Delay for Coastal Commission Plan Review
Kari Olsen
Synopsis: The California Coastal Commission (CCC) has not yet completed its formal review of the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan (GP/LCP) and Zoning Ordinance documents submitted by the City of Morro Bay in 2005. According to the CCC, the key reason for the delay was a failure by City staff to provide requested information and to work with the CCC on a new update. Residents have criticized the documents, alleging that their content does not reflect or support the kind of community that residents want. CCC review of the documents is expected to begin shortly, following talks between the agency and Morro Bay City staff.
The California Coastal Commission (CCC) has not yet completed its formal review of the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan (GP/LCP) and Zoning Ordinance documents submitted by the City of Morro Bay in 2005. City officials have repeatedly expressed frustration with the delay and wondered aloud, in the course of public meetings, what is taking so long. Some Morro Bay residents have expressed the opinion that public comment on the documents identified problems so fundamental and widespread that the CCC might be unwilling or unable to put in the amount of work required to "fix" them. An explanation recently provided by the CCC indicates that the key reason for the delay was a failure by City staff to provide requested information and to work with the CCC on a new update.
On June 4, 2010, a resident sent an inquiry to the CCC's Santa Cruz office asking why the review of Morro Bay's documents was taking so long. On June 7, 2010, the following reply was received: "the LCP update submittal was never filed for Commission action because the City did not provide supporting information that was needed for our review and requested of the local government. Several years ago we met with City staff and agreed to a process to work together on a new update but that effort stalled. We look forward to re-energizing such a cooperative update process in the future and will be meeting with the City later this month to discuss." The resident forwarded the CCC's message to the City Council.
As noted in the CCC's response, something was missing from the materials submitted by the staff, but its specific nature was not identified. According to a letter found in a City file, the first submission was rejected because it did not include public comment. Another letter from the same file, which appears to have accompanied the city's second submission to the CCC, indicates that the City's intent was to provide public comment in that document package.
The letter from then-Public Services Director Bruce Ambo to the CCC, dated November 28, 2005, states, "This memo forwards the: 1) general Plan/Local coastal Plan, GP/LCP Map, and 2) Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Map, Local Coastal Program and Coastal Implementation Plan that were respectively approved by the City of Morro Bay on February 23, 2004, and July 20, 2005. The public record is also transmitted that includes all of the staff reports, environmental documentation – Negative Declarations, Tables of Proposed Changes, public hearing meeting minutes, public hearing notices, comments and responses to both documents including the names and addresses of commenters, and all other related materials in the record of consideration and approval of both documents."
According to Mr. Ambo's letter, "Throughout this amendment process we have been listening to the community and carefully considering their expectations in confirming their support for these policies and regulations. We believe both of these documents are far more articulate than the existing plans in expressing the wants, needs and expectations of the community." Documents included in the CCC submission file, and others later provided to the CCC by residents, indicate that this view was and is not echoed by all community members. Residents have published some of the dissenting public comment online.
In the minutes of the November, 17, 2003 Planning Commission meeting are a number of residents' comments: "Colby Crotzer was critical that it had taken so long to the the General Plan rewrite and revision and also of the late in the evening placement on the agenda because it didn't facilitate people participating. Crotzer said it was a signal to him that real participation of the public is not what the Commission was seeking. Crotzer said Crawford, Multari and Clark's expensive work ($120,000) and expertise as highly respected professionals in the field had often been butchered in the process of deletion and cited examples." "George Contento said the proposed changes to the General Plan and the Local Coastal Plan are damaging to average citizens. He added the changes result in less specific codes and give more power to elected and appointed officials. Contento said enforcement would become political rather than objective."
The minutes included comments from other residents including Ray McKelliott, who suggested more workshops, Brenda Agee-Smiley, who said that more hours of work were on the General Plan were needed "in order for the Commission to realize how citizens of Morro Bay felt about the revised and condensed version," and Bob Tefft, who stated that the plan was inconsistent with State law in several respects, and that the goals in the General Plan are not achievable, measurable, or time specific. The minutes indicate that several other residents expressed serious concerns, some of which were submitted in the form of written documents.
