HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2007-08-13 #Q
e
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: August 13, 2007
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: David Carmany, City Manager
FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO EXECUTE
COMMENT LETTER TO CALIFORNIA COASTAL
COMMISSION RE: COASTAL APPLICATION NO.
5-06-328,400 MARINA DRIVE PROJECT
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
e
Authorize Mayor to execute a comment letter, with any changes determined appropriate,
to the California Coastal Commission regarding Coastal Commission Application No. 5-
06-328, 400 Marina Drive Project. Authorize City Attorney and Director of
Development Services to attend California Coastal Commission Meeting regarding the
subject application. Receive and File Staff Report.
BACKGROUND:
Previous Citv Annrovals:
The proposed project entails the following actions:
[J Amend the Land Use and Housing Elements of General Plan to designate a
13,667 square foot, 0.31.acre, property from Commercial General to Residential
High Density;
[J Change the zoning designation on this parcel from General Commercial (C-2) to
Residential High Density (RHO), Dis~ct I to be consistent with the General Plan
revision;
[J Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 2005-257 to create 4 parcels on the
approximately 0.31 acres, with a minimum parcel size of2,937.5 square feet; and
[J Construct 4 new single family residences ranging in size from approximately
2,500 to 3,000 square feet.
e
On April 24, 2006 the City CouncilnnAn;mously approved the following discretionary
proj~ct entitlements for the subject project:
[J Mitigated Negative Declaration 06-1 (City Council Resolution Number 5455);
Agenda Item ~
Z:\My DocumentsICosstaI CommissionlApplicatJon 5-06.328.400 Marina Drive Project.City Comment Letter.CC Staff
R~.doc\LWI08.01-o7
Approval o/Comment Letter to California Coastal Commissian re:
Application 5-06-328, 400 Marina Drive Project
City Council Stqff Report
August 13, 2007
e
o General Plan Amendment 06-1, Amending Land Use and Housing Elements
(City Council Resolution Number 5456);
o Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-257 (City Council Resolution Number 5457);
o Zone Change 06-1, Changing Zoning from General Commercial (C-2) to
Residential High Density (RHO), District 1 (Introduced Ordinance Number
5456; adopted May 22, 2006).
The Planning Commission considered the same requests on April 5, 2006 and
recommended approval of all requests on a 5-0 vote.
The pending action by the California Coastal Commission is the final discretionary
approval needed for this project to proceed.
Coastal Commission Consideration and Staff Recommendations:
The Coastal Commission staff report, dated July 19, 2007, recommends denial of the
project as approved by the City for numerous reasons. Staff has prepared a "preliminary
draft" letter for Council consideration on this matter that strongly disagrees with the
position of Coastal Commission staff and recommends approval of the project, for the
reasons noted in the subject letter.
Due to the importance of the issues raised by Commission staff regarding "Affordable
Housint', the City communications to the Coastal Commission are provided as two
separate letters. The City letter to be signed by the Mayor will summarize the concerns
of the City regarding this issue and a separate letter from Steve Kaunnan of the City
Attorney's Office will address the "Affordable Housint' issue in greater detail. It is the
opinion of staff and the City Attorney that this is the most effective way to impart upon
the Coastal Commissioners the importance of the "Affordable Housint' issue being
raised by Commission staff.
e
In addition, it is recommended that the City Attorney and Director of Development
Services be authorized to attend the Coastal Commission meeting when this matter is to
be scheduled for Coastal Commission consideration (anticipated to be at the September
Commission Meeting in Eureka).
The "preliminary draft' letter is provided as Attachment 1 for Council review. The
''preliminary draft" City Attorney letter regarding the ''Affordable Housint' issue is
provided as Attaclunent 2. The Coastal Commission Staff Report is provided as
Attaclunent 3.
If the City Council is in agreement with this course of action and the positions stated in
the proposed ''preliminary draft' comment letter, the Council may direct the Mayor to
exec:ute the letter and direct staff to send the letter to the Coastal Commission to be
introduced into the public record at the Coastal Commission meeting. The City Attorney
e
2
Appliestion 5-06-328.400 Marina Drive ProjectCiIy Comment Letler.CC StalfReport
e
e
e
Approval of Comment Letter to California Coastal Commission re:
Application 5-06-328, 400 Marina Drive Project
City Council StqffReport
August 13, 2007
and Director of Development Services, if authorized, would also be in attendance to
speak directly to the issues of concern and respond to questions of the Commission.
This matter was origina11y scheduled for consideration at the August 8 meeting of the
Coastal Commission and has been postponed at the request of the applicant. It should be
noted that the Commission may issue a "revised" or "supplemental" Staff Report at the
time this matter appears on the next Commission Meeting agenda, and that Staff and the
City Attorney may determine that is appropriate to revise both ''preliminary draft" letters
in response to a "revised" or "supplemental" Coastal Commission Staff Report. The City
Council will be provided copies of the final letters as submitted to the Coastal
Commission.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Minor costs for travel expenses for Director of Development Services and City Attorney
to attend Coastal Commission meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize Mayor to execute comment letter, with any changes determined appropriate, to
the California Coastal Commission regarding Coastal Commission Application No. 5-06-
328, 400 Marina Drive Project. Authorize City Attorney and Director of Development
Services to attend California Coastal Commission Meeting regarding the subject
application. Receive and File Staff Report.
NOTED AND APPROVED:
~
David Carmany 7
City Manager
Attachments: (3)
Attaclunent 1:
"Preliminary Draft" Letter to the California Coastal
Commission re: Application No. 5-06-328, 400 Marina
Drive Project
Attaclunent 2:
"Preliminary Draft' Letter from City Attorney to
California Coastal Commission re: Application No. 5-06-
328 (Schwendener), 400 Marina Drive, Seal Beach
Coastal Commission Staff Report Dated July 19, 2007 re:
Application 5-06-328, 400 Marina Drive Project
3
Attachment 3:
Application 5~6-328 400 Manna Drive Prejool.City Commont Lel1er.cc StalfRoport
e
Approval o/Comment Letter to California Coastal Commission re:
Application 5-06-328, 400 Marina Drive Project
City Council Stqff Report
August 13, 2007
ATTACHMENT 1
"PRELIMINARY DRAFT" LETTER TO THE
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION RE:
APPLICATION NO. 5-06-328, 400 MARINA
DRIVE PROJECT
e
e
4
Application 5-06-328.400 Marina Drive Projoct.City Comment Lotter.CC Staff Report
e
~
AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
COPY TO PETER M. DOUGL SHE
AND THERESA HENRY IN CO C
PARTE COMMUNICATION REQ
,2007
e
~
(fj
Dear Chairperson Kruer and COmmisa~
l'J ~
SUBJECT: Application N ~
400 Marina D 've ~~ Beach
Patrick Kruer, Chairperson
California Coastal Commission
45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco CA 94105-2219
e
The City of Seal Beacas _ ommission approve this application in conformance
with the Chapter 3 liCl tli Coasta1 Act. In reviewing the Commission Staff
Report, the City beliS~ is and conclusions of staff are incomplete and not in
accordance with the ~~Chapter 3. .
The City asserts' a ity of the Coastal Commission to Regulate
Code Sec . 04(t)s 30604(g) and 30607. The City of Seal Beach is
extremely. ed ding the position of Commission staff regarding this issue as
set fo pa 8 and 9 of the Staff Report. We have asked our City Attorney to
de comments on this issue and that letter is provided for the record also.
the position of the City Attorney briefly below but request that the
y review the detailed position of our City Attorney.
Z:\My DocumentslCoasta1 CommisSlODICDP S-D6-32S.City Comment Lettolr.400 Marina Drivo.docILW\OS.QI.Q7
City a/Seal Beach Comment Leiter re:
Coastal Permit Application 5-06-328
400 Marina Drive
.2007
"Affordable Housing" in the Coastal Zone - Publi ces Code
Sections 30604(1), 30604(g) and 30607: ~
The sections of the Staff Report cited, Sections 30604(f) and g - Coastal Act (pub.
Res. Code ~ 30000 et m.) do not provide any basis 11 - pplication by the
Coastal Commission for the following reasons: -
· The Coastal Commission lost permit jurisdicti
· Sections 30604(f) and 30604(g) of the Co - _ Q
authority for the Commission to re-regulate afforda
Zone.
Sections 30604(f) and 30604(g) are not "Co
be the basis for denial of a permit.
. The Commission cannot deny or condi~' . _ er Section 30607 of the
Coastal Act with respect to Sections 30 f) and 30 (g).
The City is also of the opinion that the ~ in Section B, "Visitor-Serving
Commercial Use", and Section C, "Densi ' e utilized as a basis for denial of
this application. Our reasons are set fo o. a summary and are discussed in
greater detail in the body of this letter~"
-City Summary of Proj~t ..!stency with Chapter 3 Standards
relating to "Visitor-Serving~DiI cial Use - Public Resources Code
Sections 30213 and 30222: ~ ~
e
hIe housing in 1981.
ot provide regulatory
ousing in the Coastal
.
Policies", and therefore cannot
e
This project is consistent wi apter 3 policies of the Coastal Act because it is "not
feasible" to provide visito erv ommercial uses, and in particular overnight
accommodations, on ~ perty for the following reasons:
. This site cannOt'~' Ie commercial uses, as indicated in the "VISitor
Serving co~. t Conditions - Seal Beach Coastal Districf' Study
prepared by Econo esearch Associates, dated March 5, 2007;
. The Site and~ elopment are compatible and consistent with adjoining
residential u s,' ,0 indicated in the "VISitor Serving Commercial Market
Conditions al each Coastal Districf' Study prepared by Economics
Research SOCl , dated March 5, 2007;
. The s of a free market economy have determined for approximately
30 tha is not feasible to operate a visitor-serving or overnight
tion use on the site, which has been zoned for such a use since at least
e
CDP 5~6-328.City Comment Letter.40D Marins Drive 2
.
At the same time the natural forces of a free market econ
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
upancy rates acts as a
rivate sector for new
one for at least the past
e
.
.
.
e
reject site is well suited for visitor-serving commercial use
the following:
COP S-06-328.City comment Letter.400 Manna Drive 3
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter Te:
Coastal Permit Application 5-06-328
400 Marina Drive
.2007
the 101 size of 13,667 rs ~".." "'s. most I. ~d
would be an appropriate size to accommodate .~
commercial uses such as a hotel, motel or bed an st
(to be discussed later);
the project site is only three (3) blocks nort f blic
beach and fIVe (5) blocks west of Main Stre t mary
prime location to serve visitors to these . There is a
lack of overnight accommodations ne . reas and
there are no overnight accommod ns a Main Street
nor are there lots available fo such fut e overnight
accommodations along Main Stree ,
the project site is located along Marin e, which is a
thoroughfare through the City which is more ppropriate than
more isolated locations within nei orhoods;
there are other existing commercial s along Marina Drive,
so, a commercial use of ct site would be
compatible; and
as indicated in the Mitigate ative claration; the site
was previously used as qjte . addition, the tentative
parcel map also indicat e existing building is a
motel.. (Page 5 of 40)
Commission staff then proceeds to as~.
"In regards to the pr. e . ct, if the applicant were able to
demonstrate that the Sit~~ able for a priority use, through,
among other means, ~~stive but unsuccessful effort to
market the site for co ial use not reliant upon drop-in
business, such as tel, motel or bed and breakfast, the
Commission could nsi ther options. Meanwhile, the site must
be reserved f~ riority use." (page 6 of 40)
Commission Staffth~~t:
"The coast.il~~ces a higher priority on visitor-serving
commercial n on private residential uses. However, the
ro'ect r. Ivate residential uses over a visitor-servin
com mer In a rime alea for such deve/o ment.
Ther , Commission finds that the proposed project is
in nt Sections 30213 and 30222 of the Coastal Act and
i denied." (Page 6 of 40, emphasis added)
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
CDP S-ll6-328 City Co~nt Letler.400 Marina Drive 4
e
e
e
e
City a/Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Coastal Permit Application 5-06-328
400 Marina Drive
.2007
The site is irregular in shape and size to ace
hotel, motel or bed and breakfast facility.
building constructed in the early 1950's" . . .
outstanding example of its style or design. "I
economically viable
e is a single-story
. ction and is not an
e
.. ~~ Property - 400 Marina Drive
(Note~~ldings behind are not part of the project site)
The site is Ig[ical residen~allots in the adjacent area, which generally
vary betwee 2 7 uare feet (25' x 117.5') and 4,406 square feet (37.5' x
117.5')'~. slightly larger than the two nearby commerciaVreligious
develop ts bu IS substantially smaller than nearby commercial retail and
lod. 0 which range in size as follows:
e
I Page 1, "Hist 'PeTty SlITOey Report, Marina Drive Bike Trail Project, City a/Seal Beac1f'
EDA W, JanWlIY 20 3.
CDP 5-ll6-328.City Commont Letter.400 Marina Onve 5
City o/Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Coastal Permit Application 5-06-328
400 Marina Drive
.2007 e
......." ..N<UbyV.............. c._~ -
Development Name Size in Square Fee ~::Mcres
Liquor StorelEtc. 8,889:20
Church 12,029. .29
Subject Property 13,667 .31
PCH Plaza 6 1.41
Hampton Inn & Suites (110 rooms) ,881 2.27
Bay City Center 000 3.56
Seal Beach Center 7.96
ucive for conversion to a hotel,
never been contacted about
the present. 2 Likewise, the
d the present regarding a
ugh the property zoning
e
2
3
fLee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, July 31, 2007.
e
CDP 5-06-328.City Comment Letler.400 Marina Drive 6
2.
does not Lack an
e
As indicated above, the Pacific Inn, a 70-room motel is
the site and within 200 feet of Main Street. As
completion of the Hampton Inn & Suites project .
lodging rooms (93 previous and 180 soon) ov n
the demolition of the Seal Beach Inn and G ens prop
Development Permit 5-05-285. Commission sen
that "There is a lack of overnight accommodations.
