AND RESOLUTIONMotion:I move that the Commission reject Amendment No. 2-13 to the City of Long BeachImplementing Ordinances as submitted by the City."Staff recommends a NO vote. Failure of this motion will result in certification of the ImplementationProgram as submitted and the adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion passesonly by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present.Resolution to Certify the LIP Amendment as SubmittedThe Commission hereby certifies Amendment Request No. 2-13 to the LCP ImplementingOrdinances for the City of Long Beach as submitted and adopts the findings set forth below ongrounds that the Implementing Ordinances conform with, and are adequate to carry out, theprovisions of the certified Land Use Plan. Certification of the Implementing Ordinancescomplies with the California Environmental Quality Act, because either 1) feasible mitigationmeasures and/or alternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen any significantadverse effects of the Implementation Program on the environment, or 2) there are no furtherfeasible alternatives and mitigation measures that would substantially lessen any significantadverse impacts on the environment.II. FINDINGSA.Description of the LCP Amendment RequestThe proposed changes to the certified LCP related to regulation of home occupations are attached inExhibit #1 (Ordinance No. ORD-12-0011 Home Occupations). The proposed LCP amendmentrestructures Section 21.51.235 of the Municipal Code to allow for a wider variety of home-basedbusinesses in residential zones and continues to allow operation of home businesses that are incidental tothe use of the dwelling unit and do not change the residential character or use of the dwelling unit andneighborhood where these businesses are permitted. The amended language of Section 21.51.235replaces Table 51-2 listing specific permitted and prohibited uses. Finally, the proposed amendmentincludes a list of prohibited businesses that are not compatible with residential areas, including uses suchas auto repair, medical or dental offices, welding or machine operation.The proposed changes to the certified LCP related to check cashing are attached in Exhibit #2 (ORD-130018 Check Cashing). The LCP amendment related to check cashing and other financial uses updatesthe regulations to require performance standards, impose consumer education conditions, distinguish anumber of financial services, require a Conditional Use Permit for operation of a check cashing or otherfinancial services business, impose a minimum distance between such businesses, and prohibit operationof check cashing or other financial service businesses within residential neighborhoods and somecommercial zones. Check cashing uses would be “Not Permitted” in the CNP, CNA and CNRcommercial zones.The amendment also changes the definition of ‘check cashing’ and adds definitions for ‘bank,’ ‘car titleloans,’ ‘commercial loans,’ ‘consumer loans,’ ‘money orders,’ ‘money transfers,’ ‘mortgage brokers,’‘pawnbroker,’ ‘pay day loans,’ ‘realtor,’ and ‘secondhand dealer.’ The proposed amendment imposeslimits on the number and location of such businesses. Tables 32-1, 32-1A, 33-2, and the Use DistrictTables of PD-25 and PD-29 are amended to capture the Conditional Use Permit requirements or