Additional content of the minutes appears to indicate that John Barta, who was Chair of the Planning Commission at the time, disagreed with the residents' comments. Prior to the meeting's public comment period, Barta stated that the Commission had started out with two documents, the General Plan and the LCP, and had "reduced them to a more compact plan, but preserved the essence." Following public comment, according to the minutes, he said that "the Crawford, Multari & Clark issue had been addressed" and that "the final result is positive." With regard to allegedly missing information cited by resident Jack McCurdy, the minutes show Barta stated that, ". . . the Commission went through the plan and found that certain goals could be combined and they were renumbered," and that Barta further stated that "the language is present and there is a different number on it." With regard to comments that the public had been left out of the process, "Barta said the process has taken many years, discussions and workshops." Other members of the Planning Commission at the time were Ken Vesterfelt, Steve Carnes, Don Doubledee and Sarah McCandless.
Resident comments made at Planning Commission meetings were not the only formal expression of public concern regarding the GP/LCP and Zoning changes. Residents also submitted concerns and complaints to the City Council and, in some cases, directly to the CCC. Some alleged that many of the changes made to the existing GP/LCP and Zoning Ordinance were intended to benefit small special interest groups rather than the residents of Morro Bay.
In a February 14, 2005 email to the City Council, resident Frank Merrill said, "City Zoning ordinances are rather similar no matter where one goes and the residential zones of R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 are familiar to anyone who has anything to do with city planning, real estate or construction. With the stated intent to streamline Morro Bay's Zoning Ordinance, the last Planning Commission's Proposed Update came up with new residential zones of RS-A, RS-B, RS-C, RS-D, DR and RM. Is this a simplification? Worse, hidden in this new lineup is the fact that the R-3 (medium density housing) zone has been eliminated. Property currently zoned R-3 would carry the new designation of RM which is in fact, the old R-4 (high density housing zone.) Why do I care? As it happens I live next to a large vacant parcel of land currently zoned R-3. This is the Texaco Property in North Morro Bay. Our area is medium density, one or two story residential. Changing the Texaco property to the new RM zone means high density, three story residential."
Merrill's letter went on to say, "How would you like a 30 foot high building just five feet from your small patio? That's what's allowable in an RM zone. Of course zone change would be a seven figure windfall for chevron Texaco. Their property zoned RM would accommodate about one third more living units and thereby be worth about one third more when they sell to a developer. Planning stated that high density units on this site would encourage low cost housing. That's a pipe dream. The land value goes up in proportion to the allowable unit count so the land cost per unit stays about the same. All of this is just one of the many problems in the Zoning Ordinance Update. I don't expect you to be an expert on zoning but you need to know that this ordinance change contains much grief for your constituents. I know a lot of time and money went into preparing this Update, but it is badly flawed and needs to be scrapped entirely."
Another resident researched the proposed new residential zones and noted the following concerns: In the RS-A Zone, the proposed Zoning Ordinance would decrease the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet. A minimum front setback of 20 feet would be retained for garages only. The proposed RS-C zoning designation will result in substantial changes in development standards for the north Morro Bay neighborhoods that are presently designated R-1/S.2. These will include: 1) Front yard depths will be reduced from 15 feet (including garages) to 10 feet (including garages). 2) Interior side yard widths will be reduced from 10% of lot width (maximum of five feet) to three feet. 3) Corner side yard widths will be reduced from 20% of lot width (maximum of ten feet) to six feet (ten feet for garages)." The changes in development that will be brought about by the new RS-C zone will be even greater for the current R-1 neighborhoods in south Morro Bay: 1) Maximum lot coverage will be increased from 45% to 50%. 2) Front yard depths will be reduced from 20 feet to 10 feet (including garages). 3) Interior side yard widths will be reduced from 10% of lot width (with a minimum of five feet and a maximum of ten feet) to three feet. 4) Corner side yard widths will be reduced from 20% of lot width (with a minimum of five feet and a maximum of ten feet) to six feet (ten feet for garages). 5) Rear yard depths will be reduced from 10% of lot width (with a minimum of six feet and a maximum of ten feet) to five feet."
