Planning Commission Staff Report Hearing on October 20, 2016 County of Ventura Resource Management Agency Planning Division 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009-1740 (805) 654-2478 http://vcrma.org/planning/ Subject: Proposed Adoption of Phase 2B Amendments to the Local Coastal Program, which includes Amendments to the Coastal Area Plan and Coastal Zoning Ordinance (PL12-0158) A. PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Applicant: County of Ventura, 800 S. Victoria Ave, Ventura, CA 93009 2. Project Location: The coastal zone for unincorporated Ventura County (Exhibit 2) 3. Request: The Planning Division requests that your Commission review this report and its attachments, and adopt a Resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors adopt the following staff recommended actions, related to proposed Phase 2B amendments to the Ventura County Local Coastal Program (LCP), as stated in Section E of this report and as summarized below: Adopt proposed Phase 2B amendments to the Coastal Area Plan (CAP), which includes updated introductory text and CAP format as well as revised goals, policies and programs related to Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) and California Coastal Trail (Exhibit 3); Adopt proposed Phase 2B amendments to the Coastal Zoning Ordinance (CZO), which includes amendments to Articles 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12 and 13 related to WCF, California Coastal Trail, and Enforcement and Penalties (Exhibit 5). Find that the proposed amendments to the Ventura County LCP are consistent with California Coastal Act, including Chapter 3 thereof (Public Res. Code 30200 et seq.) (Exhibit 7); and Find that the County s approval of the proposed Phase 2B amendments to the Ventura County LCP are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.9 and CEQA Guidelines section 15265 (Exhibits 7, 8); and Find that the proposed amendments to the Ventura County LCP are consistent with the goals, policies and programs of the Ventura County General Plan; are in the interest of public health, safety or general welfare; and constitute good zoning practice (Exhibit 9). 4. Review/Decision-Making Authority: Three decision-making bodies are involved in LCP amendments: Ventura County Planning Commission, Ventura County Board of Supervisors, and California Coastal Commission. Pursuant to the Government Code section 65853, general plan amendments (including those to the Coastal Area Plan which is part of the County s General Plan) and zoning ordinance amendments require
Page 2 of 26 review and recommendation by the local jurisdiction s Planning Commission and the approval of the local legislative body. In addition, Public Resources Code section 30514 states that a certified LCP may be amended by the local government, but that no such amendment shall take effect until certified by the California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission). The LCP consists of the CAP, CZO, and the Categorical Exclusion Order (E-83-1A). Article 14 of the County s CZO also describes procedures for amendments and requires that proposed amendments be reviewed by the Planning Commission, which shall make a recommendation of approval or denial to the Board of Supervisors (Board). If approved by the Board, the proposed amendments are presented to the Coastal Commission for certification. The Coastal Commission must certify that the proposed LCP amendments, as set forth in Coastal Act sections 30512 through 30513, are in conformance with Coastal Act policies and that the CZO amendments are adequate to carry out the provisions of the CAP. The Coastal Commission also must make the related findings for certification set forth in the California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 13540. The County s permitting authority in the unincorporated areas of the coastal zone encompasses development, including WCF, located within the public rights-of way and in state parks. However, the County does not have land use authority over federal lands such as on Naval Base Ventura County - Point Mugu (NBVC-Point Mugu). The Coastal Commission retains original permitting authority (with certain exceptions) for development located on tidelands, submerged lands, and public trust lands. As described in CZO Section 8181-9.5, the Coastal Commission also has appellate jurisdiction over development permits approved by local governments on lands between the sea and first public road parallel to the sea, on or near sensitive locations (such as coastal bluffs), development that is not a principally permitted use, and major public works projects. 5. Background a. Coastal Impact Assistance Program The proposed amendments to the County s LCP were undertaken as part of a series of County projects funded under the federal Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP). CIAP project objectives include the clarification and standardization of regulations, updates to coastal resource policies, improved enforcement of new and existing coastal regulations, and protection of sensitive coastal resources. The County carried out these broad objectives by creating a set of updated policies and implementation tools that can be applied when processing permit applications within the coastal zone. The County is using its CIAP grant funds to complete LCP amendments in the following phases: Phase 1: The first phase was certified by the California Coastal Commission in February 2013. It included amendments to the CZO that address regulatory clarifications and minor policy changes that bring the CZO into conformance with current state and federal standards, allow for more efficient processing of
Page 3 of 26 coastal development permits, and acknowledge technological changes that occurred since the CZO was originally adopted in the 1980 s. Phase 2A: These amendments were adopted by the Board of Supervisors on June 21, 2016 and are currently before the Coastal Commission for certification 1. Phase 2A amendments include policy modifications to the CAP and CZO in seven topic areas: archaeological/paleontological resources, filming, parking, public noticing, signs, tree protection and water efficient landscaping. Phase 2A amendments also include updates to the CAP Introduction and the Summary of Coastal Act Policies. Exhibit 3 (CAP) and Exhibit 5 (CZO) of the staff report incorporate Phase 2A amendments to the LCP. Phase 2B: Proposed Phase 2B amendments, the subject of this staff report, include policy and regulatory modifications in three topic areas: California Coastal Trail, WCF, and Civil Administrative Penalties. Phase 2B also includes modifications to the CAP related to its organization and format. Phase 2C: The final phase will address one topic, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas, or ESHA. Those proposed LCP amendments are currently under development and are tentatively scheduled for review by your Commission in mid-2017. Although these Phase 1 and 2 amendments do not constitute a comprehensive LCP update, they do constitute the largest set of amendments to the LCP since its certification in the 1980s. Future LCP amendments are also planned that address sea level rise and existing zoning within the coastal zone, which will be reviewed as part of a larger, Board-initiated project designed to ensure that zoning maps are consistent with the zoning compatibility matrices in the General Plan and CAP. b. Ventura County s Coastal Zone The coastal zone is approximately 43 miles long and comprises approximately 24,745 acres (or 39 square miles). Coastal areas are primarily regulated through enforcement of the LCP, which includes the CAP and CZO. However, the LCP does not apply to the incorporated cities of Ventura, Oxnard and Port Hueneme, or to federal lands (i.e. NBVC-Point Mugu). Development within Channel Islands Harbor is also not regulated by the LCP. It is regulated by the County Harbor Department s Public Works Plan, which is a Coastal Commission-certified coastal land use planning document, similar to the County s LCP but specifically drafted to govern land uses at the harbor. The coastal zone consists of the following geographical areas (see Exhibit 2, map exhibits for existing CAP land use designations and CZO zoning classifications): North Coast Subarea: The steep slopes of the Ventura foothills abut the northern portion of the coastal zone between Rincon Point and the Ventura River. Approximately 2,265 acres is designated Agriculture, 1,257 acres is designated Open Space, 350 acres is designated Industrial, and 0.54 acres is designated Commercial. Emma Wood State Beach, Faria and Hobson County Parks, six 1 A public hearing on Phase 2A amendments is tentatively expected to take place in the City of Ventura in December 2016.
