TITLE
Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and consider third-party appeals from Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) (APL23-011); Elizabeth Lambe, on behalf of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust (APL23-012); and Ann Cantrell and Anna Christensen, on behalf of Sierra Club Los Cerritos Wetlands Task Force (APL23-014);
Adopt resolution determining that the project is consistent with and within the scope of the project previously analyzed as part of the Southeast Area Specific Plan Program Environmental Impact report (State Clearinghouse No. 2015101075) (PECC 03-23) and subject to the Southeast Area Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and making certain findings and determinations related thereto and warrants no further environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15168, 15162, and 15183;
Deny the appeals and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the Site Plan Review (SPR22-082), and adopt the proposed findings and conditions of approval related thereto, for a project within the city jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone consisting of the demolition of two existing office buildings (6615 and 6695 East Pacific Coast Highway) on the site, and the construction of a new six-story mixed-use project consisting of 390 residential dwelling units (seventeen (17) of which are affordable [very low income]), 5,351 square feet of commercial/retail space in a building with 576 vehicular parking spaces in an above-grade parking structure, 196 bicycle parking spaces, and 45,141 square feet of public and private open space area within the Mixed-Use Community Core (MU-CC) designation of the Southeast Area Specific Plan (SP-2) located at 6615, 6621, and 6695 East Pacific Coast Highway;
Deny the appeals and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the Lot Line Adjustment (LLA22-002), and adopt the proposed findings and conditions of approval related thereto, to reposition the eastern property line between two parcels (APNs: 7237-020-050 and 7237-020-041);
Deny the appeals and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a request to merge (LMG22-012) two (2) lots (APNs: 7237-020-050 and 7237-020-040) into a single 163,249-square-foot (3.75-acre) lot, and adopt the proposed findings and conditions of approval related thereto; and
Deny the appeals and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a Local Coastal Development Permit (LCDP22-049) for all discretionary and subdivision actions required for the proposed project and adopt the proposed findings and conditions of approval related thereto. (District 3)
Levine Act: Yes
DISCUSSION
On July 20, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and acted to approve the requested entitlement for a proposed 390-unit development including 17 affordable housing units (very low-income level) located at 6615, 6621, and 6695 E. Pacific Coast Highway in the Southeast Area Specific Plan (SEASP) (SP-2) Mixed Use Community Commercial (MU-CC) Zoning District (Attachment A). Public comments were provided at the hearing. The Planning Commission found the project to be consistent with and within the scope of the previously certified SEASP Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) and approved the Compliance Checklist (PECC 03-23) and also approved the Site Plan Review (SPR), Lot Line Adjustment (LLA), Lot Merger (LM), and Local Coastal Development Permit (LCDP) applications. The Planning Commission approved the project with conditions of approval. Before the conclusion of the 10-day appeal period, three third-party appeals were filed by (1) Lozeau Drury LLP representing Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), (2) Elizabeth Lambe, Executive Director, representing the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust (LCWLT), and (3) Ann Cantrell and Anna Christensen representing the Sierra Club Los Cerritos Wetlands Task Force.
Project Site
The project site is an L-shaped site comprised of three parcels located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Studebaker Road in the southeast portion of the City of Long Beach (City) (Attachment B). Pacific Coast Highway borders the southwestern boundary of the project site and Studebaker Road borders the southeast boundary of the project site. The 110-foot-wide section of Studebaker Road abutting the southern boundary of the project site is dedicated as public right-of-way, but portions of the ultimate public street are unbuilt to its full capacity. The project site and surrounding properties and roadways are within the SEASP Area, a specific plan that was developed through a multi-year community engagement process. The SEASP, approved by the City Council in 2017 and the California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission) in 2021, is located in the southeast area of the City and encompasses 1,472 acres of land.
The project site is located within the MU-CC area of SEASP. As noted within the SEASP Ordinance, the MU-CC is “envisioned as the primary activity center in the SEASP area and provides for a mix of uses including residential, regional retail, overnight visitor-serving accommodations, and office uses.”