The resident further noted that, "the proposed new RM District would include several areas that are presently zoned R-3. The largest such area is located in north Morro Bay immediately east of North Main Street and north of Sequoia Street. Another small R-3 area is situated on the east side of South Main Street, between South and Olive Streets. The primary impacts of the new RM designation on these sites would be: 1) A reduction in the Minimum Lot Area per Unit from the current 2,175 square feet to 1,800 square feet, increasing the density of development by approximately 17%, and 2) An increase in allowable building height from 25 to 30 feet."
Labeling the zoning changes as "developer-serving," resident Linda Stedjee asked the Council, "Reduced setbacks, reduced front yard depths, reduced rear yard widths, reduced side yard width, reduced corner side yard widths, increased maximum lot coverage, reduction of minimum lot area per unit, and increased allowable building height – Which stakeholders' needs and desires do such changes serve?"
Stedjee also identified GP/LCP changes that allegedly eliminate protection of neighborhood and community character and would benefit developers at the expense of residents. Among the changes cited were the deletion of Policy LU-15: "The present human scale and leisurely, low intensity appearance of Morro Bay should be maintained through careful regulation of building height, location and mass" and Program LU-18.1: "The present human scale in building design and style should be encouraged in all future development and redevelopment in lieu of high-intensity or high-rise concepts."
In addition to the material removed, changes were cited, including these: 1) "Character of Residential Development: The City is experiencing a gradual transformation of its residential areas where small, older structures are being replaced by new and considerably larger homes. This places considerable emphasis on ensuring that new projects fit well with the established neighborhoods. Policies are included in the General Plan to preserve the character of residential neighborhoods so that new residences and residential additions are consistent with the scale and character of residences in the vicinity" was replaced with "The City is experiencing a gradual transformation of its residential areas where small, older structures are being replaced by new and considerably larger homes. This trend is likely to continue due to the continuing dramatic increase in residential land prices in Morro Bay." 2) The original Goal 4, "an aesthetically pleasing community with effective standards for the location, amount, rate, type, scale, and quality of new development" was replaced with "An aesthetically pleasing community that maintains the "small town fishing village" image with new development that complements existing development and does not detract from the natural environment"
Resident Dorothy Cutter's review of the updated Zoning Ordinance determined that the Planned Development Overlay Zone, intended to provide special protection for sensitive areas of the City, had been eliminated. In a July, 2007 email to the City Council, another resident working with Ms.Cutter alleged that "The manner in which this was done was particularly deceptive in that, in the document entitled, ‘Morro Bay Zoning Ordinance Update Table of Proposed Changes', . . . which purportedly provides a summary of significant changes, there is ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION OF THIS CHANGE, AND NOTHING THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED EVEN CLOSE TO COVERING IT. The protections that the PD zone offered are simply GONE in the proposed zoning. Needless to say, this is a huge giveway to developers, who would no longer have to bother with such things as concept plans, and minor use permits for certain improvements. Clearly, the elimination of the protections contained in the PD Overlay regulations is completely unacceptable, and Vision Morro Bay members will be strongly urging the Coastal Commission - which, by the way, is still accepting our public comment on the Zoning and GP/LCP submissions - to restore this vital section of the ZO. Once again, summaries supposedly provided to help people understand the Zoning Ordinance changes prove completely unreliable and deceptive."
In a document titled "Not Ready for Prime Time," one resident described the ways in which he believed the updated GP/LCP document was inconsistent the State's General Plan Guidelines document and with State law. Seven specific problem areas were identified.
