Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 1981-05-26 #S 1 May 20, 1981 MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Director of Planning SUBJECT: Coastal Conservancy Project 3-79 (DWP Property) Staff had received a copy of the Coastal Commission staff report on the above-identified proposed project on May 18 by virtue of a copy of the report being mailed to a citizen. The Coastal Commission official report was received by the City on May 19th. The Coastal Commission staff report continues to reflect inaccurate and uneconomically feasible aspects relative to proposed and allowed land uses. This Coastal staff report has ignored many of our comments presented at the Coastal Commission meeting in April of this year and reflects their con- tinued processing of this proposed project without City participation. Basically, their "approved plan" adopts all the elements discussed in the last plan: 1 . 6.5 acres of park, 2. 3 acres of development (public uses and parking) , 3. 7% of site for revenue production, 4. 14 condominiums above commercial , until proven uneconomical , then requiring Coastal Commission approval to go to 22 units. 5. Development to be on north end of site, 6. Development to be of Spanish-style architecture, 7. Development to include: a) restaurant (18,000 sq. ft. ) b) tackle shop c) fishing rental and sales d) bicycle and roller skate rental and sales e) snack shops f) youth hostel (30 beds) g) cultural center (12,000 sq. ft. which houses: ) 1 ) small theater 2) studio 3) galleries 4) meeting rooms, and 5) auditorium. In addition, this newly revised report adds a few aspects which have never before been discussed and adds inaccurate information and conditions that the City may find difficult and restrictive. New or Revised Conditions A) Requires separate parking, conspicuously posted, for bicyles, motor- cycles and motor bikes. B) Requires parking in line with Coastal Commission and Orange County regional standards. This requirement will demand far greater land areas devoted to parking, which the City will have to maintain, police and provide at a fee far below current beach parking fees or free. Note: All autos are prohibited from the 6.5 acre park area. Bikes and motorbikes will be able to use the trails in the park. C) An extensive Citywide "conspicuously posted signing program" for public and private transportation. D) Public areas of the site to be in public use in perpetuity. AGENDA ITEM #5. r, Coastal Conservancy Project 3-79 (DWP Property) May 20, 1981 Page 2 E) All ground floor commercial to be "visitor serving" in perpetuity, and no office uses shall be permitted on the ground floor. F) The proposed youth hostel has now taken on a more important role in the overall plan, witness the following quote, "A hostel is a key part of this proposal ." (This new consideration indicates that the proposed 30-bed hostel is a critical link in the "regionwide" bike trail system which is expected to draw 241 ,000 people annually, Since this proposed hostel is on the end of the bike trail line, we cannot be sure how important it is to the system. It is noteworthy that if the proposed 30-bed hostel were used to capacity 365 days of the year, it would draw 10,950 visitors. This represents less than 5% of the projected annual users of the trail . G) The additional eight(8) condominiums, if allowed, must be constructed within the existing building footprint. This will increase the number of stories from 3 to 4, or a height of 45 feet. • Inaccurate Statements The Commission report states that Seal Beach is comparatively low in recrea- tional and open space and demand is high. The report states that we have 2.6 acres of Regional Park per 1000 population. This statement is inaccurate in that we currently have 3.0 acres of Regional Park per 1000 population, and when Sunset Aquatic Park is completed and the Hellman project approved, we will have 7.0 acres per 1000. At this time, with 3.0 acres per 1000, we are the highest in the County except for the County itself. In the near future, we shall lead even the County in Regional parkland per 1000. As for local parks, the Commission reports that we have 2.0 acres per 1000, when, in fact, we currently have 2.4 acres per 1000 and expect to have in the very near future, 3.97 acres per 1000. Again, we lead the incorporated areas in the County. Conditions We Cannot Live With This proposed plan, as adopted, gives the Coastal Conservancy and the City of Seal Beach minor flexibility with the specified uses in the plan, but not the option to delete the specified uses proposed. This means, without a doubt, we must have the commercial uses as specified, such as the bait shop, fishing rental , roller skate rental , etc. Additionally, it is specifi- cally stated in the Commission report that any future application for a permit for any aspect of this plan must be consistent with the entire plan. In other words, the entire plan as proposed by the Conservancy with all its proposed uses must be accepted or no permits will be issued. Recommendation A letter should be forwarded to the Coastal Commission, copied to the Coastal Conservancy, clearly indicating our dissatisfaction with the process to date and reaffirming our one and only position relative to the 70%-30% split; that is, to establish the 30% as the economic developable area and the 70% as the public services area, meaning open space, recreation and public facilities such as the cultural center. It should also reaffirm our position of not waiving our development rights to the Conservancy or the Commission relative to specific land uses, development standards and economic potential . Lastly, it should be indicated to the Commission and the Conservancy that it is the City of Seal Beach that is accepting the economic burden of providing open coastal land, and at a rate greater than is reasonably expected for a parcel of this size. Consequently, in a reasonable approach, we would be willing to accept the economic responsibility only if we control the land uses on the 30% of the site. Without these assurances, there should be no City project nor should we seek or accept the tentative CEIP loan. Nicholas Ro aniello NR/gkb NOTED AND APPROVED: A J.Parer, City Manager - / CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION - 631 Howard Street,San Francisco 94105—(415) 543-8555 • STAFF ROMMENDATION ON COASTAL RESTORATION PROJECT Coastal Conservancy Project #3 (Seal Beach) Hearing Opened: 5/15/79 6Cth Day: 6/22/79 APPLICANT: Ca].i.fonaia Coastal Conservancy . DEVELOPMENT ITION: Corner- of First Street and Marina Drive, adjacent to the Pacific Ocean and the San Gabriel River, in the City of Seal Beach, Orange County (Exhibit 1) DEVEMPMENT • DESCRIPTION: Coastal. Restoration Plan to develop the degraded nine-acre Department of Water and Power site and create a park with adjacent commurity cultural center, restaurant, hostel, com- mercial shops, condominium housing, and --site.park ng (Exhibits 2 arid 3) HEARING OPENED: May 15, 1979, in Los Angeles ADDITTDNAL SUBSTANTIVE FILE DOCUMENTS: 1. A Plan By and For Seal Beach:- Guideline for Development prepared by the-... ' - California Coastal Conservancy, dated April 24, 1979 STAFF MOTE: . The California Coastal Conservancy is submitting the Department of Water and Power site restoration plan to the California Coastal Commission for its review and approval, as rean.red by Sections 31213 and 