The project site, addressed as 6615, 6621, and 6695 E. Pacific Coast Highway, comprises three parcels developed with three, two-story buildings and surface parking (Attachment C). The “development site” consists of two parcels occupied by two office buildings addressed as 6615 and 6695 E. Pacific Coast Highway. There would be no redevelopment proposed at the rear office building at 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway, therefore this parcel is not referred to as part of the development site for new construction.
On the development site, the two office buildings located at 6615 and 6695 E. Pacific Coast Highway were constructed in 1979 and 1983 and are approximately 45,955 and 15,538 square feet, respectively. The existing 45,955-square-foot two-story office building and surface parking lot at 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway was constructed in 1980 and would remain upon completion of the project. Vehicular access to the site is maintained from Studebaker Road and through access agreements from the two parcels (Marketplace Shopping Center and City-owned parcel) that abut the site to the north. The project site is subject to a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that addresses parking and access requirements of the parcels owned by the Marketplace Shopping Center, Marketplace Office Park (project Applicant), and the City.
All parcels included in the project are located within the SEASP MU-CC Zoning District and General Plan Land Use District (LUD) No. 7, Mixed Use District, in the City's 1989 General Plan. The General Plan Land Use Element was updated in 2019 and has not yet been certified as part of the City’s Local Coastal Program. Therefore, the 1989 General Plan Land Use Element (1989) designation LUD No. 7 remains applicable to the project site. As set forth in the General Plan, land uses intended for LUD No. 7 include employment centers, such as retail uses, offices, and medical facilities; higher density residential; visitor-serving facilities; personal and professional services; and recreational facilities. The project site includes three parcels. The application includes a lot line adjustment between the easternmost lots [Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs): 7237-020-050 and 7237-020-041] and a lot merger of two westernmost lots (APNs: 7237-020-050 and 7237-020-040) to result in a single 163,249-square-foot (3.75-acre) lot.
The Marketplace Shopping Center and a City-owned parcel border the northern boundaries of the development site. The Los Cerritos Wetlands are located east of the office building at 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway. The Pumpkin Patch site, portions of the Los Cerritos Wetlands, and the San Gabriel River are located southeast across Studebaker Road public right-of-way. The range of uses in the project vicinity are detailed in Table 1: Adjacent Uses and Entitlements. The surrounding parcels in the vicinity of the project site have completed entitlement approvals or are in the entitlement process concurrent with this application. Therefore, Table 1 also includes a brief note of the approved or pending entitlements that are reasonably foreseeable to the project vicinity. Where undeveloped parcels have no assigned address, APNs have been provided to identify the adjacent parcels.
|
Table 1: Adjacent Uses and Entitlements |
|
Direction |
Address or Assessor’s Parcel Number |
Zoning District |
Existing Land Use |
Entitlements Approved or In Process |
|
Northwest |
6411 E Pacific Coast Hwy (APN: 7237-020-051) |
SP-2-MU-CC |
Commercial/ Retail Center |
Approved/Pending - Design review for façade remodel of specific buildings |
|
Northeast |
APN: 7237-020-904 |
SP-2-MU-CC/ SP-2-CHWR |
Surface Parking/ Oil Extraction |
Approved - Los Cerritos Wetlands Oil Consolidation and Restoration Project |
|
East |
APN: 7237-020-903 |
SP-2-CHWR |
Los Cerritos Wetlands |
Approved - Los Cerritos Wetlands Oil Consolidation and Restoration Project |
|
Southeast |
6701 E Pacific Coast Hwy (APN: 7237-020-043) |
SP-2-IND |
Pumpkin Patch |
Approved - Los Cerritos Wetlands Oil Consolidation and Restoration Project |
|
Southeast |
APNs: 7237-020-044 and 7237-020-045 |
SP-2-CHWR |
Los Cerritos Wetlands |
Approved - Los Cerritos Wetlands Oil Consolidation and Restoration Project |
|
Southwest |
6500 E Pacific Coast Hwy |
SP-2-MU-CC |
Commercial/ Retail Center |
Pending - Mixed-Use Project |
|
South |
6700 E Pacific Coast Hwy |
SP-2-MU-CC |
Office Building |
Pending (Locally approved by City Council on July 18, 2023, subject to appeal) - Mixed-Use Project |
|
SP-2-MU-CC = Southeast Area Specific Plan Mixed-Use Community Core SP-2-CHWR = Southeast Area Specific Plan Coastal Habitat, Wetlands, and Recreation SP-2-IND = Southeast Area Specific Plan Industrial |
Proposed Project
The proposed project required approval of a SPR entitlement by the Planning Commission for project design of a building 50,000 square feet or greater in size or with over 50 units proposed. The site plan review process is intended to review projects for their consistency with community goals which are, among others, to ensure that the highest quality of land planning and design are incorporated into development projects, to ensure that new projects are compatible with existing neighborhoods in terms of scale, style, and construction materials, and to ensure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, and protection of the environment. The proposed mixed use (residential and commercial/retail) is a by-right use within the SEASP, MU-CC Zoning District.