City Conclusion: There will be 180 ov . t accommodation rooms within
the Coastal Zone upon completion of the Ham: . Inn & Suites in early 2008, a
93% increase over the number of overni odations that existed in the
Coasta1 Zone in 2005.
Appropriate Location for an
3.
e
".
e
CDP S-06-328 City Comment Let1er 400 Marina Drive 7
City a/Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Coastal Permit Application 5-06-328
400 Marina Drive
.2007 e
· UK """'""'" .... ~ D<vel~1h
residential uses is consistent with the adjoining . c sts
of mostly residential uses."
City Conclusion: The City of Seal Beach strongly ca1 the above
"Summary of Findings" points by an eminently respecte . c consulting
firm and disagrees with the Commission staff ~ conclusions
regarding this particular site being an "appropriate 'on" for an overnight
accommodation use. .
4.
arina Drive.
Marina Drive adjacent to the subject site has been 2 travel lanes, while
east of Fifth Street Marina Drive has 4 travel lanes. Traffic volumes on Marina
Drive have decreased by 24.5% between 19 2006 as indicated below along
the subject portion of Marina Drive.
Roadway
Segment
Marina Drive
1999
Traffic
Volume
% Decrease in
Daily Traffic
Volume
1,885
24.5%
e
Provided below is ary verview of the existing commercial and visitor-
serving areas ~~. radius of the subject location:
· Main Str~~pproximatelY 4 blocks fro~ the subject property. The
historic do a of Seal Beach since the early 1900's. Main Street
visitor serving and resident serving area within the
en the Pacific Ocean and Pacific Coast Highway. Extends
gth and encompasses approximately 80,000 square feet of
resident serving commercial uses and service uses. Area includes
125 businesses, 16 restaurants, 2 bars, and 9 other food outlets.
ity Center: Located less than 2 blocks from the subject property. This
contains approximately 51,200 square feet of commercial retail,
e
COP 5-ll6-328.Cily Commont Letter.400 Marina Drive 8
e
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Coastal Permit Application 5-06-328
400 Marina Drive
.2007
-""''''"'''- "" """'_ 5 ~fo""
outlets. This center is not fully occupied.
· Seal Beach Center: Located at the northeast com treet and
Pacific Coast Highway, approximately 5 blocks fro .. t property.
This center contains approximately 82,000 square fe and service
uses. There are currently 2 restaurants and 3 other5:ao ocated in the
center. The center is currently undergoing a ma novation pursuant to
CDP 5-06-010, which includes an additional q eet of new retail
space. The major tenant, Pavilions Market, just demolished and is to
be reconstructed at an enlarged size of 48, square fe
· Zoeter Place: Located 8 blocks away at est comer of Pacific
Coast Highway and Twelfth Street, this center provi es approximately 22,800
square feet of retail and service uses. restaurant is located within this
center.
s.
Site was Utiliz~ as :1 in the Past.
e""","""" ~ point out tImt "" "'" _ _~Iy utilittd M .
motel. However,' e ceased, as confirmed by a review of City records in
1979, and Pro~ e before that - a minimum of 28 years ago!
During th~. . minimum of 28 years the City has no record of a request to
revert the p ack to an overnight accommodation use. The past history of
the . 'ally since 1979, the conclusions of the Economics Research
A and the considerations of the elected City Council all support
rati conclusion that an overnight accommodation use of the subject
s not economically feasible.
nearby competing visitor
e from ,889 square feet to 12,029
perties along Marina Drive to
e main visitor serving commercial
ri ted to either Main Street or Pacific
e
e
CDP S.Q6-328.City Comment Letter.400 Marina Drivo 9
e
City Summary of Project Consistency
relating to "Visitor-Serving Commercial
30222:
To again snmmarize, the analysis by your staff' lete and ignores the previous
determinations by the Commission regarding ach LCP Amendment No.
98-3 and CDP 5-99-026. It is our opinion that . nsistent with the Section 3
policies of the Coastal Act in that it is "n . ible" to provide visitor-serving
commercial uses, and in particular OVernigb,m: tions, on the subject property for
the following reasons: .
. Location cannot support viable c . c' uses, as indicated in the "VISitor
Serving Commercial Market . '0' Seal Beach Coastal District' Study
prepared by Economics Res AS es;
Site and proposed devli!.op is compatible and consistent with adjoining
residential uses, as also~~~ e "VISitor Serving Commercial Market
Conditions - Seal Beach 'h.. ~ Districf' Study prepared by Economics
Research Associates; '.
The natural forces of a e m economy have determined for approximately
30 years that it is . ible to operate a visitor-serving or overnight
accommodation use e si~, hich has been zoned for such a use since at least
1963; 4:1
At the same . e ~ forces of a free market economy have determined
that it is feasl ~~d overnight accommodations at an appropriate and
feasible locatio Coastal Zone within the last 2 years by 93%;
Location no c , n an appropriate street to accommodate ''-visitor-servintt'
e
.
.
.
.
.
e
.
.
.
CDP S-06-328.City Comment L.u.r.400 Manna Drive
10
e
City of Seal Beach Camme1tl Letter re:
Coastal Permit Applica/ion 5-06-328
400 Marina Drive
.2007
F>Uth>g_Of_~~U'
de-facto vacancy rate; resulting in no demand by the p see r new
overnight accommodation uses in this area of the Coasta1 Zon ast the past
28 years ~
Section C - "Densitv": ~ y
The City of Seal Beach disagrees with the Commission s~clUSion" in this
section. Commission staff concludes that:
.
"As proposed, the project does not con pment in an
area where it can be accommodated. density of
development would be reduced under this prop n addition, the
number of units the applicant is proposin is not even the maximum
amount of units the applicant can p ide on-site under the
proposed zoning. Additionally, the lac' ~ f concentration of
development does not maintain or ess to the coast."
(Page 8 of 40)
Position 0 Ci 0 Seal Beach re: Section
e
It is the opinion of the elected City Coun t proposed project is appropriate for
the coastal area of Seal Beach. Th~e5' . s a non-conforming, outdated use of
property, with a residential use that . . Ie with existing residential zoning and
land use development patterns on our si s of the subject property. The project
provides new housing at a densi.o~~' per acre.
Commission staff is now also !'gg.~ how the zoning of properties within the
City should be determined! is a function of the Coastal Commission, and
certainly not a function of . ion staff. In accordance with the Constitution of
the State of California an . . he p ions of the California Government Code the
elected legislative bo~of .' of Seal Beach, the City Council, still retains unto
i.", ...... ft"'~ Y 1Da__ ... ... C...... C........... to
entertain and/or en IU!:;'tiSOlllJaff to attempt to insert itself into one of the basic
powers oflocal governme encies in California!
City Summary ~~ect Consistency with Chapter 3 Standards
relating to " ~~ections 30250, 30252, and 30253:
Th~ proje ~with Coasta1 Act Sections 30250, 30252 and 30253 in that the
proJ ect:
.
contiguous to existing residential development on 4 sides (Section
e
COP 5-ll6-328.City Comment Lelter.4DO Marina Drivo 11
. Can easily accommodate the proposed uses in confo
e
.
.
.
.
.
The City Council as a body considered this letter on ^
to execute the letter as representing the unanimous and
Council of the City of Seal Beach.
If you have any questions regarding this letter and
Whittenberg, Director of Development Servi
additional information or respond to questio
staff. He can be reached at (562) 431-2527,
beach.ca.us. Mr. Whittenberg can also
of the City Attorney's office ifrequested b
Sincerely,
authorized the mayor
position of the City
ormation provided, Mr. Lee
most willing to provide
mmission or Commission
. on 31 or at lwhittenberl1:!1UcLseal-
discussions with representatives
. oners or Commission staff.
e
Commissioner Steve Blank
Commissioner Larry E. Clark
Commissioner Steven Kram
Commissioner Dave Potter
Commissioner Mary K. Shallenberger
Director Peter M. Douglas
Region, Senior Deputy Director Sherilyn Sarb
Region, District Manager Teresa Henry
CDP S~6-328.City Commont Letter.400 Marina Drive 12
e
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Coastal Permit Application 5-06-328
400 Marina Drive
.2007
e
Alan Schwendener, Applicant
Seal Beach City Council
Seal Beach Planning Commission
Quinn Barrow, Seal Beach City Attorney
Steve Kaufman, Seal Beach City Attorney
Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Servic
e
~
qj
~~
.S
e
CDP 5.06-328 Crty Commont Letter.400 Marina Drive 13
e
Approval of Comment Letter to California Coastal Commission re:
Application 5-06-328, 400 Marina Drive Project
City Council Stqff Report
AugtlSt 13, 2007
ATTACHMENT 2
"PRELIMINARY DRAFT" LETTER FROM
CITY ATTORNEY TO CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMISSION RE:
APPLICATION NO. 5-06-328
(SCHWENDENER), 400 MARINA DRIVE,
SEAL BEACH
e
e
s
Applicolion 5.06-328.400 Marina Drivo ProjectCl1y COIIIllIOIll LetIer.CC Staff Report
e
r1chard r1chards
1191&-1988)
glenn r. wabon
lrellred)
harry I. gershon
(rellred}
steven I. dorsey
William I s1rClusz
mltchell e. abbott
gregory w. stepanlclch
rocheUe browne
WlIDam b. rudel
qulnn m. barrow
carol w.lynch
g[egory m kunert
-thomos m. ~mbo
robert c. cBC:con
steYen h. kaufmann
kevln g. enns
robin a. hams
mlchcel elilrada
laurenee s. wiener
steven r. orr
b. tilde" k1m
saskla t. asamura
k~Br Q. sums
peter m. thaBon
Jcimes I. markmon
craig a. steele
t. peler P.Ierce
terence r. boga
Ilsa bond
Janet e. coleson
roxanne m. dlOl
Jm g. gr~on
ray a. clarke
w1DJom p. cUlley m
e mlchael f. V91h1ba
reglna n. danner
paula.aUfJerrez beam
teresQ ho-urano
bruce w. galloway
dlana k. chuang
marguerite p. battenby
bnly C1. dunsmore
debo~~Na~g
d. """Jl fox
robert h. plttman
alexander abbe
polnck k. bobko
davld m. snow
I9IIr a. enffquez
k1rsten r. bowman
g..lnder khalse
glnet1a I. c1ovlnco
tlihaortlz
candice k..lee
davld g. aidman
melissa c. laumrdo
martcela e. marro~uln
brlon d. mal:)ee
gena m. stinnett
Jennfer.PONls
steven r. flower
robert c. harton
matthew e. cohen
andrew tam
debble y. coo
geoffreyward
ertn I. powers
marlcl.~~~
w1llr8rlrt. ~=:
norman a. dUP9n1
Jm r. kaiplak
lam fr-.ha.wllll
telephone 415.421 .8484
......_0111..
telephone 714.99O.Q901
e
INW RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON
~[J ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
355 South Grand Avenue. 40th Floor. Los Angeles. Collfornio 90071-3101
Te\ephone213.626.8484 Facsimlle213.626.0078 ~
~
BY FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
August --' 2007
Patrick Kruer, Chair
Coastal Commissioners
California Coastal Commission
45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105-2219
Re: Application No. 5-06-328 (Schwendener)
400 Marina Drive, Seal Beach
Dear Chairman Kruer and Commissioners: 'I .
This office serves as the City Atto~o the Ci of Seal Beach. The City
has sent a letter requesting that the Commis rove the above application. At
the request of the Mayor and City CO~ e prepared this separate letter to
address that the portion of the staffre n on that recommends denial of the
Schwendener application on the basis , oposed project does not encourage
the protection of provision OfIO~ affordable housing."
As explained furthct.bel e City respectfully submits that the sections of
the Staff Report cited, SectilJ~~ (g) of the Coastal Act (Pub. Res. Code ~
30000 et~, do not provid~ ~r denial of the application by the
Commission.
1. The Commis8io ermit Jurisdiction Over Affordable Housin in
1981.
~ -
Prior to 81 ~~ 213 of the Coastal Act included an affordable
housing policy: Y3i~ortunities for persons and families of low and moderate
income, as defined in . 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, shall be
protected, enco d, where, feasible, provided."
In 19 , f controversy over the Commission's application of this
Co .. n ority over affordable housing, and transferred the authority to
re b ousing in the coastal zone to local governments under
Go Code section 65590. (Stats. 1981, c. 1007, p. 3900.)
RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW-A PROfESSIONAL CORPORATIDN
~
Coastal Act that "[n]o local coastal program shall be req' to' e housing
policies and programs." .
In addition, to address the Commission's j sdictio" er Coastal
Development Permits, the Legislature further pr " ded in S n 30607.2(c) that no
new coastal development permit "shall be denie . . ted, . conditioned by the
commission in order to implement housing policies or ." (Emphasis added.)
e
Chair Kruer and Commissioners
August , 2007
Page 2
Those provisions, including the prohi 'on on denial of an application to
implement housing policies or programs, rema . effect and are applicable
today. ' ."
Since 1981 (over 25 years), the c,.Jt-:::' . ot had jurisdiction to
regulate affordable housing in the coast ~t has been and remains a local
government function in the coastal zo' detailed requirements of
Government Code section 65590. In d are numerous other complex
statutory provisions dealing with the in i . of affordable housing, applicable onlv
to local government and WhiChf: ar expertise of Coastal Commission staff.