31208 of the Coastal Conservancy Act of 1976. Under Section 31213 the Coastal Commission must take two actions to imple- ment this project: 1. Certify that the project is of high priority in terms of accomplishment of the policies and objectives of the Coastal Act of 1976; and 2. Determine the conformity of such plan with the policies and objectives of the Coastal Act of 1976. . Section 31208 provides that the Coastal Commission has 60 days to review the plan and transmit its findings to the Conservancy. If no findings are made during that period, the restoration plan is deemed Lobe approved and consistent with the Coastal Act. Under the Coastal Act and the Coastal Conservancy Act, the Commission's task is to conduct a conceptual review of the plan and give an indication to the Coastal Conservancy what provisions must be included in a final project to find such a development consistent with the Coastal Act. The Regional Commis- on will review the final project when a permit application for the development is received. The conceptual approval of a restoration plan by the State Commission includes the range of possible uses consistent with the Coastal Act which provides the parameters for later permit approval. 6/19-20-21/79 EX/W t /i /C/ 1 STAFF RFDOMMENDAT'ION: The staff recommends that the Commission adopt the following resolution: I. Avoroval with Conditions The Commission hereby grants, subject to the conditions below, its approval in concept for the proposed restoration plan, fine that the proposed restora- tion plan for the Seal Beach Department of Water and Power site is in conformity with the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976 and is of high priority in terms of the implementation of the policies and objectives of the Coastal Act of 1976. II. Conditions The Commission `ts its approval for the restoration plan subject to the following conditions: 1. General Conditions. The permit application filed with the Regional Com- mission shall include: a.. A copy of this approval in concept, with these conditions. b. A copy of existing engineering and/or geologic reports on the required site restoration and any potential geologic or seismic issues. 2. Access. The permit application filed with the Regional Commission shall include: a. A map showing existing public transit routes which stop within a three- block radius of the project site, showing all conspicuously-posted public transit stops. b. An on-site parking plan providing separate, conspicuously-posted parking areas for bicycle and motorcycle parking. c. An on-site parking plan providing for: (1) conspicuously-posted parsing areas for handicapped parking at a ratio of 1:100 spaces, (2) mechanisms to allocate- __ parking among dual or overlapping uses and to minimize conflicts with the existing - beach parking lot, (3) all the proposed uses consistent with the Regional Interpretive Guidelines for Orange County, and p(4) placement of signs, conspicuously-posted, • indicating the avert-ehility of the parking and facilities to the--general public Which are consistent with the Regional Interpretive Guidelines for Orange County. 3. Views. The permit application filed with the Regional Commission shall - = - include plans providing for an adequate view corridor from Marina Drive to the San Gabriel River channel and the ocean. The Regional Commission shall determine what is an adequate view corridor, consistent with its earlier permit decisions. 4., Recreation. The permit application filed with the Regional Commission shall include a provision which will assure that the public areas of the site will remain in public use in perpetuity. This may be in the form of a deed restriction, an offer to dedicate, or an agreement to protectthe public areas in perpetuity, approved by the Executive Director. 5. Visitor-Serving Facilities. The permit application filed with theReg=or_a? Commissor_ shall provide for a deed restriction which shall be recorded aid evidence of which shall be submitted to the Executive Director; such deed restriction Gha17 idf/ p2 r -3-- assure that all ground-floor commercial shops shall be coastally-related, visitor- serving facilities, and that no residential or office uses shall be permitted on the ground floor. 6. Housing. To offset the lack of any provision for low- or moderate-income -- housing units, the permit application filed with the Regional Commission shall in- - elude: a. An agreement which permits construction of the condominium• units only in conjunction with the construction of, at a mini mum,a 6.5-acre. park with landscaping, ground-floor visitor-serving facilities including, but not limited to, restaurants, a hostel, a cultural center, a fishing platform, a bicycle trail, a lagoon, and a beach. b. A plan which calls for no more than 14 luxury condominiums up to a marimui of 3,000 sq.. ft. each. III. Findings and Declarations The Commission finds and declares as follows: • 1. Project Description. The Conservancy proposes to develop the degraded Department of Water and Power (DWP) site to provide a 6j-acre park with adjacent visitor-serving and housing uses to make the entire development self-supporting. The developed area will consist of a cultural center, hostel,, restaurant, and 14 condominium units above recreation-related shops. Development will be concentrated in the north end of the site and will be of Spanish-style architecture. The site's ground level is reserved for park and visitor-serving uses (Exhibits 2 and 3). The Conservancy estimates that revenue producing uses cover only 7% of the site. . The nine-acre DWP site is located in the City of Seal Beach, in Orange County, just across the county line from Los Angeles County (Exhibit 1). The site is bounded on the north by Marina Drive, on the east by First Street, on the south by the public beach and city parking lot, and on the west by the San Gabriel River channel. At present, the site is vacant with extensive concrete tunnels and founda- tions remaining from the demolition of the power plant. Land uses adjacent to the site include the Marina Trailer Park to the north and one- and two-story residential development to the east. The Regional LAHIO/San Gabriel River bicycle trail ends -- nearby. At the northwest corner of the site adjacent to the river channel is an existing marine-related commercial use which is not part of the project. The project site is currently zoned CRP (commercial-residential-park) by the City of Seal Beach. - This zoning requires that one-third of the site be set aside as open space. M e project is between the sea and the first public road nearest the sea. Briefly, the restoration plan proposes the following uses: = a. Restoration of the site through removal of concrete tam els and founda- tions. Re-use includes a recreational games area and concealed parking space. b. Development of a 6.-acre public park that includes landscaping, bicycle trails, active and passive use areas, a beach area, a fishing platform which utili- zes the ruins of an old bridge ramp, a viewing platform, and a tidal lagoon with fountains. c. Development of visitor-serving recreational facilities, including a cultural center housing a small theatre, studios, galleries, meeting rooms, and an auditorium of approximately 12,000 sq. ft.; and a 30-bed hostel to serve bicyclists and other tourists. • i -4, d. Commercial development including approximately 18,000 sq. ft. of restaurant space and approximately 5,000 sq. ft. of other commercial space, for use as coastal- and recreational-related shops such as bait and tackle shops, fishing rental and sales, bicycle and roller skate services and rentals, snack shops, etc. e. Development of foirteen condominium units of up to 3,000 sq. ft. each - to be located on the second story above the commercial establishments, to enhance the project's economic feasibility. f. Adequate paring associated with each land use to meet anticipated demand. The Conservancy estimates that under the proposed desii. 