The proposed project would create one of the first mixed use residential projects within the SEASP area. The project will replace two existing two-story office buildings (6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway and 6695 E. Pacific Coast Highway) with a new six-story mixed use building and associated parking structure (Attachment D). The project consists of 390 residential dwelling units 17 of which are affordable at the very low-income level), 5,351 square feet of commercial/retail space in a building with 576 vehicular parking spaces in an above-grade parking structure, 196 bicycle parking spaces, and 45,141 square feet of public and private open space area.
Density Bonus, Affordable Units, Concessions/Waivers
The portion of the project relating to density bonus and incentives, or concessions are ministerial acts. The Applicant has requested that the City approve the project in accordance with the State’s Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915 through 65918). In addition to density bonuses, applicants who provide the required amount of affordable housing units qualify for various exceptions from zoning standards (known as "incentives and concessions" or "waivers") and for reduced parking standards. The Applicant is proposing 17 very-low-income affordable units in the project, which qualifies the project for a 20 percent increase in the base density established for the site. The 17 affordable units will be provided at the very-low-income level, restricted as affordable through a covenant for a minimum of 55 years. The density bonus is calculated using the base density of 325 units pursuant to Assembly Bill 2334 (AB 2334). Pursuant to AB 2334, should an applicant provide five percent of the base units for very low income (families/individuals), the project receives a 20 percent increase in their base density of 325 units, which is 51 units (325*20 percent = 65). Based upon the calculations, the Applicant could build up to a maximum of 390 dwelling units (325+65 = 390), which is consistent with the proposed project.
By providing affordable units at the very low-income level, the Applicant is entitled to concessions, incentives and/or waivers. The Applicant is requesting one incentive and four waivers (Attachment E). The incentive requested by the Applicant relates to building massing and would allow the proposed project to include one building in lieu of multiple buildings encouraged by the SEASP. The requested four waivers relating to the requested massing incentive include: 1) building height (maximum height of 91-feet 8½-inches to allow for the sixth floor and rooftop amenities); 2) building stories (exceed the building height requirements along Pacific Coast Highway [limited to five stories] and Shopkeeper Road [limited to three (3) stories for the first 30 feet]); 3) Building Story Requirements along Shopkeeper Road Fronting Wetlands (allow six stories within the 30 feet adjacent to Shopkeeper Road fronting the wetlands [whereas the SEASP limits height to three stories at the first 30 feet]); and 4) variety of heights (allow the project to include buildings at maximum height). The City’s SPR Committee has granted the requested deviations from the maximum allowable height (80 feet) and number/configuration of stories in order to provide the additional number of units including the 17 affordable units.
With additional floor area required by the additional number of units (density bonus and affordable units), an additional story and associated rooftop height is necessary to accommodate the units. SEASP allows for a maximum building height of five-stories and the Applicant is requesting one additional story for a total of six stories (91-feet 8½-inches) which will accommodate the entire floor area and associated rooftop areas required for access to the provided open space.