Problem areas one through three were cited as inconsistencies with the Guidelines: 1) Absence of Measurable Objectives . . . ."The draft General Plan/Local Coastal Plan contains no Objectives, and the Goals specified are so broad that any determination as to whether progress is being made in achieving them will be virtually impossible." 2) Vagueness of Policies: ". . . a) Fourteen of the policies use the word "should" rather than "shall." B) Even many of the policies which employ the word "shall" are phrased so vaguely as to be of no use as guides to decision making. As an example, Policy LU-9 states that ‘The City shall work to identify substandard mobile home parks within the community and institute a longterm, reasonable program to either cause their improvement, relocation or ultimate removal." This policy requires no concrete course of action, only that the City ‘work to" establish some unspecified program relating to mobile home parks. If "substandard mobile home parks" exist in the community, they should be identified in the general plan and a specific course of action should be specified for their abatement." 3) Absence of appropriate implementing measures: a) Of the 106 policies proposed, 63% (67 policies) have no implementing measure specified, and b) Of the 48 goals put forward in the draft, five have neither policies nor implementing measures. Inexplicably, several of the Goals which are not supported by appropriate objectives, policies, or implementing measures deal with maintaining the "small town" character of Morro Bay, preserving surrounding agricultural lands, and preserving the bay and natural environment – areas identified in public workshops as being of the highest priority to the community."
Problem areas four through seven were cited as inconsistencies with State law: 4) Absence of Appropriate Standards for Population Density: " . . . The proposed draft is deficient in that: a.) Densities for low, moderate, medium, and high-density residential areas are specified in dwelling units per acre. b.) No standards are specified for other zoning areas in which residential uses are allowed (e.g.,mixed use areas). 5. Absence of Appropriate Standards for Building Intensity: "The Camp and Twain Harte cases also established that a general plan must include standards for building intensity in each of the various land use categories of the plan. The proposed draft contains no standards for building intensity. 6.) Inadequacy of Land Use and Circulation Elements: " . . . The proposed draft contains no quantified projections of future development and there is no relationship between the circulation and land use elements." 7.) Absence of Noise Element: ". . . The current proposed draft contains no noise element or noise-related data."
Residents report that all of the above-cited resident concerns and more have been submitted to the City Council, the Planning Commission, and the CCC. Some residents have asked why, in the face of the numerous concerns and criticisms expressed by residents, the Council voted to submit the GP/LCP and Zoning Ordinance to the CCC. One resident likened the action to a student turning in a seriously-flawed term paper, expecting the professor to do the research and writing necessary to fix all the errors, and to then give the student full credit and a good grade for the deficient work.
It was suggested by some residents that rather than reviewing the documents themselves, Council members may have erred by relying on change summary documents provided by the Planning Commission. One such document is titled, "Public Review Draft General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan – Policy change Matrix," and dated August, 2000. Among the explanations provided in that document is a statement that Policy LU-15 was deleted because it was "repetitive," and that the intent of the policy was"included in policies for Downtown, Embarcadero and neighborhoods, and incorporated into zoning regulations." The document also states that Program LU- 18.1 was deleted because its content had been "incorporated into the City's zoning ordinance (through maximum building height, setback requirements, and maximum lot coverage. Residents who delved into the contents of the proposed GP/LCP and Zoning ordinance have hotly disputed these statements, alleging that the protections provided by Policy LU-15 and Program LU-18.1 were in fact not covered elsewhere, and were lost.
Another summary document, titled, "Morro Bay Zoning Ordinance Update Table of Proposed Changes" also provided to explain changes made by the Planning Commission and City staff, may also have been used by the Council in place of a detailed review of the documents. With regard to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 17.06, the document states that the authors, "Updated, clarified and reformatted residential district provisions based on General Plan policies," and "Updated land use regulations based on State law, current City practice, and General Plan policies." Critics allege that while these statements sound harmless, the actual changes made were not.
In a letter to the CCC, one resident asked the agency to, "Tell the City that if the problems identified in public comment are not fixed, the entire submission will be scrapped, and they will have to fall back to the old GP/LCP and Zoning Ordinance, and start over." The actual outcome may soon be known, as the City staff finally resume meetings with the CCC to get the project back on track – several years after the last attempt.
Belted Kingfisher image on banner by Cleve Nash |