70% of the project site will be devoted to open-space recreational uses. Ocean and shoreline views from the ground and from proposed public and private structures are provided for in the design. The entire site will remain in public ownership. Space for all proposed private commercial uses will be leased by the City. The proposed restoration plan is the result of over four months of ex- tensive community workshops, conducted by the Conservancy and its consultants, in which over 200 persons participated. Specifically, the proposal takes into account many conclusions of participants of the community workshops. Among these conclusions are that the project not be a financial drain on the City of Seal Beach, that 2/3 of the project be in park use, that parking be as unobtrusive as possible, that the development be, located in the northern portion of the lot, that a cultural center be included in the project, and that maximum public use and access be provided. 2. Access. Section 30210 of the Coastal Act provides that mar m,m public access to the shoreline shall be provided. The restoration plan will provide a wide range of recreational and visitor-serving uses, with 100% of the ground area proposed for public use. The site is well-situated to take advantage of bicycle trails and existing public transit opportunities. Section 30252 of the Coastal Act provides for the maintenance and enhancement of public access to the coast by, among other means: (1) facilitating the provision or extension of transit service,...(3) providing non-automobile circulation with- in the development, [and] (4) providing adequate par!dng facilities... The project would provide for parking in two locations, one of which would only be available for overflow parking at night. The park would be closed to automobiles, and bicycle trails and footpaths are provided on the site. =Public transit systems - _ . in Seal Beach that serve local and rez!onal patrons cu matly include a bus stop at - First r First and Marina, and it is possible that once the site is developed, transit service may be increased. Condition 2a will require the eventual permt application to in- clude a map of existing public transit routes which stop at or near the DWG' site. Condition 2b requires provision of bicycle and motorbike parirng to assure non, automobile circulation within the park and to improve access to the site, consistent with Section 30252. Ample narking for handicapped persons will also be provided through. Condition 2c, to assure that all persons have access to the recreational and visitor-serving uses on the site, consistent with Sections 30252. A potential par!dng problem may arise due to the proximity of an adjacent Cit y owned beach pares rig lot which charges a significant t daily fee (Exhibit 1). Access to the site may be impaired if beach users use on-site parking areas, rather than the beach lot, thereby precluding others from using the recreational and commercial opportunities. Condition 2c would require the eventual permit application to contain �x // p `/ • _ - - • , r -5- a solution to this problem in order for the Commission to find the project con- sistent with the Coastal Act. To assure adequate parking as provided in accordance with Section 30252, Condition 2c also requires the Conservancy to provide mechanisms to allocate parking among dual or overlapping uses. The proposal already provides for separate parking and access for competing residential and commercial users. Since some subterranean parking is called for, a copy of an existing geologic report - shall be provided to the Regional Commission staff for its review to assure the stability of the underground parking area. Finally, parking requirements and con- spicuously-posted notice of available parking, as set forth in the adopted Regional interpretive Guidelines for Orange County, should be complied with; Condition 2c . requires such compliance. Thus, the Commission finds that, as conditioned, the project would provide adequate parking and would be consistent with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act-of 1976. 3. Lau. Section 30251 of the Coastal Act provides that development: . ...shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize alteration of landforms, to be visually compatible with the character of - the surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas... The project's central parking area is designed to fit in with the existing topo- graphy of the site and will also have the benefit of being hidden from view from most areas of the site. The northernmost parking area will serve the developed area of the site and will be visible from the trailer park on Marina Drive and the homes on First Street. The plan calls for parking to be screened from dew either by using the existing topography or landscaping (trees, trellises,and vines, etc.). Using the topography of the sue.to conceal parking and a fishing platform assures that the project will conform to the requirrements of Section 30251 that development protect views and minimize alteration of landforms. Finally, the entire project will "...enhance visual quality in [a] visually degraded area..." by replacing the concrete remains of a power plant with a park and commercial shops. The proposal is within the criteria of.the Regional Inter- pretive Guidelines for height and bulk to assure adequate views for all. The -- Statewide Interpretive Guidelines on View Protection, adopted May 3, 1977, provide that the "...primary concern under [Section 30251]...is the protection of ocean and coastal views from public areas such as...roads..." As such, an adequate view _ corridor from Maria Drive to the San Gabriel River channel and the ocean is assured by Condition 3. As the plan is conditioned, the Commission finds it con- sistent with the visual protection policies provided for in-Section 30251 of the Coastal Act of 1976. - - - 4. Recreation. Section 30221 of the Coastal Act provides that "...oceanfront land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recreational use..." Section 30212 provides that "Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred." Demand for public recreational facilities and open space is high and the City of Seal Beach has an extremely low ratio of recreational space to population according- to SCAG, State and Federal park planning standards. These standards vary starting with 15+_ acres for regional parks and 10-15 acres of local parks per thousand popu- lation. The City currently has approximately 2.6 acres of regional park and 2.1 acres -6- of local parks per thousand population. Orange County has 6 acres of regional parks and 1.6 acres of local parks per thousand population. The DWP site is one of the last few sizable open spaces on the urbanized coastline of Southern.California available for community ues and public access. This site is "Priority 1A" on the Commission's list of sites recommended for pos- sible acquisition. It' is also the terminus of a major inland regional bicycle trail system. As such, this site has the highest potential for regional recreational development. California Coastal Plan Policy 141 provides: - New residential developments near the coast shall be required to have adequate open. space and on-site recreational provisions. In addition,- public amenities such as pedestrian walkways, bicycle paths, equestrian trails, open space, and parking areas shall be provided in new developments large enough to accommodate them. The Conservancy's proposal calls for bicycle trails, a fresh-water wading • lagoon,. a fishing pier, and open space for the City of Seal Beach to determine the use. A hostel is a key part of the proposal. The 30-bed family.and group hostel is at the terminus of the regional San Gabriel River Bicycle Trail. A total of $5.5 million has been allocated for the completion of this regional recreational trail linking 21 cities, 10 parks, the Pacific Ocean, and the San Gabriel Mountains. This trail is estimated to serge 241,000 persons annually. Both the hostel and the trail will enhance the use of the recreational areas. • The proposal cans for a rich mix- of different recreational uses, some passive and some active. The recreational opportunities take advantage of the ocean frontage of the site, consistent with Section 30220 of the Coastal Act, by providing beaches a fishing pier, a lagoon, and a viewing area. Of the nine-acre site, 6 acres are proposed for recreational use. The proposal tails for the City of Seal Beach to awn all the land and to devise particular recreational uses for open space provided on the site. Condition 4. would require that all recreation areas be preserved for public use in perpetuity. The Commission finds the project as conditioned consistent with the public recreation provisions of the Coastal Act of 1976. 5. Visitor-Serving Facilities. Section 30222 of the Coastal Act provides that the "...use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over...general commercial development." The Conservancy proposal calls for first-floor commercial uses in the developed area at the northern portion of the site, in addition to a restaurant, a hostel,and a commurd ty cultural center. This .- provides a mix of uses on the site which combine to form a complete unit, partly public and partly private uses. The purpose of this mix of uses is to generate revenues fromthe private uses which will be absorbed by the public uses; in short, to make the project self-sufficient. In the past, the Commission has addressed issues involving mixed.-use develop- ment in key coastal areas. In Appeal No. 275-77 (Williams), the State Commission denied a permit to construct a six-unit apartment building with ground-level com- mercial facility ity in Venice. Some actions have allowed resident ia1-office uses only in conjunction with provisions to assure groundfloor or additional uses are coastally= related or visitor-serving uses, as in P-3518 (Haskins and Sloan), P-8742 (McGuire), and P-7759 (Swagerty). in Appeals No. 270-74 (Carleton) and 70-77 (Shepard), the following coastally-related uses were listed as appropriate: restaurant, coffee shop, i t • -i -7- drug store, delicatessan, convenience market, sporting goods and camping supplies store, swimming supplies store, sail maker, engine sales or service outlet, marine insurance office, fishing equipment store, marine laboratory or fresh fish market. Other illustrative coastal-related uses include a roller skate rental outlet and a bicycle repair shop. Condition 5 requires all commercial use on the site to be --- _ coastally-related, visitor-serving facilities. The Commission finds the project, as conditioned, consistent with the visitor-serving commercial use provisions of the Coastal Act of 1976. 6. Housing. The final use proposed for the project site is housing. The plan calls for 14 luxury condominiums up to a maximum size of 3,000 sq. ft. each. The units would be located on the second and third floors of the development which parallels Marina Drive,- aver the commercial shops. Section 30213 of the Coastal Act provides that "...housing opportunities for persons of low- and moderate-income shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided..." Section 30222 of the Coastal Act provides that public uses shall have priority aver private residential uses or general commercial development. Based on the priorities set out in these sections of the Act, luxury housing, espe- cially if no low- or moderate-income housing were provided, would be an inappropriate - use for this site. Existing Statewide Innteroretive Guidelines on Housing, adopted October.4, 1977, provide that "...where residential development is proposed, priority should be given to proposals that include housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income..." Recent Commission permit decisions have required that apprex imately 25% of new units in multi-family development be set aside as low- or moderate- income housing units. The Conservancy recognizes that housing is a low-priority Coastal Act use for - - - this site. However, the Conservancy contends that the high revenue-generating pater.- - tial of these large condominium units is the best means to support the public recreational uses. No low- or moderate-income housing units would be provided on the site. To add low-cost housing would take precious recreational space from the site to pay for the units. The Conservancy's proposal coincides with the IOP's expected emphasis on recrea- tional uses as a priority for this site. The Conservancy's plan is a restoration project, designed to make an affirmative overall impact on the coastal zone by creating needed public parkland out of a degraded private site. The park plan calls for many visitor-serving facilities which can serve persons of all income levels, especially the hostel, the lagoon and open space areas, and the fishing pier. With- out the provision of all these low-cost recreational uses on the site, the Commission could not find that the luxury housing use proposed is consistent with the Coastal Act of 1976. Only viewing the project as a whole, considering the overall goal of project self-sufficiency supporting the public recreational benefits proposed, can _ the Commission find the project consistent with the housing provisions of the Coastal - Act. _ This approval gives the Conservancy and the City of Seal Beach, which wii? be the eventual permit applicant, flexibility- within the specified uses, but not the option to delete the specific uses proposed. Therefore, the specific public uses proposed in this plan must be included in the future application for a permit in order for that application to be consistent with the approved plan. • Conditions imposed to gain the approval in concept require that the eventual project presented for Regional Commission approval include the balanced, specific • land uses approved at this stage (Condition 6a). The public recreational areas of the site must be preserved in perpetuity, to assure the continued balance of development and recreation (Condition 4). The number of housing units shall be no more than fourteen, the minimum number the Conservancy believes will provide the necessary revenue to acquire and maintain the public recreational uses (Condition - 6b). In conclusion, the Commission certifies that, as conditioned, the project is of high priority in terms of accomplishment of the policies and objectives of the Coastal Act of 1976, and determines that the Seal Beach Coastal Restoration Plan, as conditioned, conforms with the policies and objectives of the Act. • z o pp••� V~ _ -S . Lbs frele5 5 Goon. . +, # 1e or ale,,,, ti4 t 2` '_ �D ,� ' int c C.L9 W�I ,r / if ' L ` / ~�� Farir —`` Los �; Lot T4 —rig A,A,v.