The basis for denial of a concession, incentive and/or waivers is established by the State Density Bonus Law, and City staff did not find that there is a basis for contesting any of the waivers or incentive requested by the Applicant. The concession and waivers may be denied based on: 1) making a finding that it does not result in “identifiable, and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing”; or 2) that any of the three findings can be made: a) it is not required for affordability; b) there is an adverse impact on health, safety, physical environment, or historic resources with no feasible mitigation; or c) that is contrary to State or Federal law. In order to provide the earned bonus units under state law, additional building height and stories, allowance of greater massing and a single building is required for the additional residential units. City staff has determined that none of the requisite findings to deny the requested incentive and waivers exist here. The associated waivers are also requested in response to site constraints related to the L-shaped configuration and soil conditions that preclude the ability to provide subterranean levels. Additional building height would continue to comply with the required exterior bird-safe treatments, lighting standards, and landscaping requirements. Furthermore, due to the L-shape configuration, the closest building areas are over 170 feet from the nearest potential wetland areas and the existing building at 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway would remain as an intervening land use. Without the approval of the requested waiver and incentives, the project, the project’s proposal of affordable units and earned density bonus would be physically precluded.
The State Density Bonus Law also does not override the Local Coastal Program (LCP) or Coastal Act and must be implemented in a way that does not conflict with the Coastal Act. The portion of the project related to density bonus and incentives, or concessions are ministerial acts. Consistency with the LCP will be discussed in greater detail below. Per State Law, since this project is providing five percent, or 17 affordable units, the project is eligible for reduced parking under Senate Bill 1818 (SB 1818). Pursuant to SB 1818 (residential uses) and SEASP (guest and commercial uses), the project provides 456 parking spaces for the residential uses, 98 parking spaces for residential guest uses, and 22 spaces required for the commercial component of the project for a total of 576 spaces overall. The project Applicant is proposing 576 spaces which meets the requirements under the State Density Bonus Law. All parking shows in a combination of standard, compact, electric vehicle, and Americans with Disabilities Act accessible spaces and will all to be contained within an above-grade parking structure. A parking utilization study was prepared to demonstrate that the reduced parking rate provided in SB 1818 would address the anticipated demand for off-street parking based on traffic engineering principles (Attachment F). The parking utilization study determined that the project would have a demand for 518 parking spaces, and therefore the provision of 576 parking spaces would meet the needed demand from the proposed project.
Architecture and Building Function
The project was reviewed by the SPR Committee, which found that the proposed mixed-use building along with the incentives/waivers from building height, stories, and massing for the accommodation of affordable units is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and is appropriate based on the building form, intended use and the relationship to the surrounding uses (Attachment G). The Applicant has provided a varying setback along Pacific Coast Highway, which exceeds the maximum 10-feet required by the SEASP MU-CC designation. The intent of this additional setback is to provide for additional public open space that includes seating and walkways adjacent to the public right-of-way. In addition, this greater setback allows for more gateway treatments at the ground level that encourage public access at the commercial/retail elements at the corner of Studebaker Road and Pacific Coast Highway. The SPR Committee did not objection to this request and determined instead that it helps ensure provided public open space is directly accessible and perceptible along public right-of-way areas.
The building consists primarily of smooth stucco in white, grey, and black tones, metal cladding, wood-like fiber cement siding, black metal awnings, black metal railing, glass railings, recessed vinyl windows, and a glass storefront system. The rear facing elevation of the parking structure would feature perforated metal screens arranged at the parking garage elevation. As conditioned, the parking garage openings shall be filled with decorative perforated metal panels, or equivalent decorative treatment to provide additional visual interest at this elevation. The massing of the building at the gateway area (corner of Studebaker Road and Pacific Coast Highway) is two-stories in height and pulled back beyond the required setbacks and step backs to provide greater at-grade public areas at the ground level commercial component. The Project developer is seeking Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Silver certification in compliance with SEASP requirements.
The proposed new high-quality rental housing opportunity which has been proposed through the implementation of objective design standards, and architectural and green building standards, is in alignment with the Urban Design Element of the General Plan.
Due to the L-shaped site configuration, the creation of a grid network and collection of buildings, as envisioned by SEASP, was not feasible. Therefore, the residential units are arranged to surround ground-level courtyard areas, some of which are publicly accessible, to appear as a collection of five buildings. The design’s intent is directly in response to the site conditions. The project utilizes at-grade open space courtyards, rather than podium-level open space, to ensure the visibility and access of public areas and to meet the intent of the design standards required in SEASP. In addition to the courtyards, a 9,724-sf view corridor is proposed along the north portion of the site, with emergency and loading only access along Pacific Coast Highway to meet the requirement for unobstructed views to the wetlands.
