The California Coastal Commission rejected the proposed Fisherman’s Wharf redevelopment project. (Courtesy photo)
By Chris Frost
San Francisco-- The California Coastal Commission, Aug. 12, rejected a request by Ventura County Harbor Department for an LCP (Local Coastal Plan) amendment override of the Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) and Coastal Zoning Ordinance of the certified City of Oxnard LCP at Fisherman's Wharf.
The request would have increased allowable density and height specification in the harbor, modified allowable uses and development standards to accommodate a mixed-use residential development at the Fisherman's Wharf site.
The action stops the proposed 400-unit high-end apartment building with no affordable housing set at market rate, plus 36,000 square feet of visitor-serving commercial space, 16 boat slips, a promenade, and one acre of park space.
During the meeting, Developer Tellefson agreed to add affordable housing units, and the commissioners said that needs action by the City of Oxnard.
There is an urchin dock in place that would have been moved south to a nearby boatyard.
The Harbor District and the City of Oxnard reached an impasse on the development. The city refused to approve the amendment to the Local Coastal Plan and criticized the Harbor District for omitting details.
The Coastal Commission made the same findings and expressed some frustration over the matter. They told the two groups to get together and work out a compromise solution. They surmised that the project was not vetted properly.
Chairman Steve Padilla reviewed the subject and said the Fisherman's Wharf site is 11 acres and was built during the 1970s and 80s. It is a waterfront-oriented, visitor-serving commercial and recreational fisherman's village development. The development has nine buildings and 48,000 square feet of commercial space, an urchin dock, and commercial fishing processing facilities.
Other areas at the harbor do have residential development; he said, but there are no residences at the Fisherman's Wharf site, as they are not permitted.
Under its public works program, the county has planning and regulatory authority over its projects in the harbor.
"Oxnard's city limits extend to all harbor land areas, and the harbor land areas are included in the city's certified local coastal plan," he said.
The standard of review for a public works plan amendment is the city's certified LCP.
"In 2016, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors approved a PWP (Public Works Plan) amendment to allow residential uses at Fisherman's Wharf," District Director Steve Hudson said. "Shortly thereafter, the commission staff notified the harbor department that the PWP amendment could not be approved by the commission. Residential uses at the site would be inconsistent with the corresponding zone within the certified Oxnard LCP."
The Oxnard LCP identifies the site as Harbor Channel Islands, and that is a designation.
"The purpose of that zone is to protect commercial, recreational boating, and related uses," he said. "Residential uses are not allowed. The harbor department submitted an application to the City of Oxnard to end the city's LCP to allow a mixed-use project."
The harbor department submitted an application to the Coastal Commission and asked for an override. The override would take the item from the city and make it a Coastal Commission matter.
The change increases the harbor density from 18 to 40 units per acre, but it did not delineate whether the change is for Fisherman's Wharf or the entire Channel Islands area. The maximum building height will change from 35 to 55 feet and add an urban village designation to the Fisherman's Wharf site.
"That will allow a mix of residential, commercial, and office uses," he said. "Changes to the certified implementation plan portion of the LCP allows residential units at the Fisherman's Wharf site of up to 36 units per acre. It modifies minimum required setbacks for structures and adds a new development standard that would allow project proponents to propose alternative development standards."
The override procedure follows coastal act section 30515 and administrative section 13666 and includes whether the amendment qualifies for processing and satisfies the findings of section 13664.
The harbor has to be qualified to undertake a public works project, and since harbors are included in public works, it meets the criteria.
The harbor department also asserts that Fisherman's Wharf is a prominent location and will be a catalyst for any rejuvenation effort.
"This allows long term amenities in the harbor," Padilla said.
Conversely, he said regional public needs would not be met by providing market-rate housing at the waterfront where coastal-related and visitor-serving uses are prioritized.
"The harbor department did not provide evidence about how the amendment would benefit Fisherman's Wharf as a whole," he said. "The needs of the harbor could not otherwise be met without redevelopment of this site without residential development. As such, your staff does not believe this amendment satisfies your criteria."
The Harbor Department didn't anticipate a need for a mixed-use when they certified, he said, so the Coastal Commission believes they satisfied the third criterion.
"We don't believe that it meets the important second criteria," he said.
The second finding to override Oxnard's decision states that the proposed development meets the need for an area greater than the Local Coastal Plan in chapter three of the Coastal Act.
Staff identified three applicable resources, including public access and recreation, commercial fishing, recreational boating, and visual resources.