City of Long Beach LCP Amendment No. 2-13Page 3prohibition of check cashing and other financial services businesses in commercial and industrial zones.Neither PD-25 or PD-29 (Planned Development Districts) are located in the coastal zone. The proposedamendment imposes special development standards on check cashing and other financial servicesbusinesses (where such uses are permitted), including conditions related to signage, landscaping,security, and lighting requirements.The proposed amendment limits the location of certain financial services businesses within the City bychanging check cashing, payday lending, car title lending, and other financial uses from a ConditionalUse to a use not allowed in all neighborhood-oriented commercial zones (CNP, CNA, and CNR), PD-6,PD-25, PD-29 or PD-30 or in industrial zoning districts. Finally, the proposed amendment prohibits thelocation of these businesses within a 1,320 foot radius of an approved check cashing, payday loan, cartitle loan, signature loan or other financial services business. These changes will enable the City toseparate these uses from residential properties. The proposed changes make the City’s check cashingand other financial services businesses regulations more specific and will not result in any adverseimpacts to coastal resources.The proposed changes to the certified LCP related to fortunetelling are attached in Exhibit #3 (ORD-130025 Fortunetelling). The proposed LCP amendment removes the requirement for a Conditional UsePermit. It also amends Tables 32-1 and 32-1A and the Use District Tables of PD-25, PD-29, and PD-32(none of these three Planned Development Districts are located in the coastal zone) to allowfortunetelling in commercial zones in the same manner as personal services. Ordinance No. ORD-130025 makes further changes to the Business License Title of the City’s Municipal Code, includingremoval of outdated, unclear and offensive language and the requirement for a 250,000 bond andbackground check, which is not part of the certified LIP. The proposed changes will make the City’sfortunetelling regulations more specific and will not result in any substantial changes in the kind,location, intensity or density of uses allowed in commercial zones.The proposed changes to the certified LCP related to secondhand dealer and ‘cash for gold’ businessesare attached in Exhibit #4 (ORD-13-0026 Secondhand Dealers). The proposed LCP amendment repealsSection 21.15.2401 deleting the definition of ‘secondhand dealer,’ amends Section 21.15.2008 to replacethe term ‘pawnbroker’ with ‘pawnshop’ and captures ‘cash for gold’ businesses within the definition of‘pawnshop.’ Ordinance No. ORD-13-0026 makes further changes to the Business License Title of theCity’s Municipal Code, including modifying the definition of ‘secondhand dealer’ to capture ‘cash forgold’ businesses, which is not part of the certified LIP. The proposed changes will clarify the City’ssecondhand dealer regulations and will not result in any substantial changes in the kind, location,intensity or density of uses.The proposed changes to the certified LCP related to cottage foods are attached in Exhibit #5 (ORD-130027 Cottage Food Operations). The proposed LCP amendment amends Section 21.51.235 (HomeOccupations) to include a definition of cottage food operations within the framework of permitted homebased businesses and impose standards, restrictions and requirements on cottage food operations. Theamendment is being made in response to a change in State law (AB 1616) requiring cities to permit thistype of use in residences. The proposed changes will clarify the City’s home occupations regulationsrelating to cottage food operations and will not result in any adverse impacts to coastal resources.

City of Long Beach LCP Amendment No. 2-13Page 4B.Consistency with the Certified Land Use PlanThe standard of review for the proposed amendment to the LCP Implementing Ordinances (LIP),pursuant to Sections 30513 and 30514 of the Coastal Act, is that the proposed LIP amendment conformswith, and is adequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified Land Use Plan (LUP). The certifiedLUP sets forth policies to control development, protect coastal resources, and enhance shoreline access.The certified LUP states: “Public Policy and land use decisions should be used to help preserve existingviable neighborhoods.” [Locating and Planning New Development – LCP Policies Page 36]. Thepurpose of the proposed changes to the zoning ordinance is to control development and protect existingneighborhoods. The changes proposed in this LCP amendment are minor changes that make the zoningordinances and the certified IP more specific and do not include any substantial changes that wouldadversely affect coastal resources. All of the proposed changes conform with, and are adequate to carryout, the provisions of the certified LUP.C.California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)The City of Long Beach is the lead agency for the purposes of California Environmental Quality Actreview of the proposed LCP amendment. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)and the California Code of Regulations [Title 14, Sections 13540(f), 13542(a), 13555(b)] theCommission's certification of this LCP amendment must be based in part on a finding that it isconsistent with CEQA Section 21080.5(d)(2)(A). That section of the Public Resources Code requiresthat the Commission’s regulatory program require that a proposal not be approved or adopted if there arefeasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen anysignificant adverse effect which the activity may have on the environment.The Commission finds that, for the reasons discussed in this report, the proposed LCP amendmentcomplies with the California Environmental Quality Act because: 1) feasible mitigation measures and/oralternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the plan onthe environment, and 2) there are no further feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that wouldsubstantially lessen any significant adverse impacts which the LCP Amendment may have on theenvironment. The Commission finds that the proposed LCP amendment will be consistent with Section21080.5(d)(2)(A) of the Public Resources Code.