Page 4 of 26 residential communities, Rincon Parkway, U.S. Highway 101 and the Southern Pacific Railroad wind along this narrow strip of land. Central Coast Subarea: The central part of the coastal zone is situated between the cities of Ventura, Oxnard and Port Hueneme. Approximately 1,425 acres is designated Agriculture, 248 acres is designated Open Space, and 3.0 acres is designated Commercial. McGrath State Beach, the wetlands of Ormond Beach, and the residential beach communities of Hollywood and Silverstrand are located along this coastline. South Coast Subarea: The southern portion of the coastal zone begins at the south end of NBVC-Point Mugu. Approximately 710 acres is designated Agriculture, 13,545 acres is designated Open Space, and 4.0 acres is designated Commercial. Within the Santa Monica Mountains lies Point Mugu and Leo Carrillo State Parks. The residential communities of Solromar and Crowne Pointe Estates are located on the west and east sides of Highway 1, respectively. Also included in the County s Coastal Zone are two of the Channel Islands Anacapa and San Nicolas Island. Anacapa is included in the Channel Islands National Park and San Nicolas Island is owned and operated by the U.S. Navy and is not publicly accessible. c. Ventura County s Local Coastal Program The Coastal Commission certified the County s CAP in 1982, and certified the County s CZO in 1983. Land use development within the coastal zone is governed by the provisions of the CAP, the CZO, and two adopted Categorical Exclusion Orders (Order E-83-1 and amendment E-83-1A). The CAP is the County s coastal area land use plan and is intended to address the type, location, and intensity of land uses, applicable resource protection and development policies and, where necessary, a listing of implementing actions. The CZO includes detailed zoning or implementing ordinances designed to carry out the policies of the CAP. The CAP, CZO, and all development permits within the coastal zone are subject to the Coastal Act and its implementing regulations (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 14, 13000 et seq.). 6. Summary of Proposed Phase 2B LCP Amendments The proposed Phase 2B amendments to the LCP consist of policy and regulatory modifications to the CAP and CZO; no changes are proposed to land use or zoning maps. The proposed amendments address three topics: a. Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) The proposed CAP and CZO amendments would establish a permitting process and development standards for WCF in the coastal zone based on regulations adopted by the Board for noncoastal areas in early 2015. While the proposed LCP regulations are similar to those adopted for non-coastal, unincorporated portions of the County, adaptations were made to address the unique regulatory context of the coastal zone. b. Civil Administrative Penalties The proposed CZO amendments would bring existing regulations for Civil Administrative Penalties contained in the Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance (NCZO) into the CZO. The proposed regulations would
Page 5 of 26 therefore standardize existing County procedures and practices for the enforcement of Building Code, discretionary permit conditions, and NCZO/CZO regulations throughout the unincorporated County. c. California Coastal Trail The proposed CAP amendments would establish a coastal trail map, preliminary trail standards, and a set of goals, policies and programs for the California Coastal Trail (Coastal Trail) in unincorporated coastal areas. Proposed amendments are limited to the CAP, as the preparation of implementation standards in the CZO will require a more detailed planning effort. In fact, the approach outlined in the CAP includes a detailed program (Coastal Trail Program 1, Exhibit 3, page 4-33) that describes what additional work is needed to create a definitive trail alignment and trail development/design standards. The approach outlined in the CAP would position the County to develop the Coastal Trail as opportunities arise and to apply for additional grant funding to conduct more detailed Coastal Trail planning efforts. The proposed approach would also provide more options for the creation of public access easements to implement the Coastal Trail. Because trail issues are currently located in three different Recreation and Access sections of the CAP (North Coast, Central Coast, South Coast), the Phase 2B amendments include a limited set of updated policies to the three Recreation and Access sections of the CAP. However, amendments are limited to changes needed to remove action items previously completed, correct out-of-date references, and establish consistency with the Coastal Act. d. CAP Organization and Format The proposed CAP amendments build upon prior improvements to format and organization of the CAP, which were initiated during Phase 2A. Included in the Phase 2B package are the following CAP modifications which are also shown in Exhibit 3: Introductory Chapter: Proposed changes to this chapter include the removal of text in a section titled General Statements, which contains background information on the original CAP preparation and policy-like text with no clear regulatory value. The current introductory chapter also contains important information related to land use maps ( Land Use Plan Designations and Zoning Compatibility ), which would be moved to a new Chapter 3 (see below). With these proposed modifications, updates to the Introduction section, initiated in Phase 2A, will be complete. Format and Organization: Improvements to format and organization include the addition of chapter and section numbers, a new cover, and improvements to pagination. In addition, all existing information related to land use maps would be relocated to a new Chapter 3, which makes it easier find such information. Existing text and maps relocated to Chapter 3 will include land use definitions and the zoning compatibility chart, formerly located in the CAP introduction. Land use maps, land use data, and subarea descriptions formerly found in the North Coast, Central Coast, and South Coast subareas would also be moved to Chapter 3. Goals, Policies and Programs: All goals, policies and programs were located in one chapter (Chapter 4) under the following subsections: 4.1 includes policies
Page 6 of 26 applicable to the entire coastal zone, 4.2 includes policies for the North Coast Subarea, 4.3 includes policies for the Central Coast Subarea, and 4.4 includes policies for the South Coast Subarea. The first subsection includes new goals, policies and programs brought forward with the Phase 2A amendments. The north, central, and south coast subarea sections primarily include existing goals, policies and programs created during the 1980s, although minor modifications to those sections were included in the Phase 2A and 2B amendment packages. All proposed Phase 2B amendments are shown in legislative format in Exhibits 3 and 5. These exhibits also include the CAP and CZO amendments approved by the Board of Supervisors in June 2016 (i.e. Phase 2A) and now under review by the Coastal Commission. Newly proposed modifications will also be incorporated into a clean copy of the CAP and CZO in Exhibits 4 and 6 for the Board of Supervisors hearing. 2 7. Proposed LCP Amendments by Topic Listed below are summaries for the three main topic areas covered by the Phase 2B amendments: Coastal Trail, WCF, and Civil/Administrative Penalties. Each section includes a brief overview of the proposed amendments followed by more detailed information on specific CAP policies or CZO amendments. a. Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) Commercial WCF provide a utility service regulated by federal and state agencies. The County receives numerous applications for WCF permits each year. All of the major national wireless communications companies such as AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, and Sprint provide wireless telecommunication service in the coastal zone, and the Planning Division is the lead agency to authorize WCF which are permitted through the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit () with a maximum ten-year term. The proposed LCP amendments will help streamline permit reviews for WCF by clarifying application submittal requirements and instituting formal development standards. Ministerial permit approvals (Zoning Clearance) will also be allowed for specific types of facility modifications. The proposed regulations would also facilitate the development of WCF by expanding the number of zones where WCF can be developed and by providing, for the first time, specific and procedures for permitting WCF in the public right-of-way. Finally, the certification of the proposed WCF amendments by the Coastal Commission will enable County staff to reduce the amount of environmental analysis required for individual WCF permits when the proposed facility is consistent with all provisions of the LCP. The proposed WCF regulations for the coastal zone is built upon the existing, recently adopted regulations for non-coastal areas of the County. As a result, the information presented below is focused on key differences between the non-coastal and coastal 2 To reduce the file size of the Planning Commission Hearing materials, a placeholder is provided for the clean copies of proposed amendments listed as Exhibits 4 and 6. These exhibits will be included in the Board of Supervisors letter.