"The primary purpose of the Fisherman's Wharf site is to provide and protect commercial fishing and recreational boating," Padilla said. "The zone also allows secondary visitor-serving uses, such as commercial visitor-serving uses. Those are considered subordinate and incidental to the primary use. The existing development pattern at Fisherman's Wharf is consistent with this requirement. The development includes commercial fishing facilities, and it also includes ancillary visitor-serving facilities, like restaurants, retail, and other visitor-serving opportunities.
The override allows residential uses throughout the harbor, he said, but it does not mean the residential use is ancillary or subordinate.
"This would give market-rate housing equal priority and consideration to those other uses," he said. "That is inconsistent with the provisions of the land-use plan and the Coastal Act policies which prioritize recreational and visitor-serving uses in waterfront locations."
He admitted that some housing might be appropriate, but the amendment does not provide enough detail that shows the housing remains subordinate to priority uses.
The east side of the harbor has lots of industrial boatyards, and Fisherman's Wharf has the only unobstructed water views with public access.
"Because the amendment does not include specific details or standards about the scale size and layout about the future mixed-use project, the site could be developed with any combination of structures and can block these visual resources in the future," he said. "Additional development in the area consists of single-family residences to the north, open harbor waters to the west, and single-story industrial boatyards to the south. The 55-feet height increase has the potential for a mixed-use development that is inconsistent with smaller in scale and low-in-height development in the vicinity."
Allowing the override allows the proponent to add additional development standards in the future. That can mean increased heights that would exaggerate its inconsistency with the surrounding area.
"Some comments expressed the amendment also conflicts with the commission's environmental justice policy," Padilla said. "The conversion of lower-cost, visitor-serving facilities to market-rate residential units will be a barrier to residents with low-income. The Coastal Act does not authorize the commission to regulate affordable housing. The environmental justice policy recognizes that affordable housing is a legitimate environmental justice issue. The provision of housing can't be permitted at the expense of coastal resources."
Hudson said viable alternatives exist, and the harbor department could coordinate with the city to develop an LCP amendment to include detailed mixed-use development standards.
Denying the amendment override does not hurt the public's welfare, identified in the general provisions of the coastal act.
"The Coastal Act encourages well-planned development, including affordable housing within the coastal zone, but recognizes the state has limited waterfront coastal areas," he said. "Those waterfront areas should be prioritized for development of coastal dependent and related development."
The Harbor Department submitted a letter to the commission and said the project included development standards, and the staff didn't "adequately analyze" those standards. Had the commission staff included the standards with the amendment, it would make the amendment consistent with the required findings for an override.
"We did receive those development standards with the county's application, but they were submitted as a background document to the application," he said. "They were not included in the text changed to the land use or implementation plan. We're basing our review of the override on what was before the city. When the city denied the original land-use plan amendment, these development standards were not before the city. The city did not act on those."
Hudson said the standards submitted do not address any of the project issues.
During exparte on the item, Commissioner Roberto Uranga said he had multiple conversations with members of the Oxnard City Council and management staff, plus members of the public who opposed the development.
He spoke with Mark Sandoval from Ventura Harbor, who expressed support for the project.
Commissioner Erik Howell also had exparte communication, including a conversation with Oxnard Mayor Pro Tem Carmen Ramirez.
During public comments, Harbor Director Mark Sandoval wished he could bring the item to the commission under different circumstances.
"The county hoped to partner with the city and bring this to you as a traditional LCP amendment, where the city could have helped frame the development for Fisherman's Wharf, but it refused to do so," he said. "That process has been an example of government failing the people of Ventura County and visitors throughout the state."
He accused the City of Oxnard of using whatever means to stop a project that will benefit a region larger than the city.
"That's exactly what we have here," Sandoval said. "The Coastal Act gives you the ability to override and assume jurisdiction in just this type of situation. Because it's an override, it can condition the LCP Amendment to achieve Coastal Act consistency. The board recommends denial of the LCP Amendment incorrectly and says it doesn't qualify for process, pursuant to the override procedures.
Sandoval addressed six findings, including how the LCP amendment wouldn't maintain or address coastal resources, public access, recreation, or recreational boating facilities and wouldn't ensure adequate public parking.
He submitted a list of all the concerns detailed in the development standards.
"They would result in a great development to enhance access and visitor-serving facilities," he said. "Evidence does not demonstrate that the LCP amendment would meet the needs of an area greater than the area included in the LCP.
This story will continue on Aug. 28.
"fisherman" - Google News
August 20, 2020 at 08:52AM
https://ift.tt/3g81B1S
Coastal Commission slaps down Fisherman's Wharf development override - Tri County Sentry
"fisherman" - Google News
https://ift.tt/35ujXVg
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Coastal Commission slaps down Fisherman's Wharf development override - Tri County Sentry"
Post a Comment