Exhibit 1Page 1 of 7

Exhibit 1Page 2 of 7

Exhibit 1Page 3 of 7

Exhibit 1Page 4 of 7

Exhibit 1Page 5 of 7

Exhibit 1Page 6 of 7

Exhibit 1Page 7 of 7

Exhibit 2Page 1 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 2 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 3 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 4 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 5 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 6 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 7 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 8 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 9 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 10 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 11 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 12 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 13 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 14 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 15 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 16 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 17 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 18 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 19 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 20 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 21 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 22 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 23 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 24 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 25 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 26 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 27 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 28 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 29 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 30 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 31 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 32 of 33

Exhibit 2Page 33 of 33

Exhibit 3Page 1 of 20

Exhibit 3Page 2 of 20

Exhibit 3Page 3 of 20

Exhibit 3Page 4 of 20

Exhibit 3Page 5 of 20

Exhibit 3Page 6 of 20

Exhibit 3Page 7 of 20

Exhibit 3Page 8 of 20

Exhibit 3Page 9 of 20

Exhibit 3Page 10 of 20

Exhibit 3Page 11 of 20

Exhibit 3Page 12 of 20

Exhibit 3Page 13 of 20

Exhibit 3Page 14 of 20

Exhibit 3Page 15 of 20

Exhibit 3Page 16 of 20

Exhibit 3Page 17 of 20

Exhibit 3Page 18 of 20

Exhibit 3Page 19 of 20

Exhibit 3Page 20 of 20

Exhibit 4Page 1 of 3

Exhibit 4Page 2 of 3

Exhibit 4Page 3 of 3

Exhibit 5Page 1 of 2

Exhibit 5Page 2 of 2

RE: Amendment Request No. 2-13 (LCP-5-LOB-13-0229-2) to the City of Long Beach Local Coastal Program, for Commission Action at its February 12, 2015 meeting in Pismo Beach. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-13 . The Coastal Commission certified the City of Long Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP) on July 22, 1980.

Related Documents:

AND INTRODUCTION TO ADAPTATION South Imperial Beach, TRNERR . Overview of Presentation Coastal Commission 4/14/2015 2 California Coastal Commission and Coastal Act Coastal Commission’s Draft Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance . SLR is at faster rate than region North of Cape Mendocino .

to address Louisiana's massive coastal land loss problem and provide for a sustainable coastal ecosystem by the year 2050. These three documents are:! Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana, ! Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana, An Executive Summary, ! Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana, The Appendices.

Landscape Guidelines For approved design guidelines, tree, and plant species see section 10. 3.0 ARCHITECTURAL STYLE The architectural style of all structures shall be that of Modern Coastal. History & Character The Modern Coastal takes its heritage from the Coastal Farmhouse, Classic Coastal, Coastal Shingle, and Coastal Plantation styles.

the twenty existing coastal parishes. Of the twenty parishes in the coastal zone: eight parishes (Calcasieu, Cameron, Iberia, St. Martin, St. Mary, Terrebonne, Lafourche, and Assumption) had acreage added to the coastal zone; and two parishes (Tangipahoa and Livingston) had their coastal zone area reduced by the recent legislation.

112. Establishment of Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration 113. Independence of Commission 114. Area of jurisdiction and offices of Commission 115. Functions of Commission 116. Governing body of Commission 117. Commissioners of Commission 118. Director of Commission 119. Acting director of Commission 120. Staff of Commission 121.

112. Establishment of Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration 113. Independence of Commission 114. Area of jurisdiction and offices of Commission 115. Functions of Commission 116. Governing body of Commission 117. Commissioners of Commission 118. Director of Commission 119. Acting director of Commission 120. Staff of Commission 121.

General Use 1000 ft or less Coastal Shallow Water 60 ft or less Shallow weedy bottoms Fresh Water 400 ft or less Inland/Near coastal Deep Water 1000 ft or more Offshore Slow Trolling 400 ft or less Inland/Coastal Fast Trolling 400 ft or less Inland/Coastal Clear Water 400 ft or less Inland/Coastal Brackish Water 400 ft or less Fresh-Saltwater mix

Agile describes a set of guiding principles that uses iterative approach for software development Agile is a practice that helps continuous iteration of development and testing in the software development process. In this model, development and testing activities are concurrent, unlike the Waterfall model. This mindset allows more communication .