Page 7 of 26 versions of the WCF regulations. Those differences can be seen in the legislative format used in Exhibit 5, where the double underlined text format depicts text taken directly from the NCZO and single underlined text depicts new language. Key distinctions between the two sets of regulations include modifications made to ensure consistency with the California Coastal Act and to address development within the public road rights-of-way, which is regulated by the CZO but not the NCZO. A detailed description of these and other differences is provided in the CAP and CZO summary sections below. Coastal Area Plan (CAP) The Coastal Zone Objectives, Policies and Programs (Chapter 4, Section 4.1 of the CAP) would be amended to include policies that address the placement and design of WCF. In 2015, the County s General Plan was amended to include a new policy that addresses the siting and design of WCF, but the CAP currently contains no specific polices targeted towards visual and other coastal resource impacts associated with WCF. The proposed CAP amendments include one objective and three polices for WCF, which would be added to Section 4.1.7 Visual Resources. The objective is broadly written and would require that WCF be developed in a manner that maintains or enhances the county s visual and scenic resources. This is followed by three policies specifically applicable to WCF. Policy 1 is similar to the General Plan policy for WCF was adopted in 2015, which requires that new WCF be developed in a manner that minimizes visual impacts and that blends with the surrounding environment. The second and third policies are more specific and require that WCF to be sited in ways that avoid impacts to ESHA and that protect public views and scenic resources. Coastal Zoning Ordinance (CZO) The proposed amendments to the CZO are shown in Exhibit 5 in legislative format, with staff explanations. The CZO amendments include provisions and standards that govern the design and development of WCF as well as minor amendments that make the WCF regulations consistent with other CZO provisions. Key amendments to the CZO, organized by section, are described below. (1) Article 2 Definitions: New definitions for WCF would be added to Article 2 that describe basic types of WCF (e.g. stealth, non-stealth) as well as different types of stealth facilities (e.g. building-concealed, flush-mounted, etc.). In addition, all terms necessary to understand and interpret WCF regulations within the CZO (e.g. antenna, collocation, prominently visible, etc.) are included in Article 2. All terms defined within Article 2 are shown as italicized text within the CZO. The proposed definitions for the CZO are similar to those used for the NCZO, but some modifications were included. For example, the CZO definitions include the term Utility Data Collection Units, which is regulated as a small utility structure in the NCZO. Also, language was added to clarify that WCF that exceed 80 feet are, by definition, considered to be non-stealth facilities. (2) CZO Use Matrix (Section 8174-5): The Use Matrix (Section 8174-5) would be updated to include new categories of WCF (e.g. stealth, non-stealth, etc.) and to
Page 8 of 26 expand the number of zones where WCF can be developed. As shown in Table 1 below, the term Communications Facilities would be changed to Wireless Communication Facilities, and four rows would be added to the matrix that define what permit is required for each basic type of WCF. This is the same approach used within the NCZO, as it allows a more targeted permitting approach for different types and sizes of WCF. For example, stealth facilities can be processed with a Planning Director authorized Conditional Use Permit () while nonstealth facilities must be processed with a Planning Commission authorized. Key differences between the existing and proposed Use Matrix are as follows: a) Type of WCF: The former matrix defined one type of WCF, called Communication Facilities. The updated matrix would include a wider range of WCF, which provides more flexibility when assigning WCF to different zone districts and when determining the appropriate decision-making body. Also, a new category was added to the use matrix for the deployment of Utility Data- Collection Units, which are small WCF that monitor gas meters on buildings that are typically located within the public road right-of-way. b) Allowable Zones: As shown in Table 1 below, the existing Use Matrix stipulates that WCF are only allowed in 3 of the 11 zones. In order to ensure that adequate coverage can be provided within the coastal zone, proposed changes to the use matrix would result in an expansion of the number of zones in which WCF are allowed as follows: Public road right-of-way - WCF would be allowed in all zones when located within the public road right-of-way. WCF deployed in these areas are generally small-cell facilities which are collocated or mounted on existing utility poles. Allowing such WCF in all zones reduces the possibility of excluding WCF (and thus limiting service) in certain locations. Stealth facilities would be allowed in 6 of the 11 zone districts, including the Coastal Commercial (CC) and Coastal Rural (CR1, CR2) zones. Although such facilities would continue to be prohibited in the more urbanized zone districts (unless located in the public road right-of-way). Under limited circumstances, non-stealth facilities would be allowed in the more rural zone districts (5 zones were considered rural). c) Permit Type / Decision-Making Body: Currently, all new WCF require a discretionary permit, and with one exception (Utility Data Collection Units) that would not change with the proposed ordinance. Also, all WCF must currently be approved through a Planning Commission public hearing, and the proposed ordinance would allow new WCF to be approved through the following options: A Planning Director public hearing would be required for most new WCF; A Planning Commission public hearing would be required for non-stealth facilities, which is consistent with the restricted approach to the deployment of non-stealth facilities within the coastal zone;
Page 9 of 26 Utility Data Collection Units, are small-cell facilities subject to strict size limitations, could be approved through a ministerial process (Zoning Clearance); and A reference was added for WCF developed in the public right-of-way to clarify that a separate permit is required by the County s Public Works Agency for such facilities. The proposed permit types and decision-making bodies also reflect the potential direct and cumulative impacts associated with different types of WCF. For example, the commercial telecommunications infrastructure has a large demand for new or improved services. Conversely, due to the limited purpose of the Utility Data Collection Units (to collect meter data), their number is expected to be small and the potential for cumulative impacts is low. TYPES OF WCF: Communications Facilities (ALL) Stealth Facilities (not in the Public Road Right-of-way) Stealth Facilities exclusively in the Public Road Right-ofway Non-Stealth Facilities Utility Data Collection Units on existing poles in Public ROW Legend: Table 1: CZO Use Matrix Proposed Permit Types for WCF COS and CA PC PD PD PC COS = Coastal Open Space CA = Coastal Agriculture CR = Coastal Rural CRE = Coastal Rural Exclusive CR1 and CR2 = Coastal Residential Zone (onefamily, two-family) RB = Residential Beach (RB), RBH = Residential Beach Harbor CR and CRE Not Permitted PD PD Not Permitted ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS CR1 and CR2 Not Permitted PD PD Not Permitted RB, RBH, and CRPD Not Permitted Not Permitted PD Not Permitted CC Not Permitted PD PD Not Permitted CM PC PD PD PC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC CRPD = Residential-Planned CC = Coastal Commercial CM = Coastal Industrial HPD = Harbor Planned Development = Conditional Use Permit ZC = Zoning Clearance Authorization PD = Planning Director Approval PC = Planning Commission Approval (3) WCF Regulations (Section 8175-5.20): The new WCF regulations, set forth in CZO Section 8175-5.20.3, establish development standards, substantive permit requirements, and permit application requirements. Similar to the non-coastal regulations, the primary approach used within these regulations is to ensure that WCF blend into the existing setting. In particular, development standards are designed to guide the development of new stealth facilities and to retain the concealment elements of existing WCF. This objective would be achieved