The size and distribution of the residential units are provided in Table 2. The units designated as affordable are located throughout the project and reflect the range of units available. The affordable units are comprised of four studio units; eight one-bedroom units; four two-bedroom units; and one three-bedroom unit. This unit mix provides a variety of housing types and sizes which is compliant with General Plan Housing Element Policy 1.3 which seeks to accommodate a range of unit sizes and the housing needs of all socioeconomic segments of the community, including large families.
Table 2: Unit Breakdown
|
Unit Type |
Unit Size Range (square feet [sf]) |
Percentage of Development Units |
Total |
|
Urban 1 (Studio) |
635 sf |
17% |
66 |
|
1 Bedroom |
677 sf - 842 sf |
49% |
192 |
|
2 Bedroom |
953 sf - 1,191 sf |
32% |
123 |
|
3 Bedroom |
1,286 sf |
2% |
9 |
|
TOTAL |
- |
100% |
390 |
Open Space
SEASP (Table 6-9) requires a minimum of 20 percent of the project area to be open space. In this instance, the project area is defined as the site area, which is 163,224 square feet. Twenty percent of the overall site area is 32,645 square feet. Of this total, 75 percent shall be public open space (minimum 24,484 square feet). The proposed project includes 24,507 square feet of public open space in the provided view corridor, Courtyard 1, Courtyard 3, and the Public Plaza at the gateway. As a condition of approval, wayfinding signage will be required to be installed in public areas to ensure visibility and perception of public access. Private open space exclusive to the residents of the development totals 20,634 square feet of common outdoor space (Courtyard 2, Courtyard 4, and Pool Deck) and 21,997 square feet of private balconies. There are active common outdoor open space areas which include pool and spa areas, BBQ areas, and fire pit/place areas with tables and seating. The passive common outdoor open space areas have lush landscaping with trees, ample tables and seating, and water features.
In addition to common (public and private) outdoor open space, the interior of the building would include a lobby, mail lounge, club room, leasing area, and fitness and indoor amenity space. All residents of the project, including those occupying the affordable units, will have access to all of the common area amenities throughout the project. The public has access to those public areas along the view corridor, Pacific Coast Highway, and Studebaker Road.
Vehicular Access and Parking
Vehicular ingress and egress to the parking area is provided by one driveway approach from Studebaker Road. Five parking spaces are provided as surface parking spaces behind the retail area. The remainder of the residential and commercial parking is provided in an above-grade parking structure. As discussed above, only 456 parking stalls are required for the residential component of the project pursuant to SB 1818. Per SEASP development standards, 98 residential guest spaces and only 22 parking spaces are required for the commercial component. The total required parking spaces is 576 parking stalls.
The project would provide 576 parking stalls as required and would comply with the SEASP standards for guest parking and commercial uses. The parking utilization study for the project demonstrates that the provided vehicle parking spaces would meet the demand of the development.
The project would provide 196 bicycle parking spaces in secured areas of the parking garage at each level. Bicyclists would have access to the adjacent elevator to access the parking structure exit onto Studebaker Road, which will include bicycle lane connections as part of final design. Bike racks are provided at the exterior of the development for patrons visiting the commercial/retail component.
Public Right-of-Way
The proposed project includes improvements to Pacific Coast Highway along the west side of the development site and Studebaker Road (public roadway) along the southern side of the development site. On Pacific Coast Highway, the proposed project would construct a curb between the existing bicycle lane and the vehicle travel lane and construct a new bus turn out near the current bus stop. The cross-section of Pacific Coast Highway, including the pedestrian amenities of sidewalk, parkway areas, and a 10-foot public access easement would ensure consistency with the intent of SEASP. All improvements within the Pacific Coast Highway public right-of-way shall be completed in conformance and consultation with the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) given that this roadway falls under CalTrans jurisdiction.
