TO: Commissioners and Interested Persons

FROM: Deborah Lee, Deputy Director, Pam Emerson, Los Angeles County Area Supervisor, Charles Posner, Coastal Program Analyst

SUBJECT: Major Amendment Request No. 1-01 to the City of Long Beach Certified Local Coastal Program (For Public Hearing and Commission Action at its June 14, 2001 meeting in Los Angeles.

SUMMARY OF LCP AMENDMENT REQUEST NO. 1-01

The City of Long Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP) was certified by the Coastal Commission on July 22, 1980. The current proposal is the City's first major LCP amendment request for 2001. Both the Land Use Plan (LUP) and the LCP Implementing Ordinances (LIP) portions of the certified LCP are affected by this amendment.

The LCP amendment request, contained in City Council Resolution No. C-7793 (Exhibit #3) and Ordinance No. C-7729 (Exhibit #4), would delete the current prohibition on financial uses in LCP Area D (Belmont Shore) of the City’s coastal zone, and allow such uses subject to specific design criteria and limitations developed to protect the pedestrian-oriented character of the Belmont Shore Shopping District. City Ordinance No. C-7729 also includes several other corrections, clarifications and non-substantial modifications to the certified LIP.

SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff is recommending that the Commission, after public hearing:

Approve the amendment request to the LUP as submitted; and, Deny the amendment request to the LIP as submitted; Approve, only if modified, the amendment request to the LIP.

The motions to accomplish this recommendation begin on Page 3. As submitted, the LUP amendment request is in conformance with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. If modified, the LIP amendment request will be in conformance with, and adequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified LUP as amended. The suggested modifications, which begin on Page 5, are necessary to carry out the parking provisions of the certified LUP. The City agrees with the suggested modifications.

CONTENTS OF LCP AMENDMENT REQUEST

Local Coastal Program Amendment Request No. 1-01 affects both the Land Use Plan (LUP) and the LCP Implementing Ordinances (LIP) portions of the certified LCP. The LCP amendment request is contained in City Council Resolution No. C-7793 and Ordinance No. C-7729. City Council Resolution No. C-7792 submits the LCP amendment to the Commission for certification.

The City Planning Commission held a public hearing for the proposed LCP amendment on November 16, 2000. The City Council held a public hearing for the proposed LCP amendment on January 9, 2001. The amendment request was deemed submitted for Commission review on March 21, 2001, ten working days after it was received in the Commission’s Long Beach office.

This LCP amendment request is consistent with the submittal requirements of the Coastal Act and the regulations which govern such proposals (Sections 30501, 30510, 30514 and 30605 of the Coastal Act, and Sections 13551, 13552 and 13553 of the California Code of Regulations).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The standard of review for the proposed amendment to the LUP, pursuant to Section 30512 of the Coastal Act, is that the proposed LUP amendment is in conformance with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act.

The 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 is in conformance with, and adequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified LUP.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Copies of the staff report are available at the South Coast District office located in the ARCO Center Towers, 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000, Long Beach, 90802. To obtain copies of the staff report by mail, or for additional information, contact Charles Posner in the Long Beach office at (562) 590-5071.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends adoption of the following motions and resolutions:

A. Approve the Amendment to the Land Use Plan as Submitted

MOTION I: "I move that the Commission certify Amendment Request No. 1-01 to the City of Long Beach Land Use Plan as submitted by the City."

Staff recommends a YES vote which would result in the adoption of the following resolution and findings. An affirmative vote by a majority of the appointed Commissioners is needed to pass the motion.

Resolution to Certify the Amendment to the Land Use Plan as Submitted

The Commission hereby approves certification of amendment request No. 1-01 to the City of Long Beach Land Use Plan as submitted by the City and adopts the findings stated below on the grounds that the amended Land Use Plan meets the requirements of and conforms with the policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200) of the California Coastal Act. Certification of the Land Use Plan amendment meets the requirements of Section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) of the California Environmental Quality Act in that there are no feasible alternatives or mitigation measures which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts that the amendment may have on the environment.

B. Deny the Amendment to the LCP Implementing Ordinances as Submitted

MOTION II:

"I move that the Commission reject Amendment Request No. 1-01 to the City of Long Beach LCP Implementing Ordinances as submitted by the City."

Staff recommends a YES vote which would result in the rejection of the amendment as submitted and the adoption of the following resolution and findings. An affirmative vote by a majority of the Commissioners present is needed to pass the motion.

Resolution Rejecting Amendment to LCP Implementing Ordinances as Submitted

The Commission hereby rejects Amendment Request No. 1-01 to the Implementing Ordinances of the City of Long Beach certified Local Coastal Program, as submitted, for the reasons discussed below and adopts the findings set forth below on the grounds that the amendment to the Implementing Ordinances does not conform with, or is inadequate to carry out, the provisions of the Land Use Plan as certified. Approval of the Implementing Ordinances would not meet the requirements of Section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) of the California Environmental Quality Act in that there are alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse effects that the approval of the amendment to the Implementing Ordinances would have on the environment.

C. Approve the Amendment to the LCP Implementing Ordinances if Modified

MOTION III:

"I move that the Commission certify Amendment Request No. 1-01 to the City of Long Beach LCP Implementing Ordinances if it is modified in conformity with the modifications set forth in this staff report."