Page 10 of 26 through the enforcement of WCF siting and design requirements, height standards, setback standards, and landscape screening requirements. The proposed standards are consistent with public input obtained during workshops held for both the non-coastal and coastal areas of the county (see Section D of the staff report). The section below includes a summary of key regulatory components, with an emphasis on the difference between existing WCF regulations in non-coastal areas and the proposed regulations for the coastal zone: a) Stealth Design: Within non-coastal areas, stealth facilities are required when located in areas that are visible from a public viewpoint. Within coastal areas, stealth design is always required except when the applicant invokes the federal preemption of local authority (e.g. demonstrates that only a very tall facility will provide adequate communication services). One reason for this difference is that most areas within the coastal zone are visible from a public viewpoint. The second reason is that visual and scenic resources are considered coastal resources protected by the Coastal Act, and non-stealth facilities typically have far more visual impacts than do stealth facilities. One reason for the stealth design requirement is that most (if not all) areas within the coastal zone are visible from a public viewpoint. Also, visual and scenic resources are considered coastal resources and are thus protected by the Coastal Act. b) Non-Stealth Facilities: As noted above, non-stealth WCF would only be permitted in the coastal zone if required by federal law. The use of a stealth facility also must be approved by the Planning Commission, which is similar to the existing NCZO, which requires such hearings for facilities that exceed 80 feet (WCF over 80 feet are defined as non-stealth). Of course, there are many stealth design options to choose from for WCF less than 80 feet, so it is unlikely that an Applicant would propose a non-stealth facility less than 80 feet. Should a tall, non-stealth facility be allowed pursuant to federal law, the applicant would still need to utilize available concealment techniques, such as paint or material selection, to minimize the visual impact. c) Restricted Locations: The existing NCZO includes siting criteria for preferred and non-preferred locations. As shown in Table 2 below, the CZO also includes a category called a restricted location for sensitive habitats, beach areas, and highly-visible ridgelines. Within these areas, both the County s LCP and the Coastal Act would prohibit development of WCF in most circumstances. In order to authorize a WCF in such locations, the County would need to verify the applicability of a federal preemption by requesting that a technical consultant review the application materials.
Preferred Locations Planning Commission Staff Report for PL13-0109 Page 11 of 26 Table 2: WCF Siting Criteria Non-Preferred Locations Restricted Locations Collocation On a ridge, not silhouetted ESHA or buffer (except in public right-of-way) Flush-mounted on an existing structure Concealed in a building or behind trees Public road right-of-way (except scenic highways) Clustered facilities Historic sites Steep Slopes (>20%) Between high-tide line and 1 st road (except buildingconcealed) On a ridge, silhouetted d) Public Road Rights-of-Way: As previously noted, the proposed CZO standards address WCF within the right-of-way, which is often in high demand as a location for WCF deployment, and stealth facilities would be allowed in all public rights-of-way. WCF located within the road right-of-way s are generally small and collocated or mounted on existing utility poles. Design standards for such facilities are described in Section 8175-5-20.3, and right-of-way standards are described in Section 8175-5.20.4. e) Section 6409 Modifications: So-called Section 6409 Modifications, the County s approval of which are required pursuant to federal law, would be allowed within the coastal zone in the same way that such modifications are allowed in non-coastal areas of the County. Federal law requires that a local government allow the qualifying expansion of an existing WCF (e.g. a 20-foot increase in height) with a ministerial permit. However, federal law also provides that Section 6409 Modifications can be denied if, among other reasons, a facility s existing concealment elements would be defeated through the proposed modifications. For example, an applicant proposes to increase the height of an existing faux tree from 70 to 90 feet, but the resulting faux tree no longer looks like a natural tree and it no longer hides the antennae. The proposed CZO regulations would clarify that, under such circumstances, the proposed WCF would not qualify as a 6409 Modification eligible for ministerial approval. Conversely, if the proposed modification does not defeat the concealment elements, and otherwise meets the eligibility requirements for a Section 6409(a) Modification, it would be approved with a ministerial permit (Zoning Clearance). f) Application Requirements: As shown in Table 3 below, application submittal requirements depend on the proposed location for the WCF. For example, less information is needed in a permit application for a WCF that is designed as a stealth facility in a preferred location, than is required for a WCF that is designed as a non-stealth facility in a restricted location.
Page 12 of 26 Table 3: Application Requirements for Alternative Sites Analysis Siting Criteria Preferred Location Neutral Location Alternative Sites Analysis Demonstrated Coverage Gap Non-Preferred Location X X X Technical Expert Review Restricted Location X X X Non-Stealth Facility <=80 feet X X Non-Stealth Facility > 80 Feet X X X (4) Miscellaneous CZO Amendments: Similar to the NCZO version of this ordinance, minor revisions to other sections of the CZO are proposed to bring various sections into conformance with the WCF regulations. These modifications do not change the intent of, or regulations within, the respective sections. When developing the coastal version of the WCF regulations, Planning Division staff coordinated with the County s Public Works Agency (PWA) to ensure compatibility with regulations adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 2013 for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities located in the public road rights-of-way (ROW Ordinance). 3 The ROW Ordinance was prepared by the PWA, which is also responsible for its implementation. The types of facilities allowed under the two sets of County regulations are similar, as both are focused on the collocation of small-cell antenna on existing utility poles. In practice, each WCF permitted by the Planning Division within the public road right-of-way will be conditioned to obtain an encroachment permit from the PWA. Prior to issuance of an encroachment permit, PWA will review the project pursuant to the ROW Ordinance. Should a particular wireless company wish to construct a large number of small-cell WCF within the public right-of-way, it could minimize permitting requirements by processing a master permit through the Planning Division, followed by its phased implementation through ministerial permits obtained from PWA and the Planning Division. Although the ROW Ordinance was not certified by the Coastal Commission, it includes a provision that establishes the primacy of the proposed LCP regulations. Moreover, because the proposed LCP regulations will be certified by the Coastal Commission, WCF development will occur in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Act. b. Civil and Administrative Penalties The civil and administrative penalty provisions for the coastal zone are addressed within CZO Article 13, Enforcement and Penalties. Proposed amendments to the CZO would provide a consistent, countywide approach for the programs and procedures used to enforce the NCZO and the Building Code. In December 2006, the Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance that amended Section 8114-3.7 of the NCZO 3 See Ventura County Ordinance Code at Div. 12, Chapter 8, for applicable regulations.