=ir; &afow.) • Cou::4-.1 }t,Uf=G �Ial L ?� re � `� E - _ S;Ames \ \ M a G r a.viQ e .P ACJV!IZOt; .7_4y • Ov,A.-1 '2 � _ 1 - ���CCC ff(JJJ\Feacr�.. -- 1 - 'P, CIFtC OGE Md Ak.Mo nrz 6 I 3 D`NP $1TE tu( l`© y (Sec 1� � _ Stmtet ;...--r,4-1A.\ \ N \ --k" \ . • \ , \ „, , \ 1! 'rk-v'M iv, `n r^ ,. l 9 lot'rei:s$ 1�af' 3 l sec,:►zS,cce GX k�b 1 pules s 1 Z \.4\ �� 2Cf COKS�,,,K C,,{ iN _ - 3 ` --- . - . _ . . . - . • . • . .. .. I . .._-.. -. I .- . "..er .-\....•••••••1 ..".".." 4................1 . 1 • • s. • ••••. .... .- . . _.. • ‘i • Y ' • . 1 , . • ‘.........."3. ,„••■■•••■■•,•■••■• ..................... \,............_ •■ " 1.e..117i' ii'' ..'4141e4.' ' .. Ir. 1 . • VI ..../ ••••/ \ ' . .4...?•4 I ..■ S= ›- = . 1 ,,,,, .....■••■••• I,.....::j = 0•••• ••••• P■ r: • . I ... 4,1■••■■ • a.'••••....••••••.• •••%...mow.. • ■••■1•••• •••••1 • ••••• I f...) \ ..• . i•••■•••• ..................6r,..... i ' =...._.,..S. INIMIIIIMIIEIMI117■.../.......1 .m.. • •...0 •■• )"•"." .1,.; . . I C-1 •I 1 ;• • • : ...... ..•••■••■-• I : i.. .1 1. .j c ■ , ., i i.'—' 1 1 , i • 1 Ci 0 cs t., , i... 1....... . r1 - = -................ ..... rr, r_.„.„, !...r 1 0 eZ re" . 1 ! 1 • i ...) .11.• 4,r) VI it '1 1 .•—h- • r.,,.,...•Iti 77— r--1 i mmo■I .1■1 i : i C‘i = X \ 1 '1...... 7#•••••‘''. .i. 4 "-..:. Ir..7 1'7 i . 0 itil..2:: ■It . •■••■1 •••••••• 1 •• . ••■ \ A . `....••.., Q. , -. 4- \ t • . . . . 1...1"" k""...................„,_ s. cu \...ib . %. . ....?,..,:,J ..• . -• (--,..-,_,...... p...... = In CS Y. V. 'A . '..\7- •I i j j." ••■• G..) S... . • 0 4-77.s‘k"e" F'... -' . 'I t 1 il •■ !■ ....., 0 C./ S.• \ \at i•Z .., 1 l' •1,•• ■i 1 \—7-Thli ...,1.11"1` • . • • - . , ■ I 1 I ■ , ,--.....—...----: ■ ; • ----I. ; L--1 i I 1... et7 I. 0 .64 •mi ..4, ■•■■. Z) = ‘...) . .• • 4 r 11 1 i ,. 4%1 -.• c...) . ,,....5,-ill • '"" .4„„,,......--<5.`1 I 1.;11!;;',,xe.,A 10:,.... . i I .......... rn ! 1 ■ • I I • -7 - , 1 ••■ `...1 ' .k''‘'.- i ? .1. 7".iii ....Z.I .'Ff... -%-**-"Ii --."...- ■■••••••• r....1 , , .... ...e. ii....? -:& i ---; ... , , I . ‘,,t. )... :2....x7:.s . . k--‘-.3 2 .„. ..... 3,-.... 1....-....1 , 1 ' 1 Lli r•e ............N -1,•-•..,,,," .•,, 1 r . . 1....... . = ••■ eZ \ a • .• -,..••••-.:'--.bir.P..". . -." • t L.! ' II 1.1.j C. ■I f i-- V ...0 ........ !.. • "'!'..ps!ji IC•,,..L, .11,,noti .•.s:-.. 1- L..0 = .1.... \ , .t,',i-1',. ' ---, .1.1., Li, 1-•• -.. c..) :11•".1"1.,. 1 -=-:..r.. - .41..11.0.1 , -_;.... , mliiiii•' 1 . .....1 .. jot 71 , ,...ji c, < • , ...... , -40.„. , c —. _- _ Ir.. 771 rj.. -- I AZ = . i■• , u....... lire ....'.-".• V/ V/ V 42 8 a c s... , c.. c 0 1 RI .. ,_. msmag."..."'"wwww."1.1..;,...-, ,,.., ,... ..... — ..ig va -_... .Y. in es - --- -, -;:eb.I.,..,—,,.......It...1r 7r, , 0 1 •-•--r•El s....... C. ..-... • /.. ■ V 4) • ..-- ! to 0.. CI • iiii ii .—, •• • --r7 Z • • •' :.- _ ... 44 .. • .. c...... .. Itti ..9 ••• .-tip-.10` • -... C 1.1.1 . L \::.., . ....7: it.-- ; 1.- . ..._ ..., Cr) 03 k., : \ (....„ ._, ,..... . Minh; : • , WI ■ ; I . Et'litiOti".' 2. i 'I. . . _. _....._..... • , �� - •y . r. 1 ••••• . j..,..a.4 .„. i / /., / 47, 4. , i . i- its' - � c;•1 , r /, ,i v .• , .A0c....0 7/ r ` '!�( �, 'aakp • `� - .\. t_ .�-��?; _ . - " .--. •".....j.:.• - ..,,,„.___.fe........., - ' r• .' '.3 V /'N. .mf r --7•..k.r L T 0 L :4,..71; 4 eL.' , 1 1•S.,"•t'Y �T •. • a , • +.f • � •6u� 3 . /- // _ � s 0.,..ts —, 1 i� '\ G G %siogetr ete5 gar y . C``. Goon. Tra,1 >,c, ,: Park j\ 4bV <t1 e,D., °fit ' .\''\;\\* *&c CLD 't ., ------ .. .)/i7 ./ iiii Npr*W4k*i7v4-raWiq " / c' 0 -NA/ �N Los / - (g$P"°K. /\'' 4 p"`CiC� -S Ioc ttow) . ----„.,\ Cov ve. AitImelpa,/ }Ffk-CIFiG -Pier Lo rtak oCE+H4 $e rcogf orfs Aiam�tls y S Coop �' ocE ol 4et1p01 w. o o DWP SITE, Sw .% y a Bc+sa Ch \ 14. 4 \ . .v .ivetolt 3;:letx. '• \------- •e ptorretei5 1.1.71—...Z-1.3 Mlles s Z , Fxkibif 1 •. Col~Serv2,lticy Fr.vject /Nt 3 . .__ _....._ .. • . . . - .1 ' " • — . . . —. • . . — . .. . - . . . . . .• - .... .. . • -:•:. • _ 7--.......,-...'", / . '''t 1 ". 4"..."..■.i' 1 . 1 • . ',.. I ; ,, ..%••••..--...._... _ 1 • -.4iL`1"---''' • • • 1 t....,,..ct..1:114 5 a el ii.a r...7'7-e..• —... _ i .. • S.:1' • .. .1". i .. 11..."...... C...... ,-- .0 OJ • . 4 ,-? ,........4,..„ _ ir- _ TTh- tr) 1 E = .>%.• _._ ‘ 0 = 0 I '-.--'-"- •-.......-... . ....j. 1'' -. .., I C 0•-• . • • --...,...... . m I . m■ pm• to a----11............— ..-...... 4-.-. 1 r...; . ) . oi •: . i, .3.J ! 7---1 M. 1 5 c OJ i . ?--, i . .) ; i___: : ,.._._1 -, ,4%5 . 4. I m \ ...4r....1 Ic. . , 1 >, s- I --r-1 0 \ s- = ■•••■•.....;,..,....L., i r--1, C 1 —..: MU M./ % * : ,-.• . .- .1t (A o . r - - . = 71 I = E IMm \ 1 *-. • A. - -4. d\ ■ - -....■•■• - S. re . jakiiiiit, . • .. ,. 1 c>j 0 CI p..... :-..• ..- tn CU-V •,- C..) I. ..• RI IC r■ S.c.. • \-.A • .. •..._-- . . , . n. • ... 411! 7..e...?2',1 1 j.t• -- ,4•1: :-.: :: 1 111! t i t ... k- (45, . ,0 .%., .z......,..: ...r.L1 = 1 IP ec s- s.. w 44 C S.. cu . •••11(' t. ■A.m."'• I.m) . i.. 1.. •••• ' •- .;'4.... r' 71 1 . e a 0 ...... . tr 1 - 7 •., . . e■e....■.... le.,=...■ En 1-d- . .4 . IT. -;:. ., .v. I.P. ..... .. =1.••■■ 1 * ,....„, r--.• L.L. .-• le • :; ,,- -. /Ai• 4'')yfn -. , • Uj >.a. • i 1• --; E 1 ._., s, •:ir. I +. =e ei 11 ::141T'. 41N11111.":1)iir -.. 0 ;I'ip I 1',--. 1*-- 1.1T :i•,, •- --L,. 4:1,;;.. ' ..•,-,_, , i 0., , ' D 0 ci, < • Tir_.,',b.?,-.42.- ..."-- c = '-. ...:--;;.. .....w . ... . .... , • . Ti ,..)...... ...1 ..,.'• 1.0 tii In "0 el C L.. (,) CO E - • C 0 •.••I... 1 a:t .0 4-1 ' ----------";-- "t• - ..■,. .■,..7 ...V‘40 arm ...pm. .L...mr• •• MI .--.._ `'•-•_,-.... _ I ..• . .0„int .,.. C ....Aril 3 IT ro 4 t l' "14111r 4 . . 4 . i . I 4 • . '4 .• ....... -7 _ •/-7:-X-' / . 'f. /--) • . u • . • • f.:: Page 1. • • February 19, 1981 • •• Seal Beach. Restoration Project on D.W.P. Site • • Present Economics • - Purchase of DWP site at $3 million plus interest - - With 14 condos and projected restaurant space allows for: . Completion of park (excluding -turbine room area) - . . •$1,030,000 available for turbine room area and/or cultural center (might need 1-2 more condos (to 16) to fully complete cultural center and heavy landscaping of turbine room area) - Project as projected would yield likely annual surplus to City. (after loan re-payments/operating expenses) of about 5100,000/year in mid-1980s. - See next page for cost summary update . Safety Net - Project has flexibility to go to 22 condo units to offset cost Dveruns, _ project delays and/or need to cut back restaurant space. At 5125,000/unit (worst case) this safety net provides potential buffer of $1 million. Very Pessimistic Case - Safety net still provides for breakeven with simple park, but no cultural center. - This case assumes: _ -- . No developer can be found for four years . Restaurants cut to one medium size + one coffee shop witfi sales at 70% of area average. .High early restoration costs, and inflation drives up other costs . . Condos (increased in number to 22) yield 1932 value of S125,000/site. FX4;Zi..71- e; 1 • e • r — . 