Staff recommends a YES vote which would result in certification of the amendment with suggested modifications and the adoption of the following resolution and findings. An affirmative vote by a majority of the Commissioners present is needed to pass the motion.

Resolution to Certify Amendment to the LCP Implementing Ordinances if Modified

The Commission hereby certifies Amendment Request No. 1-01 to the Implementing Ordinances of the City of Long Beach Local Coastal Program if modified as suggested, for the reasons discussed below and adopts the findings set forth below on the grounds that the amended ordinances, maps, and other implementing actions are consistent with, and adequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified Land Use Plan, as provided in Section 30513 of the Coastal Act, if amended according to the suggested modifications stated in Section II of this report. Approval of the amendment to the Implementing Ordinances, if modified as suggested, meets the requirements of Section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) of the California Environmental Quality Act in that there are no further feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact that the approval of the amendment to the Implementing Ordinances would have on the environment.

II. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS

Certification of the LIP amendment is subject to the following modifications.

A. Modification to Section 21.52.208 Special Standards for Banks, etc. in CNP Zones

Add Section E to the following requirements for banks, credit unions and savings and loans in the CNP zoning district (suggested modification shown in bold Italics):

21.52.208 Bank, credit union, savings and loan.

The following conditions shall apply to a bank, credit union, or savings and loan located in the CNP (Commercial Neighborhood Pedestrian Oriented) zone:

A. The project must comply with Section 21.32.230 Design of Buildings.

B. Drive-thru windows or drive-thru automated teller machines are prohibited.

C. No new curb cuts shall be permitted for a new or existing bank, credit union, or savings and loan in Local Coastal Planning Area D (Second Street, between Livingston and Bayshore).

D. Interior and exterior lighting, windows displays, and other architectural features shall be included in the building street frontages to provide pedestrian interest during non-operational hours.

E. Projects in Local Coastal Planning Area D (Second Street, between Livingston and Bayshore) that qualify for the one-half rate parking standard pursuant to Section 21.41.226.A shall make their parking facilities available for public parking during non-operational hours.

B. Modification to Section 21.41.226.A Special Parking Requirements for CNP Zones

Delete "New Buildings" from Section 21.41.226.A in order to clarify that the one-half rate parking standard for CNP zoned properties in LCP Area D applies to all uses (except restaurants), not just new buildings. Deleted words are crossed-out: New Buildings.

21.41.226.A Special Parking Requirements for CP and CNP District.

A. New Buildings. In Area D of the coastal zone (Second Street, between Livingston Drive and Bayshore Avenue), the parking in the CP and CNP districts shall be one-half (1/2) of the parking required in Chapter 21.41, Table 41-1c, except the one-half (1/2) parking standard shall not apply to restaurants (new and reuse/conversion of existing non-restaurant lease spaces) which shall conform to full parking standards…

III. FINDINGS

The following findings support the Commission's approval of the LUP amendment as submitted, the Commission's denial of the LIP amendment as submitted, and approval of the LIP amendment if modified as indicated in Section II (Suggested Modifications) of this report. The Commission hereby finds and declares as follows:

A. Description of LCP Amendment Request

The LCP amendment request, contained in City Council Resolution No. C-7793 and Ordinance No. C-7729, would delete the current prohibition on financial uses in LCP Area D (Belmont Shore) of the City’s coastal zone, and allow such uses subject to specific design criteria and limitations that have been developed by the City to protect the pedestrian-oriented character of the Belmont Shore Shopping District. Several other corrections, clarifications and non-substantial modifications to the certified LIP are also proposed, as described below.

Financial Uses in LCP Area D (Belmont Shore)

The Long Beach certified LCP currently prohibits financial uses in the Belmont Shore area, which is referred to in the LCP as Area D (Exhibit #2). The prohibition on financial uses was included in the City’s original LCP submittal in 1980 and certified by the Commission. At that time, the City was concerned that any additional bank buildings in Belmont Shore would diminish the unique character of the commercial strip along Second Street. The LCP describes the Second Street commercial strip in Belmont Shore as a unique neighborhood-scale pedestrian-oriented shopping district. Large bank buildings, which typically occupy an entire block of street frontage (building plus parking lot), were believed to be incompatible with the smaller-scale retail and restaurant uses that the City and the LCP emphasize in LCP Area D.

In 1980, the City addressed the issue by prohibiting all financial uses in LCP Area D, regardless of size or scale. The existing banks in the area were allowed to continue as non-conforming uses. There are currently four banks operating in LCP Area D, all on Second Street:

Washington Mutual, 5200 Second Street, 12,616 sq.ft. building
Bank of America, 5101 Second Street, 7,267 sq.ft. building
Wells Fargo, 5030 Second Street, 1,000 sq.ft. portion of building
F&M Bank, 4827 Second Street, 9,118 sq.ft. building

In recent years, the scale and nature of banks and other financial uses have evolved from primarily large centralized office buildings to smaller scale facilities that can be located within smaller buildings (e.g. automatic teller machines) or within other commercial uses (e.g. bank outlets in supermarkets). Check-cashing outlets are a newer type of financial use that typically operate out of storefronts in order to serve neighborhoods that have limited access to banks.