Page 13 of 26 relating to the imposition of civil penalties. The amendments took effect in early 2007. In early 2011, the Ventura County Building Code was subsequently amended relating to the imposition of civil penalties. The CZO is the last regulatory document which needs to be updated to include the revised procedures. Proposed amendments to the CZO would establish a process and procedure for the abatement of violations and the imposition, enforcement, collection and administrative review of civil administrative penalties. As such, the proposed amendments would establish a consistent set of regulations throughout the County to ensure compliance with the Building Code, CZO regulations, and the terms and conditions of any adopted permit or entitlement within the coastal zone. Ultimately, the purpose of these regulations is to provide County staff with the tools necessary to fulfill its responsibilities towards the protection of public health, safety and general welfare, which includes the preservation of coastal resources. The Civil and Administrative Penalties section of the CZO establishes enforcement actions and procedures used by the Planning Division and the Code Compliance Division when conducting the following duties: Responses to citizen complaints: Any citizen may file a complaint claiming that a particular landowner or business has failed to follow conditions of approval for a permit or the County s building and planning regulations. In response to such complaints, the County s Code Compliance Division will investigate the complaint and, when appropriate, seek abatement of the violation. Examples of building and land use violations include the establishment of an illegal business, the unpermitted construction of buildings, or the open storage of inoperable vehicles. Standard compliance review: The Planning Division conducts periodic compliance reviews to enforce the conditions of approval for discretionary permits and, when appropriate, to seek abatement of identified violations. CEQA mitigation monitoring: The Planning Division is also responsible for conducting mitigation monitoring activities associated with discretionary permits that include CEQA mitigation. In all cases, penalties are imposed only when the property owner and/or permittee fails to abate the violation or comply with the conditions of the permit after being given a reasonable period of time to do so. Violations are typically assessed as major, moderate, or minor and penalties are assessed based on factors defined by Sec. 8183-5.7.4. Those factors include such issues as the nature and severity of the violation, the seriousness or gravity of the violation, the length of time over which the violation occurs, and the culpability of the violator in causing the violation. Coastal Zoning Ordinance Proposed revisions to the civil and administrative penalties regulations are located in Exhibit 5 (see Article 13, Section 8183 Enforcement and Penalties). Shown in legislative format, these amendments would:
Page 14 of 26 Describe the required process for abating a violation; Identify the factors to be considered when determining the amount of civil penalties; Define the administrative appeal process for civil penalties; Define how fines are collected; and Clarify that costs for condition compliance inspections for a permit are the responsibility of the party holding the permit, and the cost for payment of fines associated with unabated violations is ultimately the responsibility of the property owner. The proposed amendments allow flexibility in the administration of the process used to abate violations by the Code Compliance Division and the Planning Division. For example, Code Compliance may send a courtesy notice ( alleged notice of violation ) in which the subject party is requested to voluntarily resolve the alleged violation before it is formally recognized. Both divisions formally recognize a violation after a notice of violation is issued and it is not appealed. The notice typically requests that the violation be corrected within the next 30-day period and, once this notice is issued, charges for County staff time are billed to property owners. Figure 1: The Code Compliance Division schedule for violation notices is shown on the left, and the Planning Division schedule for violation notices is shown on the right.
Page 15 of 26 At different times, the respective divisions issue a notice of impending civil administrative penalties and record a notice of noncompliance (on the subject property s title), as shown in Figure 1 above. If the violation continues unabated, a notice of imposition of civil administrative penalties is issued and includes the date that the penalty begins to accrue. Once penalties are imposed, they run with the property until all violations are abated. However, the amount of the penalty can be contested if an appeal is filed within 10 days of the notice of imposition of civil administrative penalties. As an alternative to the County s imposition of civil administrative penalties and/or other formal enforcement actions, confirmed violations can also be abated, under appropriate circumstances, pursuant to a Compliance Agreement entered into between the Planning Director (on behalf of the County) and the responsible party. Compliance Agreements are administrative agreements whereby the responsible party commits to abating the violation by taking specific actions within a specified timeframe. The responsible party is typically required to provide a cash surety deposit, which is subject to forfeiture, to encourage the party s abatement of the violation in accordance with the Compliance Agreement. c. California Coastal Trail The Coastal Act and Public Resources Code sections 301408 and 301409 4, require planning for access and development of the Coastal Trail along the entire California coastline. The Coastal Trail is envisioned as a continuous, interconnected trail system that lies along the shoreline or is within sight or sound of the Pacific Ocean. Intended for non-motorized uses, the Coastal Trail can be located within a variety of terrains including the beach, the coastal terrace, upland areas, ridges, bluffs and roads. The state s vision for this trail was articulated in a report titled Completing the California Coastal Trail, which was prepared in January 2003 5 and includes recommendations for action for the unincorporated Ventura County portion of the trail. The proposed LCP amendments include a new section within the CAP dedicated to the Coastal Trail, minor updates to the existing Recreation and Access sections of the CAP, and minor amendments to the CZO. The proposed amendments constitute a preliminary phase of planning for the Coastal Trail that establishes a policy framework which includes the following components: An introductory section that provides background information on the trail; Classifications for multi-modal and single-mode segments of the trail; Coastal Trail map that illustrates currently identified trail segments, coastal access points and parking, as well as associated tables that describe existing conditions and needed improvements to individual trail segments; 4 Initiated as Senate Bill 908 (SB 908) and signed into law in October, 2001. 5 Coastal Trail Report - This report was prepared pursuant to a SB 908 directive.
Planning Commission Staff Report for PL13-0109 Page 16 of 26 A trail implementation section that describes potential, future additions to (or modifications of) trail alignments; Goals and policies that will be used to develop the Coastal Trail; and Programs that include a follow-up trail planning effort to more fully define the trail alignment, trail design, and implementation measures necessary to construct and maintain the Coastal Trail. The information listed above is primarily located in CAP Chapter 4, Section 4.1.4 Coastal Trail (Exhibit 3). As previously noted, the proposed amendments also include limited updates to existing Recreation and Access sections, which are located within the North, Central and South Coast sections of the CAP (Exhibit 3, Chapter 4, Sections 4.2.2, 4.3.2 and 4.4.2). Coastal Area Plan (CAP) The proposed CAP amendments regarding the Coastal Trail are described below and are contained in Exhibit 3: (1) Coastal Zone Objectives, Policies and Programs (Chapter 4, Section 4.1.4): The following information would be added to Chapter 4 of the CAP as follows: a) Introduction: This section provides an overview of the state laws and publications 6 which envision and provide guidance for the Coastal Trail. A brief summary is also provided that describes how the trail will be developed in the unincorporated areas of Ventura County. As described in the introductory section, the Coastal Trail will be designed as a multi-modal, non-motorized recreational facility which provides access and transportation along and within the coastline. As stipulated by state guidance documents, the trail should be located on the shoreline or within sight or sound of the sea whenever feasible. b) Trail Classifications: The identification of who will use the trail, and how conflicts will be minimized among different user groups, is essential for trail planning. While all segments of the Coastal Trail will accommodate both walkers/hikers and bicyclists, different segments of the trail are categorized as a Multi-Modal Route or Single-Mode Route : Single-Mode Routes are segregated facilities for hikers/walkers or cyclists. For hikers and walkers, these routes will typically be natural surface hiking trails, hard-sand beaches, or paved sidewalks (see Figure 2). For bicyclists, these routes will typically be Class 2 bike lanes (i.e. striped bike lanes, see Figure 3) located within trail segments that provide separate pedestrian routes. 6 Completing the California Coastal Trail, 2003, Authored by the California Coastal Conservancy.