(See y" Health & Saf. Code ~ ' 93 [ 0 ncome], ~ 50462 [affordable housing];
Govt. Code ~~ 65008(c) [~dle e] and (e) [preferential treatment], ~ 65580-
65590 [housing element], ~ 6~~ ning to meet housing needs] ~ 65913.3
[consolidated permit proces . \&1 ~13.4 [regulatory concessions and incentives];
~ 65915-18 [density bon r incentives].)
ks the authority to deny the project on affordable
e
The St po !tempts to resurrect Commission jurisdiction over
affOrdable~' ying on language in two provisions added to the Coastal Act
in 2003, S 30604(t) and (g). While these sections have been in effect now for
four e . ssion, to our knowledge, has never applied them in the manner
rec e by staff. In any case, there are multiple reasons why these provisions
do t pr l:le any basis for the Commission to deny the instant application.
e
RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON
AnoRREVS AT LAW-A PROFESSIONAL CDRPORAIION
e
e
Chair Kruer and Commissioners
August , 2007
Page 3
e
RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON
ATrORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Chair Kruer and Commissioners ~
August , 2007 ' " , '
Page 4 .
resource policies in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act only as a t res i.e.. if
substantial evidence demonstrates there is no other feasib' to avoid impacting
coasta1 resources. ~
Second, both provisions state that it is im rtant for tHe Commission to
"encourage" affordable housing in the coastal zen. QWCV they stop well short of
the original language in Section 30213 of the Act, whic tionally required that
affordable housing opportunities be "protected" and ''where feasible, provided." In
fact, "encourage" is a word capable of precise 1ition. It means ''to inspire with
courage, spirit, or hope" (hearten), ''to spur on" ( ulate), and ''to give help or
patronage to" (foster). (Merriam-WebS~' B1iCtiOnary (10th Ed.) The
Commission "encourages" affordable he . g when, fo . xample, it determines how
to approve a higher density project that therwise Dflict with other coasta1
resource policies. But, "encourage" is no ~ous with "protect" or ''where
feasible, provide," and it does not me th to deny or condition a permit to
address affordable housing. It cannot meaning because Section 30607.2(c)
- as implemented now by the Co~~ e 1981 - provides that no new CDP
"shall be denied, restricted, or co~6iflb' , the commission in order to implement
housing policies or programs."
o .
3. Sections 30604 and. are D t Coastal Policies and Therefore Cannot
be the Basis for De 'aI-of a it.
e
e
The Staff Report . , treats Sections 30604(f) and (g) as though they are
policies set forth in Cha.R~3"~e Coastal Act. Significantly, however, they are not
coastal resource ~ic~es~er are included instead in Chapter 7 of the Act.
Section 6 ~~ Coasta1 Act provides the basic findings requirement
for approval of a co' e~opment permit where, as here, there is no certified
LCP. It states, . an':
"Prior t ifi.\)'on of the local coastal program, a coastal develooment
~ . ~ed if the issuin a enc or the commission on appeal,
find. t the orooosed develooment is in conformitv with Chaoter 3
'c ~Cin with Section 30200 and that the ermitted develo ment will
not' e' udice the abili of the local overnment to re are a local coastal
e
e
e
e
RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIDNAL CORPORATION
ro am in confonni
(Emphasis added.)
Chair Kruer and Commissioners
August , 2007
Page 5
Thus, the Commission reviews an applicati . confonnity with
the coastal resource policies in Chapter 3 of the C. Ac tions 30200-
30265.5). If the project conforms to the policie . Chapter 3 CDP "shall be
issued." Thus, the Act not only provides that the 'ssi no permit
jurisdiction or LCP jurisdiction over affordable housin , e provisions cited by
staff are not coastal resource considerations her because they are not set forth in
Chapter 3 of the Act. While the Legislature co ain1y have included Sections
30604(f) and (g) in Chapter 3 - and indeed could explicitly resurrected
Commission jurisdiction over affordable ho oastal zone, it did not.
4. The Commission Cannot Denv
30607 of the Coastal Act With
The Staff Report further cites s po or the denial recommendation
Section 30607 of the Coastal Act, whic . es that "any permit that is issued. . .
pursuant to this chapter, shall be~asonable terms and conditions in order
to ensure that such development '. will accordance with the provisions of [the
Coastal Act]." ~,
Section 30607 is ina ~ the staffrecommendation for several reasons.
First and foremost. by its t , lies onlv where a permit "is issued," not here
where the recommendati for de al of the permit. Second. it authorizes the
Commission to impose's " terms and conditions to ensure consistency "with
the provisions of',the .' s riiakes sense only when the Commission detennines
whether a projectll:s' . with the provisions in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act
since, if there i 0 ection 30604(a) requires that the permit "shall be
issued." As no~~ 604(f) and (g) are not contained in Chapter 3 of the
Act. Third, as_'~~~ve, the other provisions of the Act added by the
Legislature in I clear that the Commission has no LCP jurisdiction over
affordable ho new CDP "shall be denied, restricted, or conditioned by
the COmmiS~' to implement housing policies or programs." (pub. Res.
Code, ~~ 3 ,30607.2(c).)
. .
'.
RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON
ATIORNm AT LAW.. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Chair Kruer and Commissioners
August , 2007
Page 6
~
Coucludon ttJ
Thus, the City of Seal Beach respectfully submits ~.~ ~mmiSSion may
not deny the Schwendener application based upon ~ and (g) of the
Coastal Act.
e
ccs:
e
e
e
Approval of Comment Letter to California Coastal Commission re:
Application 5-06-328, 400 Marina Drive Project
City Council Stqff Report
AuguSI13. 2007
ATTACHMENT 3
COASTAL COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DATED JULY 19, 2007 RE: APPLICATION 5-
06-328,400 MARINA DRIVE PROJECT
e
e
6
Appliestion 5.06-328.400 Marina Drive Project.City Comment LetIer.CC SlIIfI'Report
STATE OF CALIFORNIA _ T1-:IE RF-SOURCES AGENCY
ARNOLOSCHWARZENEGGER Gmmnxw
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
a South CDlIstAreO omes
., 2000....ngBle,Sultol000 W 18c
Long Belch, CA 90802-4302
(562) 59ll-5D71
e
e
Filed: March 14, 2007
49th Day: May 2, 2007
1 BOth Day: September 10, 2007
Staff: Femie Sy-LB
Staff Report: July 19, 2007
Hearing Date: August 8-10,2007
Commission Action:
.
STAFF REPORT: REGULAR CALENDAR
APPLICATION NO.:
5-06-328
APPLICANTS:
Alan Schwendener
AGENT:
Jill Christofferson
PROJECT LOCATION:
400 Marina Drive, City of Seal Beach (County of Orange)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Demolition of an existing one-story, 4,640 square foot ten (10)-unit
structure presently used for residential purposes, subdivision of the 13,667 square foot lot Into four
(4) separate parcels ranging from 2,938 to 4,855 square feet In size, and constructlon of four (4)
new two-story, single-family residences ranging from 2,000 to 3,000 square feet with attached two
(2)-car garages. Grading will consist of 200 cubic yards of cut, 400 cubic yards of fill, and 200
cubic yards of Import.
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The subject site is located seaward of Pacific Coast Highway at 400 Marina Drive in the City of
Seal Beach, Orange County. The applicant is proposing the demolition of an existing 1 O-unit rental
structure on one (1) lot and the sub-division of the lot Into four (4) lots, each with a single-family
residential structure. The primary issues before the Commission are the commitment of the site,
which may be suitable for a priority use, to a lower priority residential use, the loss of development
density at the site and the resultant impact on pUblic access and cumulative impacts on coastal .
resources, and the loss of opportunity for more affordable housing in the coastal zone. Staff
recommends that the Commission DENY the proposed project.
As submitted, the proposed project is primarily inconsistent with Sections 30213, 30222, 30250,
30252, 30253 and raises issues regarding 30604 of the Coastal Act. The proposed project intends
to commit a site that may be appropriate for visitor-serving commercial use to a private residential
use. Private residential use is identified in the Coastal Act as a lower priority use in the coastal
zone. Visitor-serving commercial uses provide greilter public benefit than private residential uses
because a larger segment of the population Is able to take advantage of and enjoy the use of the
property and such uses support visitors to the coast. The proposed project would eliminate ten
(10) rental units on-site and replace them with four (4) for-sale sing ie-family residences, each on its
own lot, resulting in a decrease in concentration of development at the site with attendant impacts
upon coastal resources, including pUblic access. Lastly, the proposed project does not encourage
the protectlon or proVision of lower cost more affordable housing.
Furthermore, alternatives to the proposed project exist. For example, the existing structure could
be reno,!,ated or replaced to serve as a visitor-serving commercial use resulting in a higher priority
use on-site which would provide greater publiC benefit. If, upon further study, the site Is found to
be unsuitable for a higher priority commercial use, the existing 1o-unit structure could be renovated
5-06-328-[Schwendener]
Staff Report-Regular Calendar
Page 2 of 40
e
to physically improve the site, while continuing to serve as a multi-family residential use. Another
option is to replace the existing structures with new higher density residential development (as
opposed to lower-density single-family homes) or a mixed use residential/commercial project.
These options would proVide housing that is more affordable than single family residences. Also,
the proposed decrease in intensity of use would be avoided or reduced, resulting in lesser impacts
upon coastal resources. There are, perhaps, other alternatives as well. Therefore, staff
recommends that the proposed project be DENIED.
Section 30600(c) of the Coastal Act provides for the issuance of coastal development permits
directly by the Commission in regions where the local government having jurisdiction does not
have a certified local Coastal Program. The City of Seal Beach does not have a certified Local
Coastal Program. Therefore, the Coastal Commission is the permit issuing entity and the standard
of review is Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
LOCAL APPROVALS RECEIVED: Approval-in-Concept dated April 24, 2006 from the City of
Seal Beach Planning Department; Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 06-1; General Plan
Amendment 06-1; Zone Change 06-1; Tentative Parcel Map 2005-257; Resolution No. 5457
approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-257;-Resolution No. 5456 approving General Plan
Amendment 06-1, amending the Land Use and Housing Elements;-Resolution No. 5455 adopting
the NegatIVe Declaration 06-1; Ordinance No. 1546 adopting Zone Change 06-1, Changing the
Zoning Designation from General Commercial (C-2) to Residential High density (RHD), District 1.
SUBSTANTIVE FILE DOCUMENTS: Letter from Commission staff to Jill Christofferson dated ..
September 14, 2006; Information to Commission staff from Jill Christofferson received October 3, ..
2006; letter from Commission staff to Jill Christofferson dated November 2, 2006; letter from City
of the City Seal Beach to Commission staff dated December 11, 2006; Information to Commission
staff from Jill Christofferson received January 9, 2007; Visitor Serving Commercial Market
Conditions Report by Economics Research Group dated February 28, 2007;and Letter from the City
of Seal Beach to Commission staff dated April 26, 2007.
LIST OF EXHIBITS
1. Location Map
2. APN/Surrounding Uses Map
3. Zoning Maps
4. Site/FloorlElevation Plans for three (3) units on 25' x 118 lots
5. Site/Floor/Elevation Plans for the fourth unit on a irregular shaped lot
6. Tentative Parcel Map
7. Visitor Serving Commercial Marlcet Conditions Report by Economics Research Group dated
February 28, 2007
e
e
e
e
5~28iSchwendene~
Staff Report-Reguler Calendar
Page 3 of 40
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL
Staff recommends that the Commission DENY the coastal development permit application by
voting NO on the following motion and adopting the following resolution.
A. MOTION
I move that the Commission approve Coastal Development Pennit No. 5-06-328 for the
development proposed by the applicant.
B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL
Staff recommends a NO vote. Failure of this motion will result in denial of the pennit and adoption
of the following resolution and findings. The motion passes only by affirmative vote of a majority of
the Commissioners present.
C. RESOLUTION TO DENY THE PERMIT
The Commission hereby DENIES a coastal development pennit for the proposed development on
the ground that the development will not conform with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act
and will prejudice the ability of the local government having jurisdiction over the area to prepare a
Local Coastal Program conforming to the provisions of Chapter 3. Approval of the permit would
not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act because there are feasible mitigation
measures or alternatives that would substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts of the
development on the environment.
II, FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS:
The Commission hereby finds and declares:
A. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject site is located seaward of Pacific Coast Highway at 400 Marina Drive in the City of
Seal Beach, Orange County (Exhibits #1-2). The applicant is proposing the demolition of an
existing one-story, 4,640 square foot ten (1 O)-unit apartment structure and construction of four (4)
new two-story, single-family residences ranging from 2,000 to 3,000 square feet with attached two
(2)-car garages (Exhibits #4-5). All of the proposed residences are approximately 23' to 24'-6' in
height (25' is allowed) and comply with all setback and lot coverage requirements of the City.
Grading will consist of 200 cubic yards of cut, 400 cubic yards of fill, and 200 cubic yards of import.
The applicant is also proposing a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the existing 13,667 square
foot property into four (4) lots (Exhibit #6). Three of the lots would be 25' x 118 in size, comprising
2,938 square feet and fronting onto Fourth Street. The fourth lot, adjacent to Marina Drive Is
irregular In shape, has 6-feet of frontage on Fourth Street, 137-feet of frontage on Marina Drive,
and ha~.77-feet of frontage on the all~y, and comprises 4,855 square feet.
5-~2~Schwendene~
Staff Report-Regular Calendar
Page 4 of 40
e
In order to allow the construction of single-family residences, the Seal Beach City Council
approved amending the Land Use and Housing Elements of the General Plan to designate the
13,677 square foot property from Commercial General to Residential High Density. In addition. the
City Council approved changing the Zoning Designation on this parcel from General Commercial
(G-2) to Residential High Density (RHD), District 1 to be consistent with the General Plan (Exhibit
#3). These land use and zoning changes have not been reviewed by the Commission because the
City does not have a certified LCP.
The area consists of a mixture of commercial uses and single- and multi-family residential
structures. To the north of the project site is Marina Drive and residential low density development.
To the east of the project site across an alley is a General Commercial zoned area that has a small
commercial development consisting of a convenience store, a pizza restaurant, a beauty salon,
and a custom cabinetry shop. To the west and south are multi-story multi-family residential
structures (Exhibit #2). The site is approximately three (3) blocks from the public beach.