The City asserts that residents in LCP Area D have requested that the LCP prohibition on financial uses be removed so the neighborhood can have better access to such uses. In order to remove the LCP prohibition on financial uses in LCP Area D, the City proposes to modify the LUP policy on which the prohibition is based. City Council Resolution No. C-7793 (Exhibit #3) would modify the following LUP policy which addresses non-residential development in LCP Area D (Belmont Shore) by deleting the prohibition on financial uses:

The unique character of the shopping district in Belmont Shore should be preserved. It should not emphasize region-serving facilities, but rather should be developed to serve the residents of the area. Retail shops which encourage foot traffic and window shopping shall be the predominant uses. Financial institutions and drive-in and drive-through facilities are prohibited. No further encroachment into residential areas by commercial enterprises shall be allowed. All parking spaces connected with the commercial strip shall be considered the parking reservoir in individual permit applications (see Implementation section). Parking in the first lots north and south of the alleys behind the shops may be allowed under provisions of conditional uses permits, except in the block between Park Avenue and St. Joseph Avenue, north of Second Street, where parking may extend up to two lots north of the alley.

The commercial node at Granada and Ocean shall be limited to neighborhood-serving uses.

City Ordinance No. C-7729 (Exhibit #4) would implement the requested change to the LUP by amending the LIP zoning tables to delete the LIP prohibition on financial uses in LCP Area D (Exhibit #5, p.3). Ordinance No. C-7729 would also insert new sections and modify existing sections of the zoning ordinance in order to impose specific design criteria and development standards on new banks, credit unions and savings and loans that are proposed in the CNP (Commercial Neighborhood Pedestrian) zoning district. The CNP zone is the commercial zoning designation used throughout LCP Area D.

Building Standards for LCP Area D

The proposed LCP amendment would add Section 21.52.208 (Bank, credit union, savings and loan conditions) to the zoning ordinance, and amend Section 21.52.247 (Building design in the CNP zone) in order to impose specific requirements on new financial uses in the CNP zoning district (Exhibit #3, p.13-14). Any new bank, credit union or savings and loan proposed in a CNP district would be subject to the limitations and specific design criteria listed in Sections 21.52.208, 21.52.247 and 21.32.230, which include prohibitions on drive-through facilities and curb cuts. The requirements of Sections 21.52.208, 21.52.247 and 21.32.230 would be imposed through the Administrative Use Permit process required by Table 32-1 for all new banks, credit unions and savings and loans proposed in the CNP zone (Exhibit #4, p.4).

An Administrative Use Permit is a discretionary action taken by the City after a duly noticed public hearing. An Administrative Use Permit may be denied by the City, but in order for the permit to be approved, the project must be found to be consistent with the General Plan, the certified LCP and the conditions enumerated in Chapter 21.52 of the zoning ordinance (see Sections 21.52.208 and 21.52.247 below).

Proposed Section 21.52.208 (Exhibit #4, p.14) states:

21.52.208 Bank, credit union, savings and loan.

The following conditions shall apply to a bank, credit union, or savings and loan located in the CNP (Commercial Neighborhood Pedestrian Oriented) zone:

A. The project must comply with Section 21.32.230 Design of Buildings.

B. Drive-thru windows or drive-thru automated teller machines are prohibited.

C. No new curb cuts shall be permitted for a new or existing bank, credit union, or savings and loan in Local Coastal Planning Area D (Second Street, between Livingston and Bayshore).

D. Interior and exterior lighting, windows displays, and other architectural features shall be included in the building street frontages to provide pedestrian interest during non-operational hours.

Amended Section 21.52.247 (Exhibit #4, p.13) states:

21.52.247 Building design in the CNP zone.

A. The use will primarily serve the local community.

B. The project must comply with Section 21.32.230 Design of Buildings, to insure pedestrian orientation.

C. Drive-thru lanes are prohibited.

D. Existing curb cuts from the primary pedestrian thoroughfare must be closed and vehicular access taken from alleys and/or secondary streets.

The proposed design standards and special development standards for new financial uses in LCP Area D and other CNP districts are intended to strengthen the pedestrian scale and orientation of such uses. The specific design requirements for banks, credit unions and savings and loans located in the CNP zone (as required by proposed Sections 21.52.208 and 21.52.247 above) are contained in Section 21.32.230 of the zoning ordinance (Exhibit #4, p.6&7). Section 21.32.230 of the zoning ordinance is proposed to be amended to include the special development standards that were previously contained in Section 21.32.240, which is being repealed (Exhibit #5, p.4). Amended Section 21.32.230 would require all banks, credit unions and savings and loans located in a CNP district to use a consistent architectural theme on all facades of the building with extensive articulation to create visual interest and enhance pedestrian activity along the site, require the provision of frequent windows on the ground floor façade, and encourage the use of awnings. Facades must be designed with modular expression that distinguishes the ground floor facades from the upper floors and breaks the façade scale to a width of fifty feet or less (Exhibit #4, p.6&7).

In regards to building setbacks and height limits, any new building proposed for a financial use in LCP Area D would be required to conform to the existing commercial development standards contained in the certified LIP (zoning ordinance). The height limit in the CNP district is 28 feet and two stories. The CNP zoning district has a front and side yard setback requirement of zero due to the pedestrian orientation of this zone in which the buildings abut the public sidewalk and other buildings. No additional limits on building size and scale are proposed for financial uses in the CNP district.