Page 17 of 26 Figure 2: Example of a Single-Mode Route for Hikers/Walkers. Figure 3: Example of a Single-Mode Route for cyclists. Multi-Modal Routes are typically located in the public road right-of-way, and are designed to accommodate pedestrians (hikers/walkers) as well as bicyclists. Trail segments could be designed as shared or separate routes. As shown in these images, a shared trail segment accommodates both bicyclists and hikers/walkers in one right-of-way (Figure 4). A separate trail segment segregates bicyclists and hikers/walkers (Figure 5) and provides a different type of trail surface for the different user groups. Figure 3: Example of a Multi- Modal Route shared by hikers/walkers and bicyclists. Figure 4: Example of a Multi-Modal route with separate facilities for hikers/walkers and bicyclists. Separate facilities for bicyclists and walkers/hikers reduce the chance of conflicts and increase safety, but they also require more width and typically cost more to build and maintain. In Ventura County, the availability of land for the Coastal Trail will be a constraining factor and, in some areas, the amount of available space may determine the type of trail classification. c) Maps and Tables: An illustrative Coastal Trail map is included in the CAP. It shows the alignment of currently identified trail segments for the North Coast, Central Coast, and South Coast portions of the County. The tables located below each map provide descriptions of each trail segment and list existing
Page 18 of 26 conditions, improvements needed, and other information related to that particular trail segment. As shown on both the maps and tables, some trail segments are already developed but many segments require additional planning and constructed improvements prior to being made available to the public. Seven Coastal Trail maps are included in Exhibit 3 (page 4-15) as Figures 4.1-1 through 4.1-7. Figure 4.1-1 provides an overview of a multi-modal route that traverses the entire Ventura County coastline, while Figures 4.1-2 through 4.1-7 provide more detailed maps for the North, Central, and South Coast sections of the Coastal Trail. In addition to the primary, multi-modal trail, maps show the location of single-mode sections of the Coastal Trail, connections to other public trails, shoreline access points, public parks, and existing coastal access parking lots. As shown in Figure 4.1-1, the Coastal Trail is a multi-modal route that traverses the entire unincorporated Coastal Zone. Most segments of the trail follow the alignment established for the Pacific Coast Bike Route and are located within the public road-right-of-way. This route serves as the backbone of the trail system, and it provides connectivity to alternate routes that provide a variety of trail experiences for users. The single-mode routes shown in Figures 4.1-2 through 4.1-7 provide short, alternative routes that offer a comparatively more nature-based experience than the continuous, multi-modal route. Single-mode routes are primarily designed for walker/hikers and include trails in existing State or County Parks, public beaches, and public access easements. Each single-mode trail segment provides a through route that is connected to, but diverges away from, the multimodal route. The Coastal Trail map is divided into seven segments, with each segment labeled as part of the North (N), Central (C) or South (S) Coast portion of the trail. Sub-sections of the trail are also identified on each map. The dividing line between different trail segments is based on existing conditions and the extent of improvements needed for that trail segment. For instance, trail segment N1 on the North Coast is an existing, accessible 4-mile multi-modal pathway along Highway 101 that can accommodate bicyclists and walkers/hikers. It requires no improvements. Trail segment N2 is a 7-mile, multi-modal trail route along Old Pacific Coast Highway that currently includes a bike lane but no trail improvements for hikers/walkers. Coastal Trail segments and conditions within the North, Central and South Coast subareas are summarized as follows: North Coast: Figures 4.1-2 and 4.1-3 illustrate the North Coast trail segments (N1, N2 and N3). Compared to the Central and South Coast subareas, the North Coast requires the fewest trail improvements. However, due to the
Page 19 of 26 limited space available in this subarea, it will be a challenge to provide trail accommodations for walkers/hikers along the 7-miles of Old PCH in (segment N2). Alternate, single-mode routes are identified at La Conchita Beach, Beacon s Beach, and an existing public access easement on the Seacliff revetment. Central Coast: Figures 4.1-4, 4.1-5, and 4.1-6 illustrate the location of the Coastal Trail on the Central Coast, where broad beaches can be used by hikers/walkers. However, most trail segments within the central coast will be located within the jurisdictions of the City of Oxnard or City of Port Hueneme. Within the Central Coast, several roadways are identified as having multimodal trail segments that need improvements, including Harbor Boulevard (segment C1) and Hueneme Road (segment C2), which are managed by the Public Works Agency. Single mode routes would be located along McGrath State Beach, Hollywood Beach, and Silverstrand Beach, and a Coastal Trail segment should be incorporated into the restoration and access plan for Ormond Beach. South Coast: Figure 4.1-7 shows the location of the Coastal Trail on the South Coast. It includes one, nine-mile multi-modal trail segment, (S1) that follows Pacific Coast Highway to the Los Angeles County Line. Trail segment S1 currently has no trail facilities, and it would therefore require improvements for bicyclists and hikers/walkers. Alternate, single-mode routes are identified along Point Mugu Beach, Thornhill-Broome Beach, and Sycamore Cove. In addition, hiking trails in Point Mugu State Park provide views of the Pacific Ocean, are linked to the Pacific Coast Highway, and are therefore included as single-mode segments of the Coastal Trail. As previously noted, tables are provided below each Coastal Trail map that lists each trail segment shown on that map, along with its classification (singlemode, multi-modal), existing condition, and level of needed improvements. d) Implementation: This section briefly describes potential additions to the Coastal Trail, some of which would constitute replacements for currently identified trail segments. However, a more-detailed planning effort would be required before adding these segments to the Coastal Trail map. For example, the Hobson and Frontage Roads are a potential replacement for Coastal Trail segment N2, which is currently located along a busy and highly constrained portion of Pacific Coast Highway. In addition, the current Coastal Trail alignment for trail segment C4 is constrained by the road configuration around NBVC-Point Mugu, and alternate routes should be reviewed to take trail users in a southeasterly direction from the existing pedestrian bridge at the Main Gate to NBVC. Similarly, in the South Coast, completion of the Slope Trail has been a longstanding goal of the National Park Service. While the planned Coastal Trail route is aligned as close to the ocean as is technically feasible, the precise alignment for some trail segments will need to be determined through a more detailed planning study, which is outlined in the