The proposed lots are in conformance with the minimum lot size standards of the proposed
Residential High Density (RHD) Zone District 1, which are a minimum lot size of 2,500 square feet
and minimum lot dimensions of 25' x 100'. The maximum lot area per dwelling unit on-site is 1 per
2,178 square feet. Thus, the maximum density on-site without the land division is 13,66712,178 = 6
units. With the land division, the maximum density is reduced to 4 units (1 per lot).
B. VISITOR-8ERVING COMMERCIAL USE
Section 30213 of the Coastal Act states, in relevant part:
e
Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where
feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred.
Section 30222 of the Coastal Act states
The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities
designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over
pn'vate residential, general industrial, or general commercial development, but not over
agriculture or coastal-dependent industry.
Section 30213 of the Coastal Act states that lower cost visitor recreational facilities shall be
protected, encouraged, and where feasible, provided. Section 30222 of the Coastal Act states that
the use of private lands for visitor serving uses takes priority over private residential. The Coastal
Act places a higher priority on visitor-serving commercial uses than on private residential uses.
Visitor-serving commercial uses provide greater public benefit than private residential uses
because a larger segment of the population is able to take advantage of and enjoy the use. In
addition, visitor-serving commercial areas provide services to the visiting beach user, including
providing places to stay ovemight, dine and shop.
The location of the proposed project is seaward of Pacific Coast Highway, three (3) blocks north of
the public beach. The site is located five (5) blocks west of Main street, the primary visitor-serving
commercial area of Seal Beach. While Main Street provides many visitor-serving commercial uses
such as t-shirt Shops and walk up restaurants, no overnight accommodations are located on Main _
street a[1d also there are no undeveloped lots of sufficient size available for overnight _
e
e
.
5-06-328-lSchwendener]
Staff Report-Regular Calendar
Page 5 of 40
--
..
accommodations on Main Street. Access to coastal recreational facilities Is enhanced when there
are overnight accommodations for the public.
While the project site is currently used for 10-unit apartment rentals, the project site is well suited
for visitor-serving commercial use because of the following: 1) the lot size of 13,667 is larger than
most in the area and would be an appropriate size to accommodate visitor-serving commercial
uses such as a hotel, motel or bed and breakfast (to be discussed later); 2) the project site is only
three (3) blocks north of the public beach and fIVe (5) blocks west of Main Street (the primary
visitor-serving commercial area of Seal Beach) so it is in a prime location to serve visitors to these
areas. There is a lack of overnight accommodations near these two areas and there are no
ovemight accommodations along Main Street nor are there lots available for such future ovemight
accommodations along Main Street; 3) the project site is located along Marina Drive, which is a
thoroughfare through the City which is more appropriate than more isolated locations within
neighborhoods; 4) there are other existing commercial uses along Marina Drive, so, a commercial
use of the subject site .would be compatible; and 5) as indicated in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration; the site was previously used as a motel. In addition, the tentative parcel map also
indicated that the existing building Is a motel.
The applicant states that a commercial use on-site would not be feasible, thus he is proposing
private residential on-site. In order to support this conclusion, the applicant has submitted the
following report: Visitor Serving Commercial Market Conditions Report by Economics Research
Group dated February 28, 2007 (Exhibit #7). The report concludes the following: "Considering the
aforementioned factors and specifically noting that the site does not satisfy basic retail site
salection criteria, is removed from the major concentration of visitor-oriented businesses which are
in close proximity to the beach, and that them are properties better suited for Mum development
with visitor-serving uses, we conclude that the use change from General Commercial to
Residential High Density will not negatively impact coastal district's ability to provide for its visitors."
The applicant has stated and has prOVided a report that supports his argument that visltor-serving
commercial uses such as t-shirt shops, or walk up restaurants that are reliant upon pedestrian and
vehicle traffic to sustain it cannot be supported at the project site. In addition, the City has stated
that they have not been contacted about using the project site for a commercial use and that the
site has been used as a residential apartment building since 1979. Thus, the City believes that the
lack of interest for commercial use on-site and its use since at least 1979 for residential use shows
the inability ofthe site to support commercial uses. On the other hand, there is no evidence
available to the Commission which shows that the applicant, or prior landowner(s), made any effort
to market the site for commercial use.
While there Is an analysis submitted by the applicant which suggests the site may not be able to
support commercial uses reliant upon drop-in business, other visitor-serving commercial uses not
reliant upon drop-in commercial uses such as a bed and breakfast or a hotel or motel may be
supported on-site. To support this view, the submitted report by Economics Research Group
states: "The SchwendenerCompany has made no efforts to Investigate altemative commercial
uses of the property.. Therefore, the ability to use the site for other visitor-serving commercial
uses has not been researched and thus there is a distinct possibility that such uses can exist on-
site.
Previously, the Commission approved Coastal Development Permit application # 5-05-385 for a
similar type of development near the project site at 202-212 511I Street. The project consisted of the
e demolition of an existing 23-room hotel (Seal Beach Inn) and construction of six (6) single-family
:
5-06-328-[Schwendener]
Staff Report-Ragular Calendar
Page B of 40
residences. There was no subdivision involv~ as the hotel building spanned six (6) existing lots.
Historically, the Inn had been an "apartment motel" structure that was renovated into a bed and
breakfast. The applicant was able to demonstrate that the existing structure was in a state of such
severe disrepair that it could not be addressed Without substantial investment and re-construction
of the building. However, reconstruction was not a feasible alternative at that site because the City
indicated it would not approve another commercial use at the site due to the land usel2:oning
inconsistency (the site was designated for Residential High Density-RHO, and had been for
decades prior, which does not allow for new commercial development; and the Inn had been a
legal, non-conforming use. The applicant was also able to provide records that showed her
exhaustive, unsuccessful attempts for years to try and sell that property to another hotel or bed and
breakfast operator for continued use as a bed and breakfast. Lack of interest was related to the
poor condition of the structure and the unlikely feasibility of being able to sufficiently renovate the
building within City constraints that apply to non-conforming uses. However, convinced there were
no other options, the Commission allowed the structure to be demolished provided the applicant
mitigated the loss of the existing visitor-serving use of the site. Toward that end, the applicant was
required to pay an in-lieu fee for each of the six Single-family residences to be constructed. In the
case of the present application (5-06-328), the applicant has not demonstrated that conditions at
the subject site are unsuitable for a priority use. In fact, as noted above, the site appears favorable
and suitable for such use.
e
In regards to the proposed project, if the applicant were able to demonstrate that the site is
unsuitable for a priority use, through, among other means, an exhaustive but unsuccessful effort to
market the site for a commercial use not reliant upon drop-in business, such as a hotel, motel or .
bed and breakfast, the Commission could consider other options. Meanwhile, the site must be
reserved for a higher priority use.
CONCLUSION
The Coastal Act places a higher priority on visitor-serving commercial uses than on private
residential uses. However, the project proposes private residential uses over a visitor-serving
commercial use in a prime area for such development. Therefore, the Commission finds that the
proposed project is inconsistent With Sections 30213 and 30222 of the Coastal Act and it must be
denied.
C. DENSITY
Section 30250 of the Coastal Act states, in part:
(a) New residential, commercial, or industrial development, except as otherwise provided in
this division, shall be located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing
developed areas able to accommodate it or; where such areas are not able to
accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public seN/ces and where it will not have
significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources. In
addition, land divisions, other than leases for agricultural uses, outside existing developed
areas shall be permitted only where 50 percent of the usable parcels in the area have been
developed and the created parcels would be no smaller than the average size of
surrounding parcels.
Section .30252 of the Coastal Act states:
e
e
e
e
5-06-32B-[Schwendener)
Staff Report-Regular Calendar
Page 7 of 40
The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public access
to the coast by (1) facilitating the provision or extension of transit service, (2) providing
commercial facilities within or adjoining residential development or in other areas that will
minimize the use of coastal access roads, (3) providing nonautomobile circulation within the
development, (4) providing adequate parking facilities or providing substitute meens of
serving the development with public transportation, (5) essuring the potential for pUblic
trensit for high intensity uses such as high-rise office buildings, and by (6) assuring that the
recreational needs of new residents will not overioad nearby coastal recreation areas by
correlating the amount of development with local park acquisition and development plans
with the provision of onsite recreational facilities to serve the new development.
Section 30253 of the Coastal Act states, in part:
New development shall:
(4) Minimize energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled.
As previously discussed, if the applicant were able to demonstrate that the site is unsuitable for a
priority use such as a hotel, motel or bed and breakfast, the Commission could consider other
options. One of these options Is a lower priority residential use. If residential use were to be
allowed, higher density residential use than that proposed by the applicant should be provided at
the site to assure conformity with Coastal Act Sections 30250, 30252 and 30253.
Section 30250 of the Coastal Act requires that new development be concentrated in existing
developed areas where it can be accommodated without adverse effects on coastal resources.
Section 30252 of the Coastal Act states that the location and concentration of development should
maintain and enhance public access to the coast by facilitating the extension of transit service and
minimizing the use of coastal access roads. Section 30253 indicates new development shall
minimize energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled. Concentrating development in existing
developed areas provides more opportunities for people to live near places they work and recreate,
such as the beach, and, thereby, reduces impacts to coastal resources. Impacts to roads and
vehicle miles traveled would be reduced by having a more intense stock of housing located closer
to employment and recreational opportunities within the coastal zone. Also, by having a higher
density in an existing developed area, it places more people in a single location so that public
transit service Is facilitated, which then again aids in reducing the number of cars on streets and
thus reduces impacts to coastal resources and public access.
Concentrating development in developed areas also has other cumulative benefits. It would lead
to less pressure to extend new development into undeveloped areas, which would prevent sprawl,
preserve open space and prevent adverse impacts to sensitive habitats. By concentrating
development in developed areas where it can be accommodated, sensitive coastal resources
would be protected and preserved. Additionally, the location and concentration of development
would maintain and enhance public access to the coast.
The applicant is proposing that the single lot be subdivided into four (4) lots and that one (1) single-
family residence be constructed on each new lot. As discussed, this would provide less density
than what is currently on-site (10-unils). The maximum density for this Residential High Density
(RHO) District 1 Zone is 1 unit per 2,17B square feet. By not subdividing the single lot and
construl;:ting the maximum number of dwelling units, it would result In a total of six (6) units on-site,
two (2) more than proposed. This would result in a higher density than what is being proposed.
5-06-32B-{Schwendener]
Staff Report-Regular Calendar
Page B of 40
e
However, even by avoiding a subdivision. the maximum number of units (6) on-site would still not
equal the existing number of units (10). So, in terms of density, preservation of the existing
development may be superior to redevelopment of the property.
As noted above, uses along Marina Drive are a mix of commercial and residential. It is notable,
however. that those properties which immediately abut Marina Drive. like the subject site, that are
developed with residential uses, are all higher density, multi.family structures, as opposed to
single-family residences. To the west and south of the project site are multi-story multi-family
residential structures. By not subdividing the single lot and constructing the maximum number of
dwelling units, the project site would be compatible with the existing character. Therefore, the
character would be maintained and a higher density of concentration would be provided.
Also, in order to increase the density on site. one option would be for the City to allow a higher
density on-site. The City has stated that there are other areas within the City that have allowances
for density that is higher than the density recently approved for the site. The current deSignation
allows 20 units per acre. or. one unit for fNery 2178 square feet. There is a higher density
designation that allows 33 units per acre, or one unit for every 1.320 square feet of lot area. This
~ould allow 10 units (13667/1320 = 10.4) to be built on the site, equivalent to what exists now.
CONCLUSION
As proposed, the project does not concentrate development in an area where It can be
accommodated. Actually, the density of development would be reduced under this proposal. In
addition, the number of units the applicant is proposing is not even the maximum amount of units ..
the applicant can provide on-site under the proposed zoning. Additionally, the lack of .
concentration of development does not maintain or enhance access to the coast. Therefore. the
Commission finds that the proposed project is inconsistent with Sections 30250. 30252 and 30253
of the Coastal Act and must be denied.
D. AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Coastal Act Section 30604 states, In part:
(f) The commission shall encourage housing opportunities for persons of low and
moderate income.
(g) The Legis/atum finds and dec/ams that it is Important for the commission to encourage
the protection of existing end the provision of new affordable housing opportunities for
persons of /ow and moderate Income In. the COBste! zone.
Encouraging the protection and proviSion of affordable housing is an important aspect of the
Coastal Act. In enacting Public Resources Code ~~ 30604(f) and (g), the Legislature clearly
expressed the Importance of protecting affordable housing in the Coastal Zone. Section 30607 of
the Coastal Act requires that "any permit that is issued .... pursuant to this chapter, shall be subject
to reasonable terms and conditions in order to ensure that such development ... will be in
accordance with the provisions of [the Coastal Act]." Sections 30604(f) and (g) are part of the
Coastal Act, so the Commission is therefore required to ensure that proposed development Is in
accordalJce with ~~ 30604(f) and (g). These provisions express the legislature's clear intent that
the COl'IJmission shall encourage the protection of affordable housing. e
e
e
e
5-0~S{Schvwendene~
Staff Report-Regular Calendar
Page 9 of 40
..
The proposed project consists of the demolition of an exlsting 10-unit rental structure on one lot
and the subdivision of the lot into four (4) lots, each with a single-family residential structure. The
existing rental units would be changed to for-sale units and the supply of more affordable units
would be reduced in favor offor-sale units. Typically, multi-family rental units are less costly and
more affordable than single-family residential units. For example, the current units in the multi-
family structure rent for approximately $800 a month. This is substantially lower than what one
would have to pay for a single-family residence. Thus, the proposed project is decreasing the pool
of rentable residential structures in favor of single-family residences that typically cost much more
and are not considered lower cost, more affordable housing. Higher density, multi-family units tend
to be more affordable and result in lesser impacts to coastal resources as discussed previously.