However, the City does propose to impose additional restrictions on all new buildings in the CNP district that exceed 5,000 square feet, regardless of use. The LIP amendment includes a request to impose a requirement for an Administrative Use Permit for the construction of a new building with 5,000 square feet or more in the CNP district (See Section 21.25.403.G, Exhibit #4, p.14). The required Administrative Use Permit for buildings 5,000 square feet or larger would trigger the requirements of Chapter 21.52, including Sections 21.52.208 (Bank, credit union, savings and loan conditions) and 21.52.247 (Building design in the CNP district). The proposed permit threshold of 5,000 square feet would not affect new bank buildings in LCP Area D since all new banks, credit unions and savings and loans of any size located in a CNP zone would be required by Table 32-1 (Administrative Use Permit Requirement) to conform to the requirements of Sections 21.52.208 and 21.52.247 above, and thus Section 21.32.230 also (Exhibit #5, p.3).

Parking Standards for LCP Area D

The size of buildings in LCP Area D is limited also by the LCP requirement to provide off-street parking at a specific rate determined by the proposed use and amount of floor area. The certified LCP parking standard for retail uses is four spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (Chapter 21.41 Off-street Parking and Loading requirements). The certified LCP parking standard for banks and savings and loans is more stringent: five spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. The parking standard for dinner restaurants is ten spaces per 1,000 square feet of dining area, not gross floor area.

Because the LCP parking standard for banks and savings and loans is more stringent than other uses, and applies to the entire floor area of the structure (gross floor area), any new bank building would have to be limited in size in order to correspond to its off-street parking supply. The amount of area available for off-street parking in LCP Area D is very limited because the LCP limits the number of commercial properties where parking is allowed by right, and these lots are very expensive. Therefore, the size and scale of new bank buildings is limited in LCP Area D, not only by the 28-foot height limit, but also by the limited availability of area for economically feasible parking supplies.

The lack of available area for off-street parking in LCP Area D is addressed in the certified LCP. Because of the unique character and pedestrian orientation of the Belmont Shore area, the certified LCP states that the parking standard in the CNP and CP districts shall be only one-half (1/2) of the parking required by Chapter 21.41 (Off-street Parking and Loading requirements). The following half-rate parking exception, which is currently part of the certified LCP, applies to all buildings on CNP zoned properties within LCP Area D (except for restaurants):

21.41.226.A Special Parking Requirements for CP and CNP Districts.

A. New buildings. In area D of the coastal zone (Second Street, between Livingston Drive and Bayshore Avenue), the parking in the CP and CNP districts shall be one-half (1/2) of the parking required in Chapter 21.41, Table 41-1c, except the one-half (1/2) parking standard shall not apply to restaurants (new and reuse/conversion of existing non-restaurant lease spaces) which shall conform to full parking standards. In all other areas of the coastal zone, parking in the CP and CNP district shall be as required in Chapter 21.41, Table 41-1c (also see 21.41.240). Any new parking provided, or reconfiguration of existing parking facilities, in Area D of the coastal zone can utilize tandem parking subject to the provisions of section 21.41.235, Subsection B, of the tandem parking regulations.

[Note: Section 21.32.240.F below is being deleted by this LCP amendment, because, according to the City, it is repetitive. The City is retaining the one-half rate parking standard for LCP Area D in Section 21.41.226.A. above. Notice that Section 21.32.240.F (below) does not limit the one-half rate parking to "new buildings" as does Section 21.41.226.A (above). The Commission and the City never intended to limit the one-half rate parking only to new buildings. In LCP Area D, the City has consistently applied the one-half rate parking requirement to new buildings and new uses in existing buildings. The City also uses one-half rate parking standard when calculating grandfathered parking deficiencies for existing uses and buildings that are converted to new uses. The City has requested that Section 21.41.226.A above be modified to delete "New buildings" from the text (See Suggested Modification B in Section II of this report).]

21.32.240.F CP and CNP Districts, Parking. [Proposed to be deleted.]

F. In area D of the coastal zone (Second Street, between Livingston Drive and Bayshore Avenue), the parking in the CP and CNP districts shall be one-half (1/2) of the parking required in Chapter 21.41, Table 41-1c, except the one-half (1/2) parking standard shall not apply to restaurants (new and reuse/conversion of existing non-restaurant lease spaces) which shall conform to full parking standards. In all other areas of the coastal zone, parking in the CP and CNP district shall be as required in Chapter 21.41, Table 41-1c (also see 21.41.240). Any new parking provided, or reconfiguration of existing parking facilities, in Area D of the coastal zone can utilize tandem parking subject to the provisions of section 21.41.235, Subsection B, of the tandem parking regulations.

Currently, the one-half rate parking requirement is applicable to all new and existing buildings and all new and existing uses in LCP Area D. Therefore, any financial use proposed in LCP Area D would qualify for the one-half rate parking standard pursuant to Section 21.41.226.A (half the normal rate of five spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area). Nonetheless, the difficulty in providing any new off-street parking in LCP Area D would tend to limit the size of any new building, whether it is proposed as a financial use or any other use.

The proposed LCP amendment also includes several other corrections, clarifications and non-substantial modifications to the certified LIP, as described below.