1 Page 2 • v.- February 19, 1981 • • Seal Beach • Restoration Project on D.W.P. Site . Projected Economic Results Early Dec. , Mid Feb. , 1980 1981 1. Costs Site Acquisition 2,750 3,000 DWP Interest* 0 150 • Site Restoration (except Turbine Room) 513 513 Off Sites 280 280 • Development Area 220 220 Park 285 285 • Design and Management 205 205 • - Contingencies: • Restoration 177 177 Offsites, Dev. , Area, Park 120 120 Mgmt. and Design 30 ' 30 TOTALS: . .4,580 4,980 2. Revenues - ** _ CEIP Loan 2,850 2,850 �r> ::s -':'; • Park Grants 2 ]80 •.. :s.;,. .:::- i Conservancy Grants .0 :-.. `>x�_ ,: •.=.-•.-. <, �w Leasehold Inta'ria Navas:.s: :f ':. r.:•. : .r"—` .. •r_ T i' -� �"f_'*_-t 1f ' ' ..fie.. !l ! • i ! ..L -, • Page 3 •"•`> ' February 19, 1981 .tom Iv- Seal Beach _ • Restoration Project on D.W.P. Site Revised Worst Case • Costs and Permanent. Financing. (in $1,000's) Costs Financing Site Purchase • $3,000 Long Term CEIP Loan4 $2,000 Restoration Area 1 643 Fed/County Grants . 900 Contingency - 25% 161 Conservancy Grants/Loans 200 Offsites (1985)1 380 - Interim Lease Payments 100. Development Area (1985) 300 Sale of Condo Leaseholds (1985)1 Park (1982-1985)1 315 (22 @ $166,000) - 3,6 0 Contingency of above 3 - " :=: •- .-- items - 20% 200 .,.�•-`:;,*; ,:•,:.f :.,-..j_:k." �� . !-J t Turbine Room Area (1985)1'2 675 ::::-..4.41,t-:.' ., -4 f,. , '� may- - X5 � 2 ' ""1 _ : ,..--,•...--.1,,Ifizt..,,,-,..4.A.t. .,.. ,....,p-- ,i_: ...*----,-:. r...,--",,- -,,,.... �,, : :3.i � j - r 3 -- yvY.yl' 1� � +Interest R eserve - k � ^.Y a:4:0 PR '- 'W 7 "1 - Surplus Available 61 $6,850 . -- 1. 1982 Prices X 135% (10% annual inflation) 2. Some demolition; surface fill and grading; full ornamental landscaping 3. Available for payments on CEIP, DWP loans; covers up to 4 year delay in project 4. Size of permanent loan after paydown of interim financing; more money borrowed in short term (up to $3.1 million) E-,< G)..6 :-/- ::: . . . ,.; ‘: -':i; ; .,-_ . . • ;:l .::--,',::::'.-,'•,::‘; `A 14, ,,... . . ;.:::::;•-,4: .- r .1., „: _ . . . — • - • " ,,•-- ,,_.:4''.-Ni:- •4-•' . Page 4 . • February 19, 1981 . Seal Beach ..*..,-, ,,. g41,. • • :,-, - • • -- Restoration Project on D.W.P. Site . .— Worst + Projected Cdses - 7.r,?: • . ;14' • • . 1986 Operating Net i, (First year full payments of principal plus interest due on CEIP loan) • Revenues . . Worst" Projected . . . -Restaurant Rent 5 75,000 228,000 Sales .Tax 25,000 : .11 ,000 Possessory Interest Tax 10,000 25,000 * Property Tax on Condos:, 104,000. 65,000 . .:. . Miscellaneous 5,000 5,000 .- 5 219,000 $ 394,000 . Costs CEIP Loan 5140,300/year 217,000/year • Expenses - Park, Police, etc. 64,000/year 84,000/year 5204,300/year 301 ,000/year .. Net Surplus to City $ 14,700/year -- S 93,000/year ... .... _. • _ . * Worst Case: 22 units sold in 1986 • Projected: 14 units sold in 1983 . . . . - - . • •-- 7-""934%4 tiEW.7 •-7;:les4r-711°4*-1-"'r-- • • • • " _ I '740i Page 5 , • . February 19 , 1981 . • • Seal Beach " Restoration Project on D.W.P. Site • • . - Proceed to early design - all park areas • - Can award about $1 million in development contracts without having - • • . development deal . Use up park grants. - CEIP loan used for land payments and interest on CEIP and DWP. Ask for 5750,000 draw for working capital . • • - Can wait 4 years for developer and have Completed 4-5 acre park by fall , 1982. - Remaining acreage plus offsites to be committed when developer obtained and design firmed up - Advantage in not rushing into early deal because of state of economy; high inflation in property values relative to interest payments; and marketing advantage of 4-5 acre completed park. • • - Developer picked early if can get good price/design combination; otherwise wait. • • • &11 Page 6 • February _19, 1981 • Seal Beach . " Restoration Project on D.W.P. Site • • Available Proceeds and Use Prior to Developer Deal (in S1,000's) Indicates how much money is available and how it would be allocated prior to • City obtaining a deal with a developer: A. Proceeeds: 1981-1984) CEIP- Loan (Maximum) $3,100 Federal/County Grants 900 Conservancy Grants/Loans 250 $4,250 B. Use of Proceeds Land Payments • $2,250 • Interest Reserve: DWP 330 CEIP 445 • Development .' 1,219 Area 1 Restoration) 643 • 25% Contingency 161 • Area-1 Park2 200 20% Contingency " 40 Design & Mgmt. 175 1219 -TOTAL 54,244 ,� ,d'f a 1. Assumes high cost solution: if less expensive, money can be reallocated 2. Some landscapi,: •velopment work deferred near development area . • _. Page 7 . • February 19, 1981 • Seal Beach • 4y Restoration Project on D.W.P. Site Basic Schedule 1. Finalize D.W.P. deal Feb. - March, 1981 2. Obtain Coastal Commission flexibility Feb. - March, 1981 • 3. CEIP Loan Committment-. Feb. - March, 1981 • 4. CEIP Loan Documents March - June, 1981 5. Firm up grants March, 1981 6. Park architect/engineer selected April , 1981 -- 7. Park plans April - July, 1981 8. Site acquisition-escrow closes . August, 1981 9. Contractor bids August, 1981 TO. Bid review, plan selection, contract award September, 1981 11. Restoration work begins October, 1981 12. Park development begins . March, 1982 13. Restoration/ •park (Area 1 completed) Summer, 1982 14. Area II and Development Area begin Summer, 1982? -- • r •••11: `_._. r �,ta l�.s ;:.� �,; • _• • ..r..'....+.... .,3�..1T' .'.,.. 1. ... ......'. -.. .. I_ 1 _ice ����`i�!�.^� 1:. .. .`:...L 1_� .�..s—;t -,,ti-- / by,' t :• _ Page g °` " • February 19, 1981 • Seal Beach Restoration Project on D.W.P. Site • Supplemental Activities (Developer Selection) I. Exploratory meetings held Spring/Summer, 1981 II. Selection process determined or decision • III . Developer selected postponed Septemberr, 1981 IV. Deal negotiated, preliminary plans approved February, 1982 V. Area II bids March, 1982 VI. Developer closes April , 1982 VII . Area . II awarded May, 1982 VIII . Area II work begins Nay, 1982 _ -- IX. Developer commences construction July, 1982 X. Area II complete (except for developer's part) Fall , 1982 XI. Developer completes project June, 1983 XII . Development area opens/condo sales July, 1983 • F,‹ G,, d, �- � • - t CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION • 631 Howard Street,San Francisco 94105—(415) 543-8555 • REVISED FINDINGS ON AMENDMENT TO COASTAL RESTORATION PROJECT Coastal Conservancy Project 3-79 (Seal Beach) 60th Day: 4/15/81 APPLICANT: California Coastal Conservancy DEVELOPMENT - LOCATION: Corner -of First Street and Marina Drive, adjacent to the Pacific Ocean and the San Gabriel River, in the City of - Seal Beach, Orange County (Exhibit 1) DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: Coastal Restoration Plan to develop the degraded nine-acre Department of Water and Power site and create a park with adjacent community cultural center, restaurant, hostel, commercial shops, condominium housing, and on-site parking (Exhibit. :1 ADDITIONAL SUBSTANTIVE FILE DOCUMENTS: 1. Amendment request submitted by the Executive Director of the Coastal Conservancy ' 2. Financial analysis of Seal Beach project prepared by California Coastal Conservancy (relevant portions contained as Exhibit 2) STAFF NOTE: The California Coastal Conservancy if proposing to amend the Department of Water and Power site restoration plan which was approved by the Commission in June, 1979, as required by Sections- 3-1213 and 31208 