For example, by having a higher density in a developed area, it places more people in a single
location so that public transit service is facilitated and cumulative pressure to allow sprawl and
develop open spaces is avoided.
CONCLUSION
As proposed, the project does not encourage or protect more affordable housing. The existing
rental units would be demolished and replaced with for-sale units and the number of more
affordable units would be reduced in favor of higher cost for-sale units. Therefore, the Commission
would not be encouraging the protection of affordable housing were it to approve the proposed
development.
E. ALTERNATIVES
Denial of the proposed project will neither eliminate all economically beneficial or productive use of
the applicanfs properly, nor unreasonably limit the owner's reasonable investment-backed
expectations of the subject properly. The applicant already possesses a substantial residential
development of significant economic value on the properly. In addition, several alternatives to the
proposed development exist. Among those possible alternative developments are the following
(though this list Is not intended to be, nor is It, comprehensive of all possible alternatives):
1. No Proiect
No changes to the existing site conditions would result from the "no project" alternative. As
such, lower cost more affordable housing would continue to be provided on-site. Also,
concentration of development would not be reduced and thus no adverse Impacts to
coastal resources would result.
2. Uodatina and Imorovina the Site to Serve as a Visitor-Servina Commercial Use
By updating and improving the project site or redeveloping the site to serve as a visitor-
serving commercial use, a higher priority use would be located on-slte. Providing such a
use would provide greater public benefit than private residential uses because a larger
segment of the population is able to take advantage of and enjoy the use.
3.
Uodatina and Imorovina the Site to Continue to Serve as a Multi-Familv Residential Use or
Mixed Use Develooment
If the site is found to be unsuitable for a higher priority use and a lower priority use isconsidered, then renovating the existing building would continue to provide lower cost
5-06-328-{Schwendenerl
Staff Reporl-Regular Calendar
Page 10 of 40
e
affordable housing on-site. Also, redeveloping the site with a high density multi-family use,
or a mixed-use development with high-density residential and small commercial component
could also be considered.
F. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
Section 30600(c) of the Coastal Act provides for the issuance of coastal development permits
directly by the Commission in regions where the local govemment having jurisdiction does not
have a certified local coastal program. The permit may only be issued if the Commission finds that
the proposed development will not prejudice the ability of the local government to prepare a Local
Coastal Program, which conforms with Section 30604 of the Coastal Act.
On July 28, 1983, the Commission denied the City of Seal Beach Land Use Plan (LUP) as
submitted and certified it with suggested modifications. The City did not act on the suggested
modifications within six months from the date of Commission action. Therefore, pursuant to
Section 13537(b) of the California Code of Regulations, the Commission's certification of the land
use plan with suggested modifications expired. The LUP has not been resubmitted for certification
since that time.
The proposed development is inconsistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act and would
prejudice the City's ability to prepare a Local Coastal Program for Seal Beach that is consistent
with the Chapter 3 policies of the CO!;lstal Act as required by Section 30604(a). The density issue
associated with the proposed project is a larger planning issue that should be addressed by the _
City. Approving projects that reduce the density of an area or allow development of lower priority ..
uses could prejudice the City's ability to prepare a LCP that is consistent with the Coastal Act.
G. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Section 13096 of Title 14 of the California Code of RegUlations requires Commission approval of
Coastal Development Permits to be supported by a finding showing the permit, as conditioned by
any conditions of approval, to be consistent with any applicable requirements of the Califomia
Environmental Quality Act (CECA). Section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) of CEQA prohibits a proposed
development from being approved if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures
available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse effect, which the activity may
have on the environment.
The City of Seal Beach is the lead agency for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
purposes. The project was determined by the City to require a Mitigated Negative Declaration 06-
1. Some of the Mitigation Measures required are: ~) an archeologist and Native American monitor
appointed by the City of Seal Beach shall be present during earth removal or disturbance activities
related to rough grading and other excavations for foundations and utilities [no archeological or
paleontological resources or human remains are known to exist on site]; 2) the potential damaging
effects of regional earthquake activity shall be considered in the design of the structure; and 3)
prior to the issuance of the first grading or building permit, a comprehensive Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP) shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer or a registered
professional hydrologist to protect water resources from impacts due to urban contaminants in
surface water runoff.
As described above, the proposed project would have adverse environmental impacts. There are -
feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available, such as updating and improving the site to ..
e
e
e
5~-328-(Schwendener]
Staff Report-Regular Calendar
Page 11 of40
continue to serve as a multi-family residential structure and also updating and improving the site to
serve as a visitor-serving commercial use. Therefore, the proposed project is not consistent with
CECA or the policies of the Coastal Act because there are feasible alternatives, which would
lessen significant adverse impacts, which the activity would have on the environment. Therefore,
the project must be denied.
s-t)6-32.e-I.SChVol8ndener1
sUIfl Report-ReIlUISf calendar
Pelle 12. of 40
ez1 -,;".
.:......_a:.. : .
~
.._ .----_a- ------~..----
'. .. -_..~_. .
'. \ l' \ :
. _....1..-
. ,
\
--.- . -... -~..
\
\
\
e
e
-;
\
\
\
cQAS'tA.\. GOMM\SS\ON \
- ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-'~
\ exl'l191"C *-
p"GE_~ _OF_ \ -
~
,'-
.......
.-.....- - ---.-- . .
. ~'lr
: .
-,\
......:i..
,..-
" ~-_..
,;<1""------ -
. \
-
\
,
,
\
_J
e
5-06-32B-{Schwendener]
Staff Report-Regular Calendar
Page 13 of40
f
"-
~ un
1
i
<3 I!li
e
5
;t .. ~
% ~uh
I un~
....
... i -
S In
~i,Ulli
~dual -I
I. I . Z
co
Ili!11 i I
.... s " l'>
! III - I :IE
7 co ;~
ei.;11 u
~
:IUul l!
:2 !!!w
0 ~~
I lelG u
e
1
so
.,
1 ,..1 ,L ~
!Hl6-328-1Schwendener]
Staff Report-Regular Calendar
Page 14 of 40
G)
e
4(J(J M81fn8 Dttve ptDjet:t
1n1lJ.' Study ""d M/IJg8tMJ N8gdve 08e1atdan
Exhibit 3-4
(ZonIng DeslgnatiolUl)
e
ZDn1..
CIIl> ......,....... PI)
e:. c... ..I"aUUI' Pol)
4lIIIIt .d1.ulldun/ll....a...LUIlO
~ ......11I1111111....'"11)
~ .ulDl................LD..1q
COASTAL COMMISSION
EXHIBIT;!!
PAGE 1
S
OF-L
1IndI- Fobnloly 22. 2001
w
1I1'l"1'-+ n-....O'IM..._
e
5_06-328-tSchW9ndener1
Staff RePOr\-fleQular calendar
page 15 of 40
tOASlA\. tOlAWSS\Otl
?lLoJ"IIS-c::r
E.i'"f'1!!.
:0.., .SPR
"-
"
"
~
1
(
\
I
\
~.
"\
I
"- r-"e.....
-~~
.-..-!8
e
r=-~
&. ili'tlfllo""
,,=~':
,.......-.-
..I.~...
......-
~cu*~
0$...,....... ..
.'
.' .
'. ~.r-\ ,1"".(::1\
e
,
. : "RLa: 1
, . .
:.. 'f'
~...:.:..., ,..-,
,. .,; o~,d\ \ .\
- - ---'
,~"".
.-~
-
.'
5-06_328-lSChWendener1
staff Report.-Regular Calendar
page 16 of 4Q
\
\
I
\
;.
t;
COASTA\. coMM\SS\OIt
:':J- ~.,,-=
e
'1\
\l. \ \
!}. \ \ .
\!ii 1 \
,.tU. '
, -
...
'"
.\1.;\---' :.. ....--....... ..\
:~t\ _~.;__.L---~TJ
t t.J\ ; ll.' i" i '
_ , U. I
... ........--..-.~ I .__~M
~IllY
e
oC
,..
C
ID
-
,a.
Z
~. ~
~. Ul
l.t:
~
e
e
e
'..._ I_.....r....._.....
....ca....:.:raco__
~nVH+H:>IAO~3:B
--
5-06-32B-[Schwendener]
Staff Report-Regular Calandar
Page 17 of 40
. --
,.....a.........
~.H;~~
...r.:::D~1 .. I
lt~tu:la\.ID\'YA'31~ i~
- ..'_..... .:... r
't
!..
::-r
H
j~
'LZ
;i:5
.110.
... COASTAL COMMISSION
q
EXHIBIT~ L.
PAG" '.. OF
,. .
it~., .~-
. ....". I'
"i::. . !
. ,.
'~'" rl -
.. !
, '".-
.,
t
..
1/ jll
Io. ..
. -'
,. " ,
.......
~
.....-........ . ".
[......: -. ...,....1:1..
.' ..
I\_.~J r
\~. ..r I .
" ~": I I
,.. ",! r"_.}
:"l.....
".
-..... -
....... .,-.., I
'ki!il~ ~ A:
. .'1 ....
".::.::.: J. . ~ ~
..... o'
J ....!~..."i'
-.. .-.
.;.......~ :';'
~! . ~ :: :':p:'.~." ..1
.~ t. . ; ........~ ~
: . .'1.0"':
h. '~"";
: ,. ....,.
.,.... L '; L
'.: '~I' frll~1 ~.~<. \'_ rfi!~!!;
.. . I, . :.:...._:;~~~J..
>I~ '~.;;11.. ... ...........
: 1 i :~ ; . ~ I Ii!
~..- :'i:~ ! ( .'if':!1
.L '--,;....1 t': _::";
: u..... l
I~...".:.::.:.:.".' . _..~..
~. '1 . ..
I, .
:.'-.,
~. .a.. _'
S-a6-328-[Schwendenerl
Staff Report-Regular Calendar
Page 18 of 40
......... - .---- ..-....,
--=---......_---
!)nVH+H::>IAO!)~
, I..
\k :11;" : ::i-~
". .',":1::;:: .:
iiiiil:.::i::. .
~" ':',
~::..: ',il:;:i i:!
~'::>: "'II
. '. ',. ....1
. : Ill. .
. " ,.;.. III ..
~',I.'. . .:'1 :; Iii.
Ii :!':i:;Hili~!:'
Ii:/,'I'i'!:: :,II:~;,i;:
I""il;:h.
i!I'I:'I'~
';:'1I!.::t:.H~1
"':"ii'~
II ....
jll
i'l
li
I':
I'j
,I.
"
,
,
"
i
i
.j
i
,
I
~ I:
-
';"LM
, .
. !!
;
"":Y" ~ ~
~ II
"
',U If; i,,".1 .
I ,.
~i' II!: I "
.."
" :tl!
,. ..
!: 5
..~
..: ~
"~I"""-'~'.:
, ,
! ,'.; il!'
I,': .;i . I,fl I
. "', 1iIIi"
:~ ,:! ~;..
,
~
....:::- . i
I
I
.'.
. ,
-... .. .
.....:1-
~..,~-~ .!
k.:~t .~
I;;~ ..
'::;;; .,
...11. !II!.
'::t: .
...,
:~ !: .
H:~ )j(
"
(Ii:"
",. :.
.,
Ii
I!
",
"
e
COASTAL COMMISSION
e
EXHIBIT #
PAGI' ~
Ii
"
~
~
Ii
~
:0
8
"
..
".
ili .! I
"I 5:!1
.1 l~ZI
if I!~J
q
OF..L
e
,.
..
H
..
. l~
,: ~;
,.
"
..
14
1;
5-Q6-328-tscll'H6ndeoefl
staff Report.-ReQular calendar
page 19 of 40
\
_" -1
- \-
,..
----.-
'l:
e
.' ..---- --- - --- .
e
"
'"
'"
.fI.""""
,
'."-"" ..-...--............-
_..:._-.:.z.=__'IIoil:_
DnVH+H::>1AOD~
5~28iSchwendene~
Staff Reporl-Regular Calendar
Page 20 of 40
e
.-
......,.........
,--~_.
lRIJ1ILIIIlI.m..,a........
.~
'''!::.'':O[llI]]O}ji ...
C'" iI I
!GKOHA:1IWY.ln~ iI 1-<
- _ .~.:JIIt.
,". ....
\("'~~../ . -".
:" --. II" ,
': ..!I,
......
!
t
"
.
e
t
!..
" t
~l:I
~~
!~z
'..,,:
'-...
Ill!...
COASTAL COMMISSION
EXHIBIT' .s
PAG= z.. OF'"
e
_.. I
1. 1
.,', :'1'
--~ :. ...... '!
.......-:-...
.' .
e
e
e
5-ae-328-{Schwendener]
Staff Report-Regular Calendar
Page 21 of 40
..,- -..-..... ...._,.... """...... -- DOOIIIJill]- ...
.....-_....:_'0__ .-....._..1 ~ J It
DnVH+H:>IAOD~ _ --: ....<XU'lDw.;~ I ..:.'
. ,,,.0.
'.
. ,
".
.,/ ,
"
\.
-. i!
11
ji .-
" .
1=i:.
I
.. I.
, :P
.. t..,
... .
; oj '.l:rJI
.....- i 11 II
L.:..-1
Ji
Jl
,
I,
cl
r
!
l!
t
t
lIs
..Ih.
COASTAL COMMISSION
EXHIBIT 1# S
PACF ~ OF Co\
5-06-32B-lSchwendener]
Staff Report-Regular Calendar
Page 22 of 40
........ _.._-...~..-.-
_"''Oo_~=''''__''''
on'VH-I-lOIAOO~
~.N
............"'.
\\111_-
allll~'),I.'lII'pIL1JI.....
if '
u. ul! ;:il
1\
"'..--
w__
....