Correction to Building Height Standards for Commercial Districts

When Chapter 21.32 (Commercial Districts) was updated in 2000 to reflect the City’s conversion to its new set of commercial zoning designations (LCP Amendment No. 1-00), a provision in Section 21.32.210 (Building Height) which exempted elevator and mechanical equipment penthouses from being included in the measurement of height for commercial buildings was inadvertently dropped from the zoning ordinance. The City proposes to reinsert the elevator and mechanical equipment penthouses height limit exemption into the zoning ordinance by:

Amending the definition of "Height of Building" contained in Section 21.15.1330 to add Section 21.15.1330.C, which states: Elevator and mechanical equipment penthouses shall not be included in the measurement of height for commercial buildings (Exhibit #5, p.1).

Adding footnotes to the Commercial Development Standards Tables 32-2 and 32-2A which state that: Elevator and mechanical equipment penthouses shall not be included in the measurement of height for commercial buildings (Exhibit #5, ps.6&7).

Historic Landmarks Section 21.27.130 (Historic Landmark and Landmark District Exemption) is being amended as follows in order to correct the cross-referenced sections and to limit code exemptions for reuse of historic structures (Exhibit #4, p.2).

21.27.130 Historic Landmark and Landmark District Exemption.

Any building or structure designated as an historic landmark or located within a designated landmark district established under Chapter 2.63 of this code, shall be exempted from restrictions of this Chapter relating to abandonment (Section 21.27.050), change in use (Section 21.27.070), restoration (Section 21.27.130) or and maintenance (Section 21.27.140), provided that any use or construction plans are approved with a certificate of appropriateness issued by the Cultural Heritage Commission.

As amended, the exemptions to the Chapter 21.27 (Non-conformities) requirements for historic landmark or buildings located within a designated landmark district would not apply to the provisions relating to abandonment or change in use.

Site Plan Review Procedures

Sections 21.52.502.A.2.b and 21.52.502.A.2.c of the Site Plan Review administrative procedures are being amended to clarify and make more understandable the existing thresholds for a Site Plan Review requirement (Exhibit #5, ps.1&2). The existing thresholds for Site Plan Review are not being changed, but are being rewritten in a manner more easily understood, and thus easier for the City to administer in a consistent manner.

Development Standards for Artist’s Studio with Residence

Section 21.52.204 of the zoning ordinance is being amended to update the applicable development standards for artist’s studios with residence (Exhibit #4, p.12). The amended standards for artist’s studios with residence are more specific and limit the use of noisy and dangerous materials.

Definition of "Social Service Office"

Section 21.15.2795 is added to the definition section of the zoning ordinance to define "Social Service Office". See Exhibit #4, p. 13 for definition. The City developed the definition of "Social Service Office" when it adopted Planned Development District PD-30 in 1998, and is now incorporating it into the zoning ordinance and certified LIP.

B. Analysis of Amendment to LUP Policy

As described above, the City proposes to delete the current prohibition on financial uses in LCP Area D (Belmont Shore) of the City’s coastal zone, and allow such uses subject to specific design criteria. The City proposes to modify the following LUP policy as indicated in order to remove the LCP prohibition on financial uses in LCP Area D (Belmont Shore).

The unique character of the shopping district in Belmont Shore should be preserved. It should not emphasize region-serving facilities, but rather should be developed to serve the residents of the area. Retail shops which encourage foot traffic and window shopping shall be the predominant uses. Financial institutions and drive-in and drive-through facilities are prohibited. No further encroachment into residential areas by commercial enterprises shall be allowed. All parking spaces connected with the commercial strip shall be considered the parking reservoir in individual permit applications (see Implementation section). Parking in the first lots north and south of the alleys behind the shops may be allowed under provisions of conditional uses permits, except in the block between Park Avenue and St. Joseph Avenue, north of Second Street, where parking may extend up to two lots north of the alley.

The standard of review for the proposed amendment to the LUP policy, pursuant to Section 30512 of the Coastal Act, is that the proposed LUP amendment is in conformance with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. Sections 3025l and 30253 of the Coastal Act are the Chapter 3 policies applicable to the proposed LUP amendment because they call for the protection of community character and scenic coastal areas. Belmont Shore (LCP Area D) is a special community with a unique character that shall be protected pursuant to the following Coastal Act Policies.

Section 3025l of the Coastal Act states:

The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas....

Section 30253(5) of the Coastal Act states:

New development shall:

(5) Where appropriate, protect special communities and neighborhoods which, because of their unique characteristics, are popular visitor destination points for recreational uses.

The LCP prohibition on financial uses was included in the City’s original LCP submittal in 1980 because the City was concerned that the addition of new large bank buildings along Second Street in Belmont Shore would diminish the unique character of the pedestrian oriented neighborhood-serving commercial strip along Second Street. Second Street is characterized by compact one and two-story commercial buildings that abut the public sidewalks. Most of the buildings are built wall to wall and contain small restaurants or neighborhood-serving stores with many windows for the display of merchandise. The limited off-street parking facilities are located behind the commercial strip and accessed by the alleys (Exhibit #2).