of the Coastal Conservancy Act of 1976. Under Section 31213 of the Coastal Commission took two actions to implement this project: 1. Certified that the project is of high priority in terms of accomplish- ment of the policies and objectives of the Coastal Act of 1976; and 2. Determined the conformity of such plan with the policies and objectives of the Coastal Act of 1976. Any amendment granted by the Commission must also meet these tests. Section 31208 provides that the Coastal Commission has 60 days to review the plan and transmit its findings to the Conservancy. If no findings are made during that period, the restoration plan or proposed amendments is deemed to be approved and consistent with the Coastal Act. Under the Coastal Act and the Coastal Conservancy Act, the Commission's task is to conduct a conceptual review of the plan and any subsequent amendments and give an indication to the Coastal Conservancy what provisions must be included in a final project to find such a development consistent with the Coastal Act. The Regional Commission will review the final project when a permit application for the development is received. The conceptual approval of a restoration plan by the State Commission includes the range of possible uses consistent with the Coastal Act which provides 5/19-21/81 r r -2- the parameters for later permit approval. Subsequent amendments to the conceptual plan must adhere to the intent and parameters delineated within • the original conceptual approval. 1. Project History. In June, 1979, the Commission approved in concept a Coastal Conservancy project to develop the .degraded Department of Water and Power (DWP) site to provide a 61 acre park with adjacent visitor- • serving and housing uses to make the entire development self-supporting. The developed area will consist of a cultural center, hostel, restaurant, and 14 condominium units above recreation-related shops. Development will be concen- trated in the north end of the site and will be of Spanish-style architecture. The site's ground level is- reserved for park and visitor-serving uses (Exhibit 2 and 3) . The Conservancy estimates that revenue-producing uses cover only 7% of the site. The nine-acre DWP site is located in the City of Seal Beach, in Orange County, just across the county line from Los Angeles County (Exhibit 1) . The site is bounded on the north by Marina Drive, on the east by First Street, on the south by the public beach and city parking lot, and on the west by the San Gabriel River channel. At present, the site is vacant with extensive concrete tunnels and foundations remaining from the demolition of the power plant. Land uses adjacent to the site include the Marina Trailer Park to the north and one- and two-story residential development to the east. The Regional LARIO/San Gabriel River bicycle trail ends nearby. At the northwest corner of the site adjacent to the river channel is an existing marine-related commercial use which is not part of the project. The project site is currently zoned CRP (commercial-residential-park) by the City of Seal Beach. This zoning requires that one-third of the site be set aside as open space. The project is between the sea and the first public road nearest the sea. Briefly, the restoration plan proposes the following uses: a. Restoration of the site through removal of concrete tunnels and foundations. Re-use includes a recreational games area and concealed parking space. b. Development .of a 61-acre public park that includes landscaping, bicycle trails, active and passive use areas, a beach area, a fishing platform which utilizes the ruins of an old bridge ramp, a viewing platform, and a tidal lagoon with fountains. c. Development of visitor-serving recreational facilities, including a cultural center housing a small theater, studios, galleries, meeting rooms, and an auditorium of approximately 12,000 sq. ft. ; and a 30-bed hostel to serve bicyclists and other tourists. d. Commercial development including approximately 18,000 sq. ft. of restaurant space and approximately 5,000 sq. ft. of other commercial space, for use as coastal- and recreational-related shops such as bait and tackle shops, fishing rental and sales, bicycle and roller skate services and rentals, snack shops, etc. -3- e. Development of fourteen condominium units of up to 3,000 sq. ft. each to be located on the second story above the commercial establishments, to • enhance the project's economic feasibility. • f. Adequate parking associated with each land use to meet anticipated demand. The Conservancy estimates that under the proposed design 70% of the project site will be devoted to open-space recreational uses. Ocean and -shoreline views from the ground and from proposed public and private structures are provided for in the design. The entire site will remain in public ownership. Space for all proposed private commercial uses will be leased by the City. The proposed restaration plan is the result of over four months of extensive community workshops, conducted by the Conservancy and its consultants, in which over 200 persons participated. Specifically, the proposal takes into account many conclusions of participants of the community workshops. Among these conclusions are that the project not be a financial drain on the City of Seal Beach, that 2/3 of the project be in park use, that parking be as unobtrusive as possible, that the development be located in the northern portion of the lot, that a cultural center be included in the project, and that maximum public use and access be provided. Me costs of the project will initially be covered via a CEIP loan. The sale of the condominiums and continuing revenue from the two restaurants are expected to generate enough funds to repay the loan. 2. Amendment Request. The Conservancy has requested permission to add up to eight condominium units to the restoration project. They state that due to changing market conditions and concerns expressed by the CEIP staff regarding the loan request, more flexibility is needed in the financing of the project .to ensure its ability to pay back its Federal loan. Under the proposed amendment the City and/or Conservancy will make a good faith effort for twelve months following acquisition of the site to obtain a developer willing to construct the project per the original design. After this period, if no developer if found who is able to construct the project within the parameters of the conceptual approval, any increase in the number of condominiums allowed - shall be approved only upon demonstration to the Executive Director of the Commission that the added revenue is needed to complete financing of the entire project. If more Condominium units are allowed, it shall only be upon the condition that construction of the project's facilities commence before construction of the private residential facilities. 3. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends that the Commission adopt the following findings and conditions of approval: I. Approval with Conditions The Commission hereby grants, subject to the conditions below, its approval in concept for the proposed amendment to the restoration plan, finding that the proposed amendment is in conformity with the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976 and is of high priority in terms of the implementation and objectives of the Coastal Act of 1976. -4- — II. Conditions The Commission grants its approval of the amendment subject to the following conditions: 1. Condition 6.b of the original approval shall be changed to read: 6. Housing. To offset the lack of any provision for low- or moderate- income housing units, the permit application filed with the Regional Commission shall include: a. An agreement which permits construction of the condominium units only in conjunction with the construction of, at a minimum, a 6.5-acre park with landscaping, ground-floor visitor-serving facilities including, but not limited to, restaurants, a hostel, ..a cultural center, a fishing platform, a bicycle trail, a lagoon, and a beach. - b. A plan which calls for no more than 14 luxury condominiums up to a maximum of 3,000 sq. ft. each. Upon showing that such a design modification is essential to project feasibility, the •ermit a•plication may include a plan for up to twenty-two 3,000 sq. ft. luxury condominiums located within the same footprint reserved for mixed commercial residential development to the conceptual plan. 2. Add as condition 6: Prior to commencement of construction of the condominiums, the first floor commercial area shall be constructed and the 611 acres of park shall be pre- served in permanent open space. Park improvements and construction and sale of the condominiums shall occur simultaneously in a phased program to be submitted as part of the permit application. III. Findings and Declarations. _ The Commission finds and declares as follows: 1. Residential Development. Section 30222 of the Coastal Act provides that public uses shall have priority over private residential uses or general commercial uses. Relying on this Coastal Act mandate, the Coastal Conservancy, the City of Seal Beach, and community members worked together for several months to design a project that provides a maximum of public uses on the abandoned Department of Water and Power site in Seal Beach. The only strictly private use proposed was that of the development of 14 luxury condominium units, which were included to finance the project. The original conceptual approval of this project allocated up to 24,000 sq. ft. of residential development. The permit was conditioned to allow no more than 14 condominium units of 3,000 sq. ft. each, which the Commission found was the minimum number the Conservancy believed would provide the necessary revenue to acquire and develop in the site. The Conservancy has requested the flexibility to add eight more 3,000 sq. ft. condominium units if changing economic conditions dictate the need for additional financing. • • • -5- p The Commission must evaluate the proposed amendment request in terms of its impact on the public's use of this site. It must find that the proposed eight additional units will neither interfere with nor eliminate public recreational or visitor-serving uses. Moreover, it must find that the eight units are needed to assure the economic feasibility of the project, thereby enabling the Conservancy to fully realize the recreational potential of this site, as required under Section 30222. As evidence of the fluctuating financial climate which has necessitated this amendment request, the Conservancy has submitted a revised accounting of the expected costs and revenues of the project. These are attached as Exhibit 2. On pages 3 and 4 of this exhibit the Conservancy delineates the projected 1986 worst case scenario which would trigger the need for the additional condominiums. It takes into account possible delays in the development of the project, accelarating interest and inflation-sates, and the possibility that costs will be higher and revenues lower than planned. According to the figures outlined on page 4 of this exhibit, if all of the financing works as projected only 14 units will be needed; if the project runs into financial problems, 22 units may be needed. The Commission believes that for the purposes of a conceptual approval the figures submitted by the Conservancy sufficiently demonstrate the need for additional flexibility in the financing of the project; however, the Commission is willing to approve the addition of eight more units only if such a design modification is essential to project feasibility at the time of the actual development. The Commission has therefore conditioned approval of this amendment request with the proviso that the Conservancy must make a specific .showing of need when the project application is submitted. The Conservancy has suggested several mechanisms to permit the addition of eight more units to the project; expansion of the development envelope by up to 20,000 sq. ft. ; elimination of retail space from the plan altogether and placement of the housing units at ground level; reduction of restaurant space to 9,000 sq. ft. ; placement of the youth hostel, cultural center, restaurants, retail space, and housing units each into separate buildings; and the addition of another story to the existing commercial-residential building. In the original conceptual approval the Commission gave the Conservancy and the City of Seal Beach flexibility within specific uses but not the option of deleting specific uses proposed. The first three mechanisms would all entail the elimination or curtailment of public and visitor serving uses, and would therefore be unacceptable as a means of adding private residential uses. The Commission also stated that all ground level facilities must be devoted to public uses. The fourth option would therefore conflict with the Commission's specific direction to the contrary. The last option appears to be the only feasible mechanism by which an additional eight condominiums could be added to the project, although it too has its draw- backs. Because the project would be located in a neighborhood composed of two • to three story structures, the four story structure necessitated by the addition of an extra floor would be somewhat out of character with surrounding development. However, the commission can find in this case that the benefit derived from ensuring the financial success of this primarily public-serving venture outweighs the relatively minor visual impact of the addition of an extra floor. As conditioned to provide that up to 22 units of condominiums may be built above the ground floor commercial development within the footprint established within the original plan, the Commission can find that this amendment will not substantially modify the priorities established within the Commission's original conceptual approval of the Seal Beach Restoration Plan. In addition, as conditioned to require construction of the commercial area and dedication of the park area as permanent open space before commencement of construction of the condominiums, the Commission can find that the public's interest is being adequately protected should conflicts arise between development of the. condominiums and development of the public facilities. To further minimize these conflicts and clarify i -6- the relationship between the development of public and private elements of this project, the Commission is' requiring the Conservancy to submit a program phasing development of the park economically and legally with the construction and-sale of the condominiums as part of the detailed project application. The Commission therefore finds, that, as conditioned, the proposed amendment can be -found consistent with the priorities established within Section 30222 of the Coastal Act. • •