S"JI'\OII ""lM'l:r'r.J!\15
-
~. ::i
" u
e
.
it
II el
:1
II! Id
/l jj
II ~
IIi "
~ "
.. !I;
Ii; e
I
..
5
.
&
;
. 3 I
I,..
.. .
:!jl .
11...1
i'"
,"
'I ~...
COASTAL COMMISSION
EXHIBIT # S
PAGE' ... "l-
_OF
e
e
e
e
~~2B{Schwendene~
staff Report-Regular Calendar
Page 23 of 40
~1..2l7'
WICIS'lINlINlJ.Of'LDI~ :2'
:::';'.Mil~W'" '
South Coati RllgICln
!lIG I S IlIII
1'"I"\.I,.!I:~..9!Mu.OI"l
.-..0 ..I!:IIIi.~'---
~..._--
.. ~
---
--
-,--
- -..-..,-.,...
TENTATIVE SII!!T ''''''8E<''
1Pl~1Pa~~1!.. ~~1Pl 1M@.~tOl@~"'~~?'
'N"'H~ CIIY or seAL BeACH
COUNTY OF OR^NGF
ST^11' OF CALIHlHNIA
-
---
.-
~I"--'III.-rrn
-- Ell!
--- [J
-
_.~
--.no..u
11I'-- III'" tRltl..
--
----
----.-~-
=--;'':'-=--:.'l:~:-
==:-:~1.~":::~-
=~,,---
-.........--
_.IWrIf'__
~ -.----
-_._-
~..a_
---
.
~.
,-
~
-
.
-.-
-,.
--
---
---
-.
-
....-----
_...___._11____,.
_..#0.1'1'1'1'......__....._
....._.IIC_'l'....",...
=..r:=;::~~":=t=:.
4IIII1'I'_....._~.__
_1If......~_..._..
I'I.IV..___-..
~
-.-
--
._L__
---
__,a
--
=-....:::=:
...11I_
Ii:':--- -
---
EXHIBI
PA.GE
"
OF-I-
CdIInaIIc:a.uIc--.
...."""r...""'"
API'aaVIID . .. .
""'Nll. .. "..'
----
11I'----
.....,...
DiIII..._____
\"- I
':1IRCV!D.CDICIPI'
.. . 'I "'l\l:\lI....1 fI"'I,NG r.M'.
.,.-n..,,' b~
. \~1~,.Q:.~ _.1
,
:- I i.,{
.
';
I
,
"!"-
I
-t--........ --
L.. -""_ -'
_.
-- '\. rc;." ...-
- ~. ""'"
l'
-~
---
~'~1e"'~
1VP~~ON
-......; -~
VlCIMm IlIAIP c6.1i:I
T"t'P1~Al ~TlaN
MNZ.I~,~rvE
---
--------------.--
-----
S-Q6-328-{Schwendener]
Staff Reporl-Regular Calendar
Page 24 of 40
e
MEMORANDUM
RECEIVED
South COQS' Region
MAR 1 4 2001
CAUFORNIA
COASTAL COMMISSION
..,
.'.n.mICIII....rC... ",...cl..t..
TO:
Mr. Alan Sebwcmdener
The Schwendener Company
FROM:
Christine Safriet, Associate
Michael Wrigh/, Principal
Economics Research Associar..s
DATE:
RE:
February 28, 2007
Visitor Serving CDllUDen:ia1 Marla:! Conditions
Seal Beach Coastal Dislricl
ERA ProjocI No. 17041
.
INTRODUCTION
e
The Sehwendener Company retained Economics Research AssociateS
(ERA) 10 eltallllne ceNin issues pertaining to tho proposed redevelopment of an
_hod mulli-filmily residential project located &1400 Marina Drive in the city of
Seal Beach. The 13,621 square fOOl property is locatOd in lb. Coastal Districlas
deslgnllled by the SIalO ofCalifomia in lhe California Co..W Acl of 1976.
The property OWner has requesb>d a rezoning of the silO ftom C-2, Ge.....l
Commercial, 10 RHD, Residential High Densiry. ERA has evaluated tho por..nriaJ'
effi:cls on the orca's ability 10 serve Ihe commcrciallieility needs of ilS visitors
and residents thai would result ftom the proposed zoning change. The following
mCIDorandum report summarizes Ibe findings of Ibis an.lysis. During the course
of Ibis SllIdy, Ibe foUowing tasks were performed:
COASTAL COMMISSION
,
OF ..,
. Physicallnspection ofsubjecl property and adjacent.......
. Reviow of the historical operaIlon of the property, including any
attempts at commercial......
. Analysis of retail sales pal\cms of the market area.
. Survey of eXisting visilDr......ing commercial areas in Ibe coasta1
districl of Seal Beach
EXHIBIT'
PAGE \
1IIU' WII.hlr. 'nlnno. hltl 1 saD, La, ""1,1... CIt 10014
(1101 4'7"-1515 'AX ('111] ."'.1"0 .W..leCltHI. COm
Lo. A....I.. '.-11 ',anellC. J." Dr... II:hln.. WI.l'llnl,lIIn DC. NI. York Lon"."
e
e
e
e
5-06-328-[Schwendenerj
Staff Report-Regular Calendar
Page 25 of 40
"!lIII'J'r.
~
.._._...,~..-_.
. Analysis of commercial and rttail demaad and projection of IiJture
commercial requirements.
A summary of ERA's findings is presenb>d below, followed by. discussion efthe
supporting dala and analysis.
STJMMARY OF FINDINGS
Our principal IiIIdings, based on II5SOSsmem of me suqjoct site and an
anal}";' of the retai1aDd commercial supply and demaDd conditions in the City of
Seal Bcacb, are u follows:
. P.o, c:omm.rdaI Laeot/an. Prom a marlcct perspective, the subject
site is poor as a commercial 10c:a1lon. Marina Drive, west of the
Pacific Coast Highway, filnctions as a residential collector.- rather
than a =ial ccxrldor. The site has extremely low tra1flc coUllts
lbal are deereasing over lime, and i3 _I blocb outside and
removcd from the cstablished visllor-serving and resident-serving
commen:ial areas in the City. Visibility of the site i. sati.(aclOlY from
Marina Drivo buteomplOb>ly obstructed from the PCH.
. P..r" SoJud In Co_./1Il U... The suqjoct site is poorly sulled
for visitor-servmg commercia) uses. The site hi too small to attract a.n
anchor tenant, and there are no nearby previously existing anchor
lenaIlts. There is mlnimal pedestrian and vchiclo traffic in front of the
site. A neighboring relIlll site I. alresdy serving existing demand for
neighborhood and con.enience-relaled commercial uses.
. UN Consist.", with IUs/d.nt/aI. Developmcot or the sile wi1h
rtsldenlial .8OS is consistent "ith tho adjoinins are. wbicb consi... of
mostly residClllial u....
COASTAL COMMISSION
. OIllSIde Ca_rclal Cu.c./Itra,/D/U. Thoro are "YO ~or
coDcentratiOD!l of commcreial businesses in the fbcus area af this
report: I} tho Main Stn:et cOrridOT; and 2) tho I'CIl corridor. The Mal"
S~ot corridor primarily serves the visitor market with vlslto....servin'
uses 10Cllted On the first three blocks beginning al Ocean Avenue. The
business establishments become Im:reasinrly residcut-.....lns !he
farther they are locatod from Ocean Avonue and the besch. PCH Is the
main arrorial throurh the coastal disrri<:t. The PCH commen:ial
corridor scrv.. both visiton and residents, but the retail activity is
concenll'llted around Main Slreet.
EXHIBfT # , ...11..
PAGE 1,.. OF
.......In_Auoda...
I!.RA Project No. J'7lI41
SNl Bad< c:.u.I Dlmfcr
'..2
'.
S..Q6-328-1Schwendener]
Staff Report-Regular Calendar
Page 26 of 40
e
~
'._--~._'-
. Ad.quIII. ExL<t1ng ComnrtrelaJ Stock. Seal Beach and the Coa5la1
Area are not presendy underserved with respect to visitor-rolated
tBcililies. Existing visitor-serviUII rotail establishments in the City
perform slgnificandy better than the Orange County average in tenns
of sale_ per outlot (CltOluding firm-related equipment). This indicam"
that lbe existiug commercial stock i_ more than adequab> to satisfY th.
area"s present aad near...term commercial needs.
. Ad"'l_ Expansion Ill1d NN Dndopm4nr. Numerous existing and
vacant properties hIVe been designated for expansion or now
de!leIopment for lilturo homl, restaurant, retaU, commercial, and
rolated visitor-servinll uses. These properties are better suib>d for
visitor-serving uses than lbe subject property in terms of their
locational atlrIbutes.
CDnsiderinl th. oforementiDDed mctors and _pecifieally Doting that the
site does Dot satisfY basic retail sit. selection criteria, is removed 1Iom the major
coocentration of visitor-oriented busin..... which are in .Ios. proximity to the
beach, and that thoro are properties better suited for lilturo d...lopment wilhvvisitor-serving u.... we conclude that the use change 1Iom General Commercial
10 Residential High Density will not negatively impact tho coastal Dislrict's
ability to providc for lIS visitors.
e
COASTAL COMMISSION
EXHIBIT #
PAG" 3
,
OF ...l!.-
EcDIUtlftIICS Ruaarcll Associates
ERA .PnJec:t:"\lo. 17041
s.. S-h C...toI D,...".
PAle 3
e
e
e
e
5-<l6-32B-[Schwendener]
Staff Report-Regular Calendar
Page 27 of 40
--.4:.'
===
...-.-.....-...,
OVERVIEW OF SEAL BEACH
Th. City or Seal Beach is. small ccostaI community ofllppJO.:imo/ely 12
square miles located in the northwest comer of Orange County. II is bordered by
the City of Lons Beach to th. north and tile City of HuDlinston Beach to th.
south. The US Naval Weapona Station occupies approximately 8 square miles or
the city. The City includes 1.5 linear miles of beach fionla8e, and approximately
half of the municipaUty Is located wi1hin the Coastal Zone.
Population
The 2006 population of Seal Besch is approxilnalely 25,300 .. indicaled
in Figure 1. The City has not experienced slgnificanl srowth since 1990, wi..
.verage year ov... year srowth rsnglng between -1 and I percen~ .. indicated in
Fiame 2. In COD\rUl, both Orsnse County and the S_ of Califomia have
...perienccd not poaItive population gains over the same time period, wit!> growth
averaging approlCimalely 1.5 percent per year.
J1p..1
POPll....T10N GROWTIl
ulatian Sell Beoch Orin e Countv Ca ifomia
1990 25,098 2.410,668 29.588,381
1995 24,650 2.590,100 31,617,000
2000 24.100 2.829.800 33.871.648
2005 25,244 3,047,O!l4 36.728,196
ZOO6 25 298 3 072~36 37172015
CAGR 0.05% 1.53% 1.44%
SaIne: Califomi. Dcpunmx orfinmce. r~CI Rnearch..\uDCiaS
PI.... 1
l'oPCLATJOl<- VE.\ROVER VUR l'ERCOTACr. CH.,-~cr.
=1--- --:;>~-:">:,,--_. --.--1
#''' .......--..--.--.....
. --....-....... .-..----' ...----.
1'Va~-~-- _.~- -,-'?'~
'r-". . ~. I" -'./
CQASTAL COMMISSION 0% '\ - -::"':;':_::"'7- ..~ - - ~ ~ '
", ._.... . . .-.....SoIIB~
-1" -'..~...' - - ~ .-. -..- '. ..OrqaQlunt)tr
EXHIBlTtI--=:I.-........ :-"",,"" ;
"l OF " -2% '
PAGE -mM!~~I~~i~~~
SDutu: CaHfttnala DeJlanmeat ort-IIWICZ, ECOIIamial1luaIrI:b AancilIIlI
EcoaomJa ReuudJ Auuriara
ERA.l'raJect :'10.171141
Sottl Bari Cl>aolDbtrltl
Poae .
5-o6-3281Schwendene~
Staff Report-Reguler Calendar
Page 28 of 40
e
=r.~
~
'"---...--
Lo..1 Coastal Program
The California Coasbll Act requires all cities and counties 10..1ed along
the coast of the Pacific Ocean to prepore a Local Coastal Program (LCP). The
LCP typi..lly consists of two elements - a coastal land use plan and an
implemenlalioo plan (e.g. zonini ordillances or maps) that have been developed
by a municipality and certified by the local Coastal Commission. Once "'I LCP
bas been certified, land use and development pennitting authority within thc
coastal zonc are ItaIled over to the city or county that submitted the plan. In 1983,
Seal Beach drafled a coastal land use plan and submitted it to the Coastal
Commission for review. The Commission returned tho plan to the CiLY with a
number of commenlll. lbe plan was never certified. At present, the CiLY of Seal
Beach does not bave a certified Local Coastal Program, so the Coastal
Commission maintains authority over development and pennitting decisions
within the City's coaataI zone.
FocuArea
For the purposes of 'this analysis.. we arc: concentrating on commercial,
retail. and ",sidential activity loca1ed between the coastline and Crestview
Avenue, and the San Gabriel River and Kille. Highway. This area corresponds to
the entirety of Planning Area 1 and a small ponion of Planning Area 2 of the
City's 2003 General Plan. Due to data aggregalion techniquo., data in the report
includes Informatlon collected for the enlirel)' of the municipal boundaries of the
City of Seal Beach, as indicaled in Figu'" 3 below.
e
COASTAL COMMISSION
,
OF~
EXHIBIT #
PAG'" S
Ecoaomics Relqrch AllOCiatn
ERAProJ<<ll'l..17041
SIOlBau:b C-.J DbtrlCl
PapS
e
e
e
e
5-08-328-{Schwendener]
Staff Report-Regular Calendar
Pege 29 of 40
~......