The LCP prohibition on new financial uses protected the pedestrian scale of Second Street by eliminating the potential for new large bank buildings in LCP Area D. Existing banks were allowed to continue as non-conforming uses. The concern was that new large bank buildings with blank walls would occupy large sections of street frontage that would otherwise contain several small neighborhood-serving storefronts with numerous entries and windows for the display of merchandise. Long sections of sidewalk without individual stores and windows would have an adverse effect on the pedestrian-oriented nature of Second Street. >[?The City has now determined that there is no need for a blanket prohibition on all new financial uses in LCP Area D, and that the community character issue can be adequately addressed with specific design standards that would require new buildings for financial uses to be designed with a pedestrian orientation and to provide details for visual interest. New financial uses would be allowed within the existing structures without having any detrimental effect on pedestrian-oriented character of the area. New buildings would be designed to conform to the character of the area by providing large windows and breaks in the façade. Drive-through facilities would still be prohibited.

The LUP states that, "The unique character of the shopping district in Belmont Shore should be preserved." The Commission finds that the Coastal Act provisions which protect community character and visual resources do not require that all financial uses be prohibited in the Belmont Shore area. Financial uses can be permitted in existing structures without adversely effecting the unique character of the Belmont Shore shopping district. A blanket prohibition on financial uses is too broad in light of the variety of potential financial uses, such as automatic teller machines (ATM), storefront banks and check-cashing outlets. These types of financial uses and traditional banks would serve the local residents, as well as the many visitors, while maintaining the unique character of the area.

Additionally, it is possible to design new buildings for financial uses that conform with the unique character of Belmont Shore. The Commission agrees with the City that the unique character of the area can be preserved while allowing financial uses which are subject to specific design and development standards. Therefore, the proposed deletion of the prohibition on financial uses in LCP Area D is consistent with Sections 30251 and 30253 of the Coastal Act.

C. Analysis of LIP Amendment Allowing Financial Uses in LCP Area D

The 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 is in conformance with, and adequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified LUP. The LUP (as amended), in regards to LCP Area D, states:

The unique character of the shopping district in Belmont Shore should be preserved. It should not emphasize region-serving facilities, but rather should be developed to serve the residents of the area. Retail shops which encourage foot traffic and window shopping shall be the predominant uses. Drive-in and drive-through facilities are prohibited. No further encroachment into residential areas by commercial enterprises shall be allowed. All parking spaces connected with the commercial strip shall be considered the parking reservoir in individual permit applications (see Implementation section). Parking in the first lots north and south of the alleys behind the shops may be allowed under provisions of conditional uses permits, except in the block between Park Avenue and St. Joseph Avenue, north of Second Street, where parking may extend up to two lots north of the alley.

The current character of the Belmont Shore commercial strip is very different than it was in 1980 when the LCP was certified. At that time, the commercial area was comprised mostly of neighborhood-serving uses that were pedestrian oriented. Now, the area is still pedestrian oriented, but is much more of a regional attraction with its numerous restaurants, bars and boutiques. In fact, restaurants have proliferated to such an extent that the City had placed a moratorium on new restaurants prior to deleting the one-half rate parking standard for restaurants [See LCP Amendment No. 2-99A). Many of the retail storefronts that existed in 1980 have been converted to restaurant uses to meet the demand of visitors who have discovered the special ambiance of the Belmont Shore area. A parking shortage that exists in the area occurs primarily during the evenings when the restaurants and bars are meeting their peak demand.

The shopping district in Belmont Shore may have changed over the past twenty years, but its unique character and pedestrian orientation has been preserved to the delight of many. The proposed LIP amendments include many provisions to ensure that the unique character and pedestrian orientation of the area continues to be protected. These provisions include: prohibition of drive-through facilities and curb cuts which interfere with pedestrian use of the sidewalk, requirement for consistent architectural theme on all facades of the building with extensive articulation to create visual interest and enhance pedestrian activity along the site, requirement for the provision of frequent windows on the ground floor façade, and the encouragement of the use of awnings and other architectural features to create visual interest (See Exhibit #4, ps.6-7 & 13-14).

As required by the LUP, new financial uses in LCP Area D would serve the residents of the Belmont Shore area, as well as the many visitors. The unique character of the shopping district in Belmont Shore would be preserved by the LCP provisions that limit building size and require orientation to the pedestrian. Therefore, the proposed LIP amendment is adequate to carry out the provisions of the certified LUP to protect the unique character of the shopping district in Belmont Shore.

Parking Issues

The Belmont Shore commercial area along Second Street has a long history of inadequate parking resources. There is tremendous competition for parking spaces between the residents of this densely populated neighborhood and the employees and customers of the commercial uses on Second Street. There is generally enough on-street parking for all users during the daytime hours on weekdays. In the evenings, however, when the area residents come home from work and the numerous restaurants and bars are meeting their peak demand, the public parking supply (primarily on-street parking) fills up and it becomes very difficult at times to find a place to park an automobile.

The lack of adequate parking along Second Street has little effect on shoreline access due to the large public beach parking lots located a half-mile south of Second Street (Exhibit #2). The beach parking lots are generally too far from the commercial area to be used by the employees and customers of the commercial uses on Second Street, and beach goers do not typically park that far inland, especially when adequate beach parking is provided on the streets and lots closer to the water.

Part of the parking problem is due to the lack of area available for off-street parking and the one-half rate parking standard for commercial uses in LCP Area D. Most of the parking demand generated by commercial uses is met by the on-street parking supply and in the public parking lots located behind the commercial strip.