Additionally, the proposed project would construct roadway improvements within the Studebaker Road existing public right-of-way to include a center median, sidewalk, vehicle lanes, and bicycle lane. Studebaker Roadway improvements would provide access to the existing office building on the parcel to the east of the project site and the existing parking lot to the northeast of the project site. Vehicular access would continue to be maintained from the Studebaker Road right-of-way to the rear office building at 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway and ultimately to the City-owned parcel (APN 7237-020-041). A roundabout feature would be installed at the terminus of Studebaker Road within the public right-of-way limits. An ingress-egress driveway would extend north from the roundabout to provide access to a two-way drive aisle that would extend onto parcel APN 7237-020-041, north of the proposed building.
The proposed project would be sited and designed to allow for the completion of Shopkeeper Road at the rear of the property should this be undertaken in the future, in conformance with the SEASP policies. As mobility improvements and needs continue to evolve, any completion of Shopkeeper Road would be evaluated in the future in connection with other projects however, this proposed project is conditioned to create a physical roadway configuration that would not preclude that future completion.
Housing Element Site Inventory
One of the required findings relates to consistency with the City’s General Plan. The smaller parcel (APN: 7237-020-040) of the subject development site is on the site inventory in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element of the General Plan, certified by the State of California’s Department of Housing and Community Development in April 2022. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65863, cities must maintain, at all times during the planning period, adequate sites to meet their unmet share of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Under this law, cities generally may not take any action that would allow or cause the sites identified in its Site Inventory to be insufficient to meet its remaining unmet share of the City’s 2021-2029 RHNA allocation for lower and moderate-income households. Therefore, because the project parcel is on the site inventory, based on this the above-cited government code section known as “housing element no-net loss,” the City is required to complete an analysis to ensure that future development of the proposed project site does not preclude the City’s ability to meet its RHNA obligations.
Sites on the site inventory were analyzed and selected to demonstrate that the City has land use and zoning capacity to facilitate the City’s 2021-2029 RHNA figure of 26,502 housing units in accordance with Housing State Law. Sites were selected for the inventory based on a set of objective criteria for analyzing the likelihood of housing being developed on the site, including based on lot size, improvement-to-land ratio (with a higher ratio indicating lower feasibility for dwelling unit potential), and whether the underlying zoning or General Plan PlaceType designation allows residential uses. In this case, the property, zoned SEASP MU-CC, meets the criteria and was included in the Housing Element site inventory. The subject site, which has existing office buildings, was projected through the site inventory as likely to facilitate a total of five potential moderate-income units and 21 potential market rate units.
Even though the proposed project is a residential development project that would facilitate 352 more market rate units and 17 more very-low-income units than projected in the site inventory, the proposed project does not include five moderate-income units as projected in the site inventory. Therefore, the City must demonstrate that its plans, policies, and zoning can facilitate the production of the 26,502-unit RHNA allocation. Although the site inventory is the most well-known method for meeting this obligation, the City may meet its RHNA obligation through a combination of: (1) the projected number of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) anticipated to be permitted based on recent trends; (2) documenting approved and proposed residential development projects in the pipeline; and (3) through an inventory of sites with demonstrated land use and zoning capacity to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation.
ADU Production
As a result of substantial relaxation of development standards and procedures by the State to facilitate ADU construction, since 2018 the City has seen significant increases in applications and permits for ADUs across Long Beach. Production of ADUs has more than quadrupled between 2018 and 2020, as shown below:
• 2018: 59 units
• 2019: 151 units
• 2020: 268 units
• 2021: 445 units
• 2022: 508 units
The three-year period of 2018, 2019 and 2020 yielded an annual average of 159 units. To be conservative and based on the observed development trends in the City, the 6th Cycle Housing Element assumed an annual average of 159 ADUs between 2021 and 2029, for a total of 1,275 units, representing nearly five percent (4.8 percent) of the City’s 6th Cycle RHNA. This is based on the average number of ADUs permitted between 2018-2020 (Adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element Technical Appendices, p. C-2). Around two-thirds of those units were designated in the affordable categories of the RHNA based on guidance from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).
Given the progressively upward trend and an emerging trend of Junior ADUs, which are attached accessory units