:;;~.c7"i:
..........
,..-.-........._11.
t1pre 3
CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CAUFllK."IA
.,
o
....."""
"'--
/;~'"'' "-: 7:~:.-:
h~ . F_. . -__
....:..-:'..~:r:.~ .
"'
.'
"'::.:......, ..:--=.~:-:: - -.
-.....-... t
~~ , ~.--I
-~
! . otOlH4/NDr
jm Facus"..
, PlarNlgAl.-1
I "'IWlIngAra2.
lQ~~
COASTAL CO~MISSIO A..... .. .. ..
'..... -
" .
OF__ OXIIII'\"C'~ Ecanomla.R.l:lurm~JlDdCitratScals-.-h("1CDmJ1!11d
EXHIBIT'
PAGE ..
EumamJa JlI:rearcII AsIDda'fI
ERA PtoJ'" :<0.171141
SOfll_~ C'....., DlMrld
Pop 6
5.{)6-328-[Schwendener)
Staff Report-ReguJar Calendar
Page 30 of 40
e
lilO:",'j
..--.-.....-..
PHYSICAL INSPECTION AND SITE REVIEW
Site Description
ERA inspected the subject property at 400 MarllUl Drive on ll11uary 23,
2007. Figure 4 provides OIl aerial view of the Nbject property, outlined in red.
The sib> is loca1ed on the southeastem comer of 4~ SlreeIlIId Marina Drivo:. 4~
Street is . residential street of ..'ell-kept single and multifamily bom... Marina
Drive is a mi.~ed residential and commercial boulevard connecting a network of
residential streets to the Pacific Coast Highway.
The 13,621 square foOl site is roughly diamood-shaped and consists of III
existing L-shaped one story wooden liame building &outed by a 1O-sta1l asphalt
parking lot in lair coodition. Cumntly, the building houses 10 studio apartments.
The psrlcing lot is shielded from Marina Drivo: and 4" Street by a lOW of shott,
bushy trees approxim....ly 20 feet taIL A narrow space separab:s tho westem rear
side of tho building from neighboring lots. The eastem side of the property fices
.11I alley. On the westem corner of 4" SIreet IIId MsriDa Drive Is a multi-story
mUltiDmily residential SII1lcture. Across the _ to the nonlt of the subject
property is a paved bicyclelwalking path and then a large concrete block wall that
defines the southem boundary of a relatively new single liunily residCDtlal
pllllned development. A mini-mall containing a convenient store, a pizza
restaurant, a beauly salon, and a custom cabineby shop is lllCllted directly to the
east oftbe subject property on MarinaOrive at 5* Street, just past the alley.
e
EXHIBIT'
PAGF ,
COASTAL COMMISSIO
F.conom5a Rnearcb Associates
ERA. ProJet.1. So. 17041
S_ Bach CIIIUtJIl Dlltrit:t
Pap'
e
.
.
.
S-D6-328-[Scttwendenerl
Staff Report-Regular Calendar
Page 31 of 40
-
..-..-......--.
SIte Aa:ess
FiflUl'C 5 shows !be location of the site iD rell1lionship 10 the JIItl'OUIIding
...... Vehicular IIId pedesllian occesslO the site Is pd. Marina Drive connects
iii the Pru:iflc Cout HiBhWllY, the primarl' tnmsportation corridor lbr the &n:II,
approxlmately a quar1er-mile 10 the east of the subject property. MlIriDa Drive
conoacts intotba City orLeng Baacb to the wast, and can also be used llllravelto
tile nOrlham acl&e of Seal Beach Parle, whieb Includes' parkinS !llciliti...
Padeslriao md bicycle occas. to the property is available via wcll-maiolalnad
sidewallis in all dinlctions, a bicycle lane on MlIriDa Drive, &cd a bicyclelwalking
path In tho linear parl< on tile llOI1.h side of MlIriDa DrIve. The site is
oppmximately four b1oc:ks from the beach.
Tram. Cou.1I
COASTAL COMMI.....O.. Marina Drive at 4" Slnlel is predominantly a residential servinS CllIlDCClllr
..... aneL Tratlic ..uots on Marina Drive were undmuken by !be City in J 999 IIId
2006 and are ShOWD in Figure 6 below. Veblcular traflic alons Marina Dr. has
EXHIBIT 1" decreased IUbSl3lllially over the past seven y..... by approximately 25 percenL
PAG~OF..!:L
_R_.u.odol..
ERA ...Jeal No. 17041
s.._c......._
P.e.
S-D6-328-[Schwendener]
Staff Report-Regular Calendar
Page 32 of 40
.
mm
...-...........-....
Ylpnli
AVERAGE DAILY VEBleLl COUNT ON MARJlIlA DRIVE
'999 2006 a.
Marina@lst5L 7.694 5.809 -24%
Marina <iii 6thSL 5,004 3.713 -26%
s.....: Cll,afSal_Ea.........~
Visibility
Visibility oftbe sit.. is sood Iiom Marina Drive in either directlon. Th....
are no major nlll1nl impediments (!reo" bill.. etc.) thB1 block visibility, IIId
sumnmdins buildinS beigbll are generally limited 10 two stories. Thore is no
vlsibillly of the site from the Pacific Coast Hisbway or 5" Street. Giveo the
limited lIaffic 0llIIIIls CD Marina Dr. (Figure 6) IlIld the laclc of .isibility 1mm tho
PeR, tho number of drive-by CUIlOmen that ..-site common:ial O<:tivity could
hope III caplllle is very low. .
Adjolulllg Laud U..
Marina Drive to the east oflbe property up to the PCA is used ""clusively
for commercial IIId resideotial accessory PWJlO.... including II minl-mall, .
ch....b and weddins chapel, a hotel, IIId . 2-otory relalllcommereial canter
containing more thIII fbrty rctai1 and office estabUshmeo15 ",Ith numerous
vllCllllcies. Marina Dri.. 10 tIl. weot of the subject properly is predominllllly
resideotial, and contains a few intctspened commerciolllld residential accessory
servi.... As can be .... in Figure 7 below, land uses 10 lbe immediately north
and south of the property are exclusively residential for several blocks.
.
EXHIBIT II
PAGE ~
COASTAL COMMISSIO
F.canalllla Raarcb AaDdlta
ERA P..ject No. \7041
S<<d..." C__
.....,
.
.
.
.
5-06-328-[Schwendenerj
Staff Rllport-Regular Calendar
Page 33 of 40
D
.-..._ OM_._
COMMERCIAL SUPPLY
11.11'0....10 Use Silo for Comm.....1! Purposes
Th. subjeot properly ..... purcllued by The Sehwendener ComPII!Y
approxima:ely 13 months aso, on November 18,2005. Accordinll ro the A1111
~ Compsny, !he company contacted the Cily of Seal Beach III inquire
about tile ftasibility of reztlI1iDg and subdividing the property lbr residential
ownmIlip. All=' these conv_ions, the cOIIlJlID)' acquired tile property ill order
10 ....ute the rrzoning IIId subdivisiOl1. The Scbwendener Company has mode
no efti>rts 10 investigate altemariv. COIMIcn:ial .... of the properly. According
10 Le. Wbillellhcrg. Director of Dev.lopment Services for the City, the property
has b.... used as a resldenriol aparIDlent building since 1979 (See Appendix A).
hisdul aud Plauled Comme.oIaI Developm..t w1t\l1D Focus Area
Maio S_ Is tho primal)' commercial area servina the lOlIil IIId
resl8llrlllt needs of Seal Beach visitors. The three blocks of MIln Street, from
0.011I Avenue 10 the Pacific Cour Hisbway, offer a vida variety of
esLablisbments serving visitors and residents. Th.se shops primarily IaIJcl beach
visitors IIId .Iso cateI" 10 tho need. of local ....id..ts. In addition to the mail
dcvelopmeot alana MaIn Street, retail sbopping centers have been developed in
l/1e Seal Bead1 Coastal Area on both nortbem IIId southern sides of th. Paoilic
Coast llisbwsy along its colire traverse through the City or Seal Beach, excluding
the US Naval Slation property. ThOle facilities primarily target aUlllmobil. tra1Ii.
along 1/1. PCH, but also Includ. some 10..I-serving uses including srocerY stores
and pharmacies. Sampl.. of these retail centers are highlighted below.
BOJ' C/gI ConIor. Less thIII LwO blocks from 1/1. subject propcny, Bay
City Cenler cootalns 51.200 square feel. of gross I....bl. area in several two-
story buildinss. Th. center is located on 1/1. soul/1 sid. of th. Pacific Coast
Iligbway between 5" Strccl IIId Marina Avenue; with entl'll1lcos OD all thre4
street.. Fiv. full-service restaUrmllS are located within the cenler as .....U as three
other food oullets. Other tc:nlU1tS include various rctIil tmd service outJetr. The
cantor is not fully occupied.
S../ B..ch Shoppin, C.nler. This 82,OOO-square-fbot ce~ located II
COASTAL COMMISSION tho north~ corner of Main Street IIId the PCf! is an~ored by: a 48,ooo..square-
fbct Pavilions Supormarlte, and a Sav-On DruSSIOre. 111. sile IS cUII'Cntly under
corull'Uction as the entire lilcility is being renovated IIId OlCpanded. An additional
, 2,700 lIquare feot ofrotail spac. will be odded at the south.m end of the property.
.... Prior to construction, the c.nt.r was approximately 90 pereeotleased. Current
OF.....L.I- plllls call lbr a six-month closure of th. Pavilions to accommodote new
tonstrue\ion.
EXHIBIT'
PAGE to
€cuomlc:r ReulrdI AaocIates
UA ProJee. No.l7G4\
SooIBlllldtCDolllllD_ '
....10
5-<l6-32B-/Schwendenerl
Staff Report-Regular Calendar
Page 34 of 40
.
""'l"l!l
~
..--.-..---
Z<<ter Pltu:e. Located at 12" SUe.. and the PCII, thc 22,8oo-square-foot
Zoetcr Place opened in 1990. Tcnlllts include a reSlBurant IIId various servi..
IIId re1Ail establishments.
Old Rmtdt Town Can/or. This 2S-acrc, 287,OOQ-squore-foot shopping
center opened in 2001, and is located on Seal Beach Boulevard to the north of
Interstllle 40S. The center is aocborcd by Target, Ralph's Supennarket. Sod. B.th
&: Beyond, IIId Sav-On. Fully leased, tile center's other IenllllS Include various
restaurants, retail, and service establishments..
77Ie Shops .t Rossmtne. The asing strip m.ll, Rossmore Center, is being
upgraded to "'The Sbops at Rossmore, - a new reIall lifestyle center oxpactcd 10
house appIOximately 20 businesses. Construction began in November 2006 IIId
the developtllent is ....peeled III open in stages beginning in April 2007. Gross
leasable 'area lbr the site is being lncreasad from 376,000 square feet to 462,866
square feeL Anchor tenants include Kohl's DepattmOlll Store IIId Mcl's Diner.
PadJle Gat_ BIlSineu Qntel'. Pacific Gateway Business CenleI, .
SO.3-acre site adj....t to the Boeing Seal B...cb locatioo near the in~ec:tion of
Westminster Avenue aod Seal Seach Boulevard, is currently under developmeot
by Overton Moore Propertie.. 'l11e development plan caUs for 826,2S0 square
feel of new commercial and industrial space on land formerly o""ed by BooinS.
Ph... I of the project opened in 2006. IIId Phasc II is expected 10 be completed by
late spring nr early summer 00007.
DWP SIle. A large tract ofvacantlllld lies immediately to lI1e west ofth.
San Gabriel Riyer, bord....d by M.rina Drive on lbe north, I d Street on the west,'
and the bo.ch on the south. Approximately 9 acres is o..ned by the Department
of Water .nd Power, ..ith the rem.inder o""ed by unrel.ted priv.te partics. In
the late 1990.. a specific pllll was devoloped for the DWP-o\Vned property.
pennilting hotel and hou:l-accessory service uses. The site remains undeveloped.
Representatives of the City bavc sugscsted thot, despite signifiCDJII interest in the
site for both hotol and residential ..... the p,operly remoins undevcloped due 10
IlII'ge srecnbelt requirements in thc specific plo.. which limit the amount of
developable sp....
.
COASTAL COMMISSION
EXHIBIT'~
PAGE \\ OF I "'
....c:onomiCl Researcb AsIocIlIta
ERA 1'roJ... No. 17041
_ B_ C'otIsloID/striot
Papll
-
.
.
.
Figura 10 provides a oomparison ofretan sales per Il'P" oroutl.. for Seal
Besch versus Orange County tor the )'Car :1005, which reprcsents the most current
data availablo. Due 10 reporling concerns rosardins confidentiality, it is not
po.slble 10 obtain a mo.e detailed breakdown of sal.. fat 1I1e City of S.ellleaeb
(e.g., WotIlon'. ApplII'Ol, Men's apparel, ..c.). The ..Other Retllil SIO.es" category
COASTAL COMMISSION includes specialty storo.. ",hich is ono of the major vi.itor-servins carcsorie..
Specialty stores inelude vendors ~f sifu. arts IIId novclties; spotting soods;
., florists; phOlOgraphic equipment and suppUe.; musical inslnunents; SIlIdODlll' IIId
books; office, S1ore, and school supplies; IIId other specially items.
OF ...!.2-
EXHIBIT I'
PAGE \"L.
5-06-328-{Schwendenerl
Staff Report-Regular Calendar
Page 35 of 40
..
i;j~
\_~..._..-'-
COMMERCrAL DEMAND
AolpIs ofRetaU Sales
BRA llXalIlined dots liom lb. CaliJbmia Stat. BOIl'd of Equalization on
tuable retail sales in order to e.aluate the sales performance of Seal Beacb
eslIblisbmeuts. Figuze 8 shows sales and business pennit dots lbr tho City of Seal
Beach IIId the entirety of Orango Counly. While lbe number of retail pennits in
Soal Beadl is senenllly baIween 45 and 55 percent of total JlC'lIllts, retails sal..