Pursuant to Section 21.41.226 of the zoning ordinance (LIP), any new financial use in LCP Area D would qualify for the LCP one-half rate parking standard for commercial uses. Because financial uses such as banks typically operate only during the day on weekdays (sometimes on Saturdays), their customers do not usually compete for the area’s parking supply during the peak use periods in the evenings and on weekends. Therefore, even if a new bank building did not provide adequate on-site parking, it would probably not contribute to the area’s parking problems due to the availability of adequate on-street parking during the day on weekdays. In fact, the four banks that currently exist in LCP Area D help to alleviate the parking problems during the evenings and on weekends by making their parking lots available (for a fee) for public use when the banks are not open for business. In any case, the lack of adequate parking for the commercial uses along Second Street has a minimal effect on shoreline access.

The proposed LIP amendment, however, must conform with the LUP and be adequate to carry out the provisions of the certified LUP that relate to parking. As proposed, the LIP amendment does not conform with the LUP and is not adequate to carry out the provisions of the certified LUP.

In regards to parking in LCP Area D, the LUP states:

All parking spaces connected with the commercial strip shall be considered the parking reservoir in individual permit applications.

The above-stated LUP policy implies that joint-use of parking facilities is encouraged. In fact, joint-use of parking facilities is a common occurrence in the Belmont Shore shopping district. As stated above, the four banks that currently exist in LCP Area D help to alleviate the parking problems during the evenings and on weekends by making their parking lots available (for a fee) for public use when the banks are not open for business.

The following general transportation and access policies are also contained in the certified LUP (LCP p.II-2):

1. Increase reliance on public transit.

2. Decrease reliance on automobiles.

3. Provide slightly more parking.

4. Increase pedestrian and bicycle opportunities.

Suggested Modifications

The LUP calls for joint use of parking facilities in LCP Area D and "slightly more parking" in general. Therefore, in order to carry out the provisions of the certified LUP, the LIP amendment shall be modified as follows in order to require that the off-street parking provided for bank, credit union, or savings and loan uses in the CNP district (LCP Area D) be made available for public use (joint use) during non-operational hours (when the bank is closed):

Add Section E to the following requirements for bank, credit unions and savings and loans in the CNP District (suggested modification shown in bold Italics):

21.52.208 Bank, credit union, savings and loan.

The following conditions shall apply to a bank, credit union, or savings and loan located in the CNP (Commercial Neighborhood Pedestrian Oriented) zone:

A. The project must comply with Section 21.32.230 Design of Buildings.

B. Drive-thru windows or drive-thru automated teller machines are prohibited.

C. No new curb cuts shall be permitted for a new or existing bank, credit union, or savings and loan in Local Coastal Planning Area D (Second Street, between Livingston and Bayshore).

D. Interior and exterior lighting, windows displays, and other architectural features shall be included in the building street frontages to provide pedestrian interest during non-operational hours.

E. Projects in Local Coastal Planning Area D (Second Street, between Livingston and Bayshore) that qualify for the one-half rate parking standard pursuant to Section 21.41.226.A shall make their parking facilities available for public parking during non-operational hours.

Only as modified can the proposed LIP amendment be found to be adequate to carry out the provisions of the certified LUP as required by Sections 30513 and 30514 of the Coastal Act.

Another modification is required in order to correct an oversight in the proposed LIP amendment. Section 21.32.240.F below is being deleted by this LCP amendment because the LCP half-rate parking standard for LCP Area D already exists in Chapter 21.41 (Off-street Parking and Loading requirements) where it belongs.

21.32.240.F CP and CNP Districts, Parking. [Proposed to be deleted.]

F. In area D of the coastal zone (Second Street, between Livingston Drive and Bayshore Avenue), the parking in the CP and CNP districts shall be one-half (1/2) of the parking required in Chapter 21.41, Table 41-1c, except the one-half (1/2) parking standard shall not apply to restaurants (new and reuse/conversion of existing non-restaurant lease spaces) which shall conform to full parking standards. In all other areas of the coastal zone, parking in the CP and CNP district shall be as required in Chapter 21.41, Table 41-1c (also see 21.41.240). Any new parking provided, or reconfiguration of existing parking facilities, in Area D of the coastal zone can utilize tandem parking subject to the provisions of section 21.41.235, Subsection B, of the tandem parking regulations.

The City is retaining the one-half rate parking standard for LCP Area D in Section 21.41.226.A. as follows:

21.41.226.A Special Parking Requirements for CP and CNP District.

A. New Buildings. In Area D of the coastal zone (Second Street, between Livingston Drive and Bayshore Avenue), the parking in the CP and CNP districts shall be one-half (1/2) of the parking required in Chapter 21.41, Table 41-1c, except the one-half (1/2) parking standard shall not apply to restaurants (new and reuse/conversion of existing non-restaurant lease spaces) which shall conform to full parking standards. In all other areas of the coastal zone, parking in the CP and CNP district shall be as required in Chapter 21.41, Table 41-1c (also see 21.41.240). Any new parking provided, or reconfiguration of existing parking facilities, in Area D of the coastal zone can utilize tandem parking subject to the provisions of section 21.41.235, Subsection B, of the tandem parking regulations.

Notice that Section 21.32.240.F (to be deleted) below does not limit the one-half rate parking to "new buildings" as does Section 21.41.226.A above. The Commission and the City never intended to limit the one-half rate parking only to new buildings. In LCP Area D, the City has consistently applied the one-half rate parking requirement to new buildings, expanded uses and new uses in existing buildings. The City also uses one-half rate parking standard when calculating grandfathered parking deficiencies for existing uses and buildings that are converted to new uses.