Page 20 of 26 CAP as Program 1 (Exhibit 3, page 4-33). Additional planning and trail construction is needed for multiple trail segments before the Coastal Trail can be publicized or made available to the public. A detailed list of necessary implementation actions is described in the Coastal Trail Programs section of the CAP (see below). As previously noted, there also are substantial fiscal and institutional challenges associated with the development of the Coastal Trail. e) Goals, Policies and Programs: This section identifies goals and policies that will be used to align, design, and construct the Coastal Trail. For example, the Coastal Trail should provide ample opportunities for people to experience the sight, sound and views of the ocean. In addition, trail alignment and design considerations should include sea-level rise, the location of sensitive habitat, and the types of users. The alignment of the Coastal Trail should include a variety or terrains and settings, and overall the trail should connect people with the County s unique recreational, natural, scenic and historic resources. Proposed policies for the coastal trail would require a safe, pleasant and memorable user experience for trail users. While the current plan is focused on trail routes for hikers/walkers and bicyclists, future planning efforts should address the needs of individuals with disabilities. To the extent feasible, the trail design should consider and respect privacy and private property. Other policies address trail alignment and design issues related to sensitive habitats, informational signage, and safety. A key policy would establish that trail segments, whenever possible, be located on public lands or public access easements. The reliance on existing public roads, public easements, or public parks for the Coastal Trail should help minimize conflicts with private landowners and reduce the costs associated with trail development and maintenance. As proposed, locating the Coastal Trail on private land should be limited, whenever feasible, to voluntary transactions with willing landowners. However, trail segments acquired through other legal means, such as conditions of approval for discretionary development permit, may be needed to complete gaps in the Coastal Trail. Finally, State law requires that State agencies consider use of abandoned roadways for use as the Coastal Trail, and the proposed CAP programs discuss the use of abandoned roadways for the Coastal Trail. (2) Recreation and Access Sections: Minor modifications are proposed to the existing Recreation and Access sections of the CAP, which are shown in legislative format with staff explanations in Exhibit 3, Chapter 4 - Goals, Policies and Program. More specifically, the updated text is located in Sections 4.2 (North Coast), 4.3 (Central Coast), and 4.4 (South Coast). The modifications made to these sections do not constitute a comprehensive update to the Recreation and Access sections of the CAP. Instead, they are designed to provide necessary corrections related to the Coastal Trail, update agency names or correct factual information, and correct grammatical errors.
Page 21 of 26 With respect to amendments associated with the Coastal Trail, South Coast, Recreation Policy 9 (Exhibit 3, page 4-137) would be amended to exclude the Coastal Trail from the standard requiring the width of all trail corridors to be at least 25 feet. It is unlikely that 25 feet will be available for the Coastal Trail in all areas, and a more detailed analysis is needed before specific standards are prescribed for the Coastal Trail. In addition, Access Policy 2 would be amended for each subarea (Exhibit 3, pages 4-49, 4-93, and 4-139) to maintain consistency between the CAP and CZO, as existing CZO regulations in Sec. 8178-6.2 allow exceptions to the 10-foot setback for lateral access easements from residential structures when the easement is located on a seawall. Coastal Zoning Ordinance (CZO) Proposed amendments to the CZO for the Coastal Trail are limited to Article 2 (Definitions) and Article 11 (Entitlements). In Article 2, the definitions would be updated to add descriptions for Class 1 pathways and Class 2 bike lanes, consistent with federal standards. In Article 11, at existing Section 8181-12.1, the CZO states that open space easements and public access easements are to be acquired through an Offer to Dedicate (OTD) process. This process has shortcomings, primarily because up to 21 years could be required to actually obtain and implement the easement. While the proposed amendments to Section 8181-12.1 would retain the OTD option, the CZO text would be modified to expressly recognize that an easement may be granted to the County, another public agency, or approved non-governmental organization, when required as a condition of approval for a discretionary permit. If there is no agency willing to accept the easement initially, then additional guidance and timeframes are provided for the process of inter-agency OTD transfers. Coastal Trail Implementation Although the proposed CAP amendments constitute an important first step towards establishing a regulatory structure that would support the future development of the Coastal Trail within Ventura County, it is important to acknowledge the substantial implementation challenges associated with development of the Coastal Trail. To address this issue, several programs are proposed for inclusion in Coastal Trail Programs section of the CAP. Other necessary actions would be defined within the detailed report associated with Coastal Trail Program 1 (Exhibit 3, page 4-33). Key implementation action items needed to implement the Coastal Trail are summarized below: Detailed Trail Planning & Coordination: The Planning Division would be primarily responsible for obtaining additional funds to conduct the more detailed trail planning process outlined in the CAP as Coastal Trail Program 1 (Exhibit 3, page 4-33). Potential sources for grant funds include the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the California Coastal Conservancy. While portions of the trail are currently publicly accessible, and a limited set of trail improvements (e.g. Class 2 bike lanes and hiking trails) could occur on a project-level basis based
Planning Commission Staff Report for PL13-0109 Page 22 of 26 solely on the proposed CAP amendments, additional planning is needed before the Coastal Trail can be completed. Trail Construction: In some cases, additional land or public access easements will be needed to provide adequate space for the segments of the Coastal Trail. Actions needed prior to trail construction include the preparation of construction documents, project-level environmental assessments, and funding sources. Trail Maintenance and Operation: Each segment of the trail requires acceptance by a responsible agency for trail maintenance and operation, and such activities will require a dependable source of funding. The construction, maintenance and operation of the Coastal Trail would require a coordinated effort among County and State agencies. Previously, the County did successfully coordinate with Caltrans to provide the Highway 101 HOV Lane bike path, and this project could serve as an example of a successful interagency effort to build segments of the Coastal Trail located within Caltrans road rights-of-way. Also, the County s General Services Agency and Parks Department worked with the County s PWA to build and maintain the Ventura River Trail. Although several County agencies are responsible for building and maintaining specific trails, no County agency has yet been tasked with building or maintaining the Coastal Trail. B. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) Section 21080.9 of the Public Resources Code (CEQA) exempts local governments from the requirement of preparing an environmental impact report or other CEQA document in connection with the adoption of an amendment to an LCP. Instead, certification of an LCP by the Coastal Commission is subject to a review for compliance with the Coastal Act. The Coastal Commission s regulatory program for the preparation, approval and certification of LCPs has been certified by the Natural Resources Agency under Public Resources Code section 21080.5 as the functional equivalent for CEQA review. As a result of this certification, the County and the Coastal Commission are exempt from typical CEQA review in connection with the County s proposed LCP amendments, provided that the Coastal Commission ultimately finds them to be consistent with the Coastal Act. In their LCP amendment submittal packages to the Coastal Commission, cities and counties are required pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 13552, to include an analysis of compliance with the Coastal Act and a review of potentially significant adverse cumulative impacts to coastal access from existing or potentially allowable development that would be allowed by enforcement of the LCP amendments. Such CEQA -equivalent evaluations must be completed before the Coastal Commission can undertake its review of the proposed LCP amendments pursuant to the Coastal Act and its CEQA-equivalent environmental review program. To this end, the Planning Division prepared two evaluations that will be submitted to the Coastal Commission: Exhibit 7: Coastal Act Consistency Analysis Table Exhibit 8: Cumulative Impact Analysis Table
Page 23 of 26 As stated in the Coastal Policy Consistency Table in Exhibit 7 staff determined that the proposed LCP amendments conform to the policies of the Coastal Act. Also, as set forth in Exhibit 7, staff determined that approval of the LCP amendments will not result in significant environmental impacts within the meaning of CEQA. Staff further determined that no feasible alternatives or additional mitigation measures exist that would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts on the environment from approval of the prosed LCP amendments. Moreover, proposed amendments related to WCF are expected to result in beneficial visual and other environmental impacts when compared to WCF developed using existing regulations. C. LCP AMENDMENT FINDINGS This section addresses the required findings for the County s approval of the proposed amendments to the LCP. Amendments to the CAP constitute a General Plan amendment which, under state law, requires the Board s finding that the amendment is in the public interest. The CAP amendments must also be found in conformance with the policies of the Coastal Act, as stated in Chapter 3 therein. In addition, the Ventura County General Plan Land Use Policy 3.1.2.4 requires that all area plans, including the CAP, be consistent with applicable goals and policies of the General Plan. The County s approval of the proposed CZO amendments require the Board s making of similar findings of approval, as stated in section 8184-1 thereof: [The CZO] may be amended by the Board of Supervisors whenever the public health, safety, or general welfare, good zoning practice, and consistency with the Coastal Act, the County General Plan, or the Coastal Area Plan justify such action. The proposed CAP amendments were found to be in the public interest because they provide recreational and utility services in coastal zone while concurrently preserving coastal resources and enhancing coastal access for current and future residents. All required findings for approving the proposed LCP amendments, including the proposed CZO amendments, are addressed in Exhibit 7 (Coastal Act Consistency Analysis Table) and Exhibit 9 (Required Findings and Supporting Evidence). Detailed findings prepared for the proposed CAP and CZO amendments, on a topic-bytopic basis, were utilized to support the public interest finding, the Coastal Act conformance finding, and the General Plan conformance finding. This approach was taken because the policies in the CAP are closely related to implementation measures in the CZO. Thus, the Coastal Act Consistency Table (Exhibit 7) lists various CAP policies in one column and related implementation measures in the adjacent column. The interrelationship between policies and implementation measures also reflects the planning process, whereby a comprehensive set of amendments were prepared for individual topics. For the WCF topic, new policies that address the design and siting of wireless communication facilities were prepared because the existing CAP had no related content. Conversely, the Coastal Trail comprises a major, entirely new section of the CAP but does not include implementation measures in the CZO.
D. PLANNING PROCESS AND PUBLIC COMMENTS Planning Commission Staff Report for PL13-0109 Page 24 of 26 The planning process used to prepare the Phase 2B amendments to the LCP included a public outreach program as well as coordination with federal, state and county agencies. Additional opportunities for public input will occur during two public hearings before the County s decision-making bodies and a third public hearing before the California Coastal Commission. A summary of the planning process is provided below, and detailed information on public comments received during the public outreach program is provided in Exhibit 10 of the staff report. The Planning Division provided public notice regarding the Planning Commission hearing in accordance with the Government Code ( 65091) and the CZO ( 8181-6.2 et seq.). A detailed legal advertisement was placed in the Ventura County Star, and adjacent cities and coastal agencies were notified. In addition, public review drafts of the proposed LCP amendments were placed on the Planning Division website and at the County Hall of Administration, local Coastal Commission offices, and local libraries. 1. California Coastal Commission Coordination Amendments to the County s LCP must be certified by the California Coastal Commission before becoming effective, and this section of the staff report provides a summary of the coordination process that took place between the Planning Division and Coastal Commission staffs when preparing the LCP amendments. That process was initiated in January 2016, followed by a series of monthly meeting. During these meetings, a positive and constructive relationship was developed between the Planning Division and Coastal Commission staff and representatives from both agencies worked in a cooperative manner to resolve differences and prepare draft amendments that will be certified by the Coastal Commission. 2. Public Outreach Program The public outreach program for the LCP amendments included a series of public meetings, emails, and website information. The primary objective of this program was to provide opportunities for members of the public, as well as technical experts and stakeholder groups, to participate in the development of coastal zone policies and regulations. A special section of the Planning Division website was developed for the LCP amendments, and information within this website was updated regularly to educate the general public about proposed amendments to the LCP and the decisionmaking process. In addition, e-mail notices were periodically sent to a list of interested parties when new website information was available. To review the proposed LCP amendments, a series of four public meetings were held in August 2016. Prior to initiating those meetings, the Planning Division distributed a total of 650 emails and 4200 postcards to coastal residents, property owners, home owner associations, cities, stakeholder groups, and other interested parties to inform them about the subject matter and meeting dates/locations. In addition, public review drafts of the proposed LCP amendments were placed on the Planning Division website and provided as handouts at all public meetings. Meeting locations included
Page 25 of 26 Fire Station 25 on the North Coast, the Orvene S. Carpenter Community Center in Port Hueneme on the Central Coast, and Fire Station 56 on the South Coast. In addition, a fourth meeting was held at the Government Center targeted towards bicyclist and hiking groups and the proposed Coastal Trail. The offsite locations for public meetings were chosen to minimize drive time and promote an informal setting so that participants would feel comfortable to express their opinion. At each meeting location, exhibits were displayed that illustrated the proposed Coastal Trail Maps, and a PowerPoint slideshow was presented that explained the proposed provisions for the Coastal Trail, WCF, and Civil/Administrative Penalties. A detailed summary of both the verbal and written comments received during the public outreach program is provided in Exhibit 10. This information includes staff responses and a summary of the revisions made to the draft LCP amendments in response to public comments. E. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS Based upon the preceding analysis and information provided, Planning Division staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. CERTIFY that the Planning Commission reviewed and considered this staff report and all exhibits thereto, and considered all comments received during the public comment process; and 2. ADOPT a Resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors take the following actions: a. FIND that the County s approval of the proposed amendments to the Ventura County Local Coastal Program are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.9 and CEQA Guidelines section 15265 (Exhibits 7 and 8); b. FIND, based on the substantial evidence in Exhibit 7 of this staff report and the entire record, that the proposed LCP amendments are consistent with the California Coastal Act including the policies stated in Chapter 3 thereof; c. FIND, based on the substantial evidence in Exhibit 9 of the staff report and the entire record, that the proposed amendments to the Coastal Area Plan are in the public interest and are consistent with the goals, policies and programs of Ventura County General Plan; d. ADOPT a resolution approving the proposed amendments to the Coastal Area Plan, as described in Exhibit 3 of the staff report; e. FIND, based on the substantial evidence in Exhibit 9 of the staff report and the entire record, that the proposed amendments to the Coastal Zoning Ordinance are