ICCOUDt ror a substantially higher PlOportiOD of total sales, rangins bO/WllCn 75
and 85 percent of taxable commercial sales. This indicB1es thB1lhe majority of
sales in the city are gainl 10 retail establishments. Stated another way, retai1
establisbments eapture a significaot majority of dollars spam in the city.
F1pn 8
TAXABLZ SALES
.cau
..., .......
...... 10,..
57 I 1'1DJI
571 1B.....
_ 217,111
80S 218,112
103 301!1.2!111
5Bl 301I7OD
....
...... .....
12,711 U4A2,4IO
N,m .....)IU
118,'83 44,BQ.,M
1DO,MII 47.517._
lat.IDI 11.5I2.DII
CI2.I5II 55. 3
R
- - -
251 . 128,447
ZlID1 MIl 1118,'38
:zcD2 271 llZ.d2
2DD3 217 217.ua
2IJ)4 117 Z33.1Z1
5 :t:ID 243. 13
Note: s.Jes.... in.DOJllbW daJlm..
Sourcec CoIIlramf.. DqrartmclU of rUlllnCC, F.cunomlo sdln=a Corpnnaian. IIIId lcanamiCl 1IlRCdt.
AoIad...
P.....
,.. .
..,...
......
...SSl
43,310
.......
.....
........
U,51',7IJf
211.M1.Btl
.....7....
35""1,153
37 m.D4
Figure 9 provides a graphical snapsbot of the retail data fur the City of
Soallleach. As CIII be seen in rhe SJ'lIph, sn>,,'th in both retail pennlll snd ralall
sales has boon steady lOr the period 2000 to 2005. ThC Slight flaIlOIling in the
retail pennlts IllO"th in W: ynr 2001 may be amibutablc to the economic shock
caused bytbo o.entsofSeplen1ber 11,2001. Retail sales totals did not seem to be
patti<:olarly .ffi:c:led by this e\ enL
In the retail call1sories for which data is avllllablo, Seal Beach regularly
ourpe.(orms Orange Counly ill terms of sales per outlot in the visitor serving
ErODOtnIcl Resurdl AIIOC'!I1u
EllA P..;eal N..17041
SuI Bmell QJasfal DIsrrid
.... 12
5-06-328-[Schwendenerl
Staff Report-Regular Calendar
Page 36 of 40
,~!7..~
.""....
.-
h_._......_....
ca/egories of food, eating .nd drinkin, pJaces, home tianishings IIId applia.....
and otiler retailslllres.
fIlmill
,..
F1pn'
SEAL BEACH RETAIL GROW\'R: PERMITS, RuLA....D NOMINAL SALES .
-
S35O,CKI0
Joa
317 33D
,_.~~.~
~
~ . -sz!oJ.5L2.243
1229,
2SI
>SO
2IlCI
SS'~DCO
.
S2SO.DOO
S21Xl.DCO
s'
,..
...: _ RaIl W. t2D05 bIH)
- NamiMl5U!l S1SO,PDO
--
,oa
~
~
il
i
Saurce: C'lHramia. Oc=ri::aunc:nt of Fbnce. L.:S BlRBU orLabar Slltiafc:s (OT..U Will.... P410n An llems),
EnnollllC: Scienoes Corpontkm...d ECUDOmic Rdeardl: .\aaclala
~
COASTAL COMMISSION
,
OFJL
EXHIBIT #
PAGE \S
5100,DDO
I
EllUDlDk:I RcseIrcb AssocI.teI
'ERA. PI'DJert ~Q. 17041
SHl Sac1l COIUIJIlDlstrlt:t
'...13
.
.
.
.
.
.
5-D6-328-[Schwendenerl
Staff Report-Regular Calendar
Page 37 of 40
,:;I:..~
..-..-......-....
VISITATION
The city of S..l Beach COIlwns 1.3 linear miles of beach fi'on1age
OlttOoding eastward from th. SIIII Gabriel River 10 Seal Beach Boulevard,
intemIpled by the enll'lllca to AIlaheim Bay, and continuing 00 to lbe westem
bmmdary of Andenan StroBL On the northwest, tile Sac Gabriel River serves as
the SOOIJOpbic bcWIdaly that separates the chie, of Seal Beach and Lens Beach,
and the COIIIIties of Orange and Los AIlgeles. On the Southeast, Anderson Streot
separsles Surfsidc Colony, a private Bated community in Seal Beach, from Sunset
Beach in tile City DfHuntingtDn Beach.
.Beach Faoilltl..
Seal Beacb is the primary visitor allractioo in lbe areL Seal Beach
Municipal Pier is a city-lnlintained Ilu:llity located B1 the base oflhc Main Street
shoppina area. It cumntly off.... sport- and pi..... rlSbioS Ilu:llitles and a
reSllUrllltlocated at thc end Dfthe pier, over lbe wB1er. Adj....t to the plar is th.
1.4-oae Eisenhower Park and a major ,.tail destination, the Maio Slreol sbopping
dis1ricL Public psrIcing facilities are localed at First StrOOt, Eightb Sl7eet and
TCIlth Street.
FJp..lO
RETAIL SALES BY T~1'E OF BvSIJIESS - 2005
........ C)nngtCt&l~ ......... -
01 ... .... , ISIlB' - "'" D, " 'D
....
~Il" mnlI " . .... 2,OI).IU S11S14
GIMnI rn~dlllIllee GIlfa " . 1.... '.417.111I 1.04151
-- " ''''.110 UII 1.7~6J:t1 1.215DD 1,071.11 "...
Eringlanrlml;I!ICII .. .un '7,?1' .s,lilun ...... 61t1l U...
ll_Nrllll/liftgl.M.plIIoIlICIl!Io 'S ",SI ,n. 1.,,".ISO 113.2& ..... "'"
!lIIItl:rIq MI:"I I~II"II """'. , un ~,'003 " ~'5."1 ..... _,':5$70 :1.1"
~lDdIo<nl......ID"'1If\IIH , . Z,oI.14 1.72'.101 '201.
SlI\IoS-"U::I1II .. ~.Hil '" !I.!S!i"]" I,UUI ueua ....
')d=r11'A~~ :0' 'llll.l'=9 ",27! UII!I.7D4 10111 ".... "...
iIIIIlSlO:is l'W1I ,., . >4.... ...... . 11,61J.1H I '".J.f ! W.,. ,...
.. . '01 6\ 7~7 17'" 17,J9CI.11 '''M "17 ""
TgI-'.....Outl . 51 III , 7.11 "
,-
lTa;al5.lln1ftl1l1SDlIOU
f ~__IIl_lBtlhl..""llxr..Dn rnl:JClrtUl:;n U'W1I1II:k$nvlQlllrdtntllllrIOlll'lnlal\.
COASTAL COMMISSION ,""...-. -.......... "......--
Sauru: Ca1if"clmf. 0cplIr\mea1 ot rtaance and J::~nmiClllcsearch Aleadmel
EXHIBIT. .,
PAGE \ "" OF..L:!.-
Ecoa.DDlIa RaurcllAaaclatls
ERA ,..Jeal No. 171M1
SalB_CflOlta/DIItrI<f
'"&014
S-QB-328-[SGhwendener]
Staff Report-Regular Calendar
Page 38 of 40
.
.......,.
~
..-.-...........-.
Beach Trame
Visitor tratlic to the pier IIId beach... in Seal Beacb varies based on
several conditions. primarily sealIOII, weather and tile economy. Although precise
attandlllee figures an: not yet available for 2006, lbo Seal Beach Lifeguard
Department estimates that pier and bcacb 8lIendlllce exceeded two million
visitors. More spoctlic lIlII1ual attendanee figures for lbe prior five year period ....
provided in Figure 11.
....."11
ANmlAL Buell" ATl'ENDANeE - CITY OF SEAL BEACH
Voor Attendance
2001 2.136.830
2002 1.996,042
2003 1.899,333
2004 1.973.600
2005 2157643
!bIrcI: Uaud Slate UfcsayfDa A.I~l-l",
The Lifeguard Deportment OSl\malCS that the majority of beach visits
occur during the summer, fiom mid-J..e lbrough mid-September. Visiwion
slows down rrom Oclllbor to February, and lben ftom March builds gradually to
the summer peak.
.
Beach u.... include both local IIId out-of-town visitors. Types of use
includo surfing, body boording, windsurfing, kite surfing, swimming, beach
combing, and pcral beach goieS. S..I Beach residenlllypica1ly use lbe beach .
llllbe south of the pier. Localt"'SleUd to conpsalO 10 the immediate south of
the pier, with local families locating lUrtber south. Non-local visitors tend to
congregare n.... tile public parking filc:ilities. During the summor monlbs, surfers
are reslricled to rhe northern end ofthc beach. betv.e.. the Sill Gabriel River and
Fourth Strocl. from 10:00'a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Visitor AC'c::ommodatiuns
Thora is on.. lod~ing mcllil)' located within the boundarios of lbe City or
Seal Beach: the 70-room Pacific Inn. loca,ed at the comer orMorina Drive and
'I'lL cOMMISSIOulhe Pacific Coast Highway. IWO blocks rrom Ibe su~iect property. Wi,hin a I. to
COAS In ''J.milc radius,lbere are four additional hOlcVmolel !llcilitics:
EXHIBIT'~
PAGI= \ S. OF...!:L
. Seaport Marina 110'01, Long Be""h
. Bost Western Golden Sails, Long Beach
. SRS HolOls, Long Beacb
. Ocean View Motel, HlinlinglOll Beach
. Pacific View Inn and Suiles, Huntington Beach
.kab_1eI Ranrch AsIodatcl
ERA praJert So. 17041
Sal Bsr1r CfNISttIl Dlstrkt
II.pI5
.
.
.
.
5-D6-328-[Schwendenerl
Staff Report-Regular Calendar
Page 39 of 40
.-
1m
-..-....--.
In terms of the IIIl'&"I coastal supply of lodging r..lIities in Seal Beach,
Lens Beach, SlDIset Beach, and Huntington Beacl1, a recent study by PKF
COIISUlting indicates III iDven1llIY of 7,100 room. available in 78 lilcilities. Of
these fiu:ilities, 13 IJ'/I considered waterfront or ocean-proximatc, Illd provide
1,79lroODlS. Madcet occ:upaney fbr this .1Ibel of facilities has ranged fi'om 60-
70 poreanl b_= 2000 IIId 2005. In 2005, the assresahl OceuplllCY rate was
69.7 percent, a 3.7 porcel2t increase &om 2004. Compared to other coastal areas,
sucb as Santa Monica and Sill Di..... which generally bave occupancy rates in
the mid-70s to Jow.SOs, the market in and around Seal Baacb is weak and bas
roOlD to accommodota siSnificaot growth.
1ndiClllivc of this lreIld, the Seal Beach Inn and Gorden.. a 23-room
filc.jlity!bat was lotllted In Seal Beach, closed in Ibe summer of2006.
Tbare are, however, a number ofbolel rooms ill the pipelines. The City of
Seal Beach has proposed B1 1l0-room Hampton rlUl boteI on . sile formerly
owned by BoeiDs. COllSllUction is slB1ed 10 begin in March 2007. A ten-room
bad and brealcfast facility has also be.. opproved at 308 .,.. S_, in Seal Beach.
and is projected to open in 1atll 2008. I'Urthonnore, Ib.... are a number of otiler
Jarse hotel facilities projcc1Od 10 open in the next live years, tolIIing 670
additioual rooms, IncludioS the Seal Beacb properties enumerated above.
COASTAL COMMISSION
,
OFJ.1-
EXHIBIT'
PAGE la.
EICCIBOIIIfcJ Resnrdl A5sac'r..
'IRAPreJect.Na.I7041
S<IIl_~IIlDlstr1..
ropu
5.06-328-lSchwendenerl
Staff Report-Regular Calendar
Page 40 of 40
.
liD
..-.....-....-...
APPENDIX A
llisToRlCAL USE OFSL'BJECTPROPERTY
---......
. ca-KlI...,..;;t
....
:By:r.flI'llrftoft'l'1I! (iG)~
AlID 1IJ1ISr CI,AIS x..a.
FILE Copy
~11121llf
....-....
----
::lCI~s.u.J_
........."" -......
..".,16....
1<1"""'" alP AlPUCA.'l1ON':oIO..........
4DO 1\IJ,1IN"'llJUVJ:. I'I\Al. BI!ACB:
a..uoJIlIICA:nmr lIl" ctIRU:ll'l''Iml O. PIlOl'llIl.'l'Y
...._nn."....lIr.pIlpIZIJ'an..,CllIdL,..__,.,.s.~ Dl;I::mca:~"
G:t7f1t............"""" 1",.61I11GIIt,.,.,....~.....lItq'llll!zal,l.t&
ID--d................_t!D-.II:42:u;.....utllMId.t;,INCCIIIIII!mc. 11m
Q,r..._~.... cadms 'Pb:r:.... w:.......'".... .......
Jl.,......~....oI'l"llIIl'dIu....1 rt__=r..-.:I ~-c_
~ r 1:1II '- rwu1ud, a ~ 4Il~'~ Co ,., CI' '" N:IId .
.....~ I .11 ~ .111.
.
.._, ~.;;iIC6IC-
~~.~./
C'I: ...~ 'l\X= (JQ>1!W2St
COASTAL COM SSION
~A.. = "~"""'a~.....WI.~.~
~HIB1T#
PAGE \'
,
OF
Schwv<$aer CDI1IpID)'
E&:oaomlcs ltaeairch AssocI.teI
ERA P..Jeal No. 1"/G.l1
SnlB_ 0Hu/III_"
..... 17
.