The one-half rate parking standard, like other parking standards, is triggered when an application is submitted to construct a new building, expand an existing building or use, or to convert an existing use in an existing building to a new use. Therefore, the City has requested that Section 21.41.226.A be modified to delete "New buildings" from the text in order to clarify that the one-half rate parking standard for CNP zoned properties in LCP Area D applies to all buildings and uses (except restaurants), not just new buildings. This modification would have no effect on existing buildings and uses, as all buildings and uses (except restaurants) on CNP zoned properties in LCP Area D already qualify for the one-half rate parking standard. The number of existing parking spaces would not be reduced due to the fact that most of the existing commercial uses on Second Street are non-conforming in regards to parking because they provide too few or zero off-street parking spaces.

As modified, the LIP amendment is consistent with and adequate to carry out the provisions of the certified LUP as required by Sections 30513 and 30514 of the Coastal Act.

D. Analysis of Other LIP Amendments

The proposed LCP amendment also includes several other corrections, clarifications and non-substantial modifications to the certified LIP, as described below.

Correction to Building Height Standards for Commercial Districts

When Chapter 21.32 (Commercial Districts) was updated in 2000 to reflect the City’s conversion to its new set of commercial zoning designations (LCP Amendment No. 1-00), a provision in Section 21.32.210 (Building Height) which exempted elevator and mechanical equipment penthouses from being included in the measurement of height for commercial buildings was inadvertently dropped from the zoning ordinance. The City proposes to reinsert the elevator and mechanical equipment penthouses height limit exemption into the zoning ordinance by:

Amending the definition of "Height of Building" contained in Section 21.15.1330 to add Section 21.15.1330.C, which states: Elevator and mechanical equipment penthouses shall not be included in the measurement of height for commercial buildings (Exhibit #5, p.1).

Adding footnotes to the Commercial Development Standards Tables 32-2 and 32-2A which state that: Elevator and mechanical equipment penthouses shall not be included in the measurement of height for commercial buildings (Exhibit #5, ps.6&7).

This portion of the LIP amendment does not conflict with any portion of the certified LUP and is consistent with current and past procedures for limiting the heights of commercial buildings. Therefore, the proposed correction to Chapter 21.32 is consistent with, and adequate to carry out, the certified LUP.

Historic Landmarks

Section 21.27.130 (Historic Landmark and Landmark District Exemption) is being amended as follows in order to correct the cross-referenced sections and to limit code exemptions for reuse of historic structures (Exhibit #4, p.2).

21.27.130 Historic Landmark and Landmark District Exemption.

Any building or structure designated as an historic landmark or located within a designated landmark district established under Chapter 2.63 of this code, shall be exempted from restrictions of this Chapter relating to abandonment (Section 21.27.050), change in use (Section 21.27.070), restoration (Section 21.27.130) or and maintenance (Section 21.27.140), provided that any use or construction plans are approved with a certificate of appropriateness issued by the Cultural Heritage Commission.

As amended, the exemptions to the Chapter 21.27 (Non-conformities) requirements for historic landmark or buildings located within a designated landmark district would not apply to the provisions relating to abandonment or change in use. The proposed amendment of Section 21.27.130 limits special exemptions to the other provisions of the LIP and does not conflict with any portion of the certified LUP. Therefore, the proposed amendment to Section 21.27.130 is consistent with, and adequate to carry out, the certified LUP.

Site Plan Review Procedures

Sections 21.52.502.A.2.b and A.2.c of the Site Plan Review administrative procedures are being amended to clarify and make more understandable the existing thresholds for a Site Plan Review requirement (Exhibit #5, ps.1&2). The existing thresholds for Site Plan Review are not being changed, but are being rewritten in a manner more easily understood, and thus easier for the City to administer in a consistent manner. This is a non-substantial change to the LIP and is consistent with, and adequate to carry out, the certified LUP.

Development Standards for Artist’s Studio with Residence

Section 21.52.204 of the zoning ordinance is being amended to update the applicable development standards for artist’s studios with residence (Exhibit #4, p.12). The amended standards for artist’s studios with residence are more specific and limit the use of noisy and dangerous materials. The proposed additional restrictions on artist’s studios with residence uses are consistent with the LUP provisions that protect the existing character of the City’s coastal neighborhoods. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with, and adequate to carry out, the certified LUP.

Definition of "Social Service Office"

Section 21.15.2795 is added to the definition section of the zoning ordinance to define "Social Service Office". See Exhibit #4, p. 13 for definition. The City developed the definition of "Social Service Office" when it adopted Planned Development District PD-30 in 1998, and is now incorporating it into the zoning ordinance and certified LIP. The proposed definition is consistent with, and adequate to carry out, the certified LUP.

E. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the California Code of Regulations [Title 14, Sections 13540(f), 13542(a), 13555(b)] the Commission's certification of this LCP amendment must be based in part on a finding that it is consistent with CEQA Section 21080.5(d)(2)(A). That section of the Public Resources Code requires that the Commission not approve or adopt an LCP:

...if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse effect which the activity may have on the environment.

The Commission finds that for the reasons discussed in this report there are no additional feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available that could substantially reduce any adverse environmental impacts. The Commission further finds that the proposed LCP amendment is consistent with Section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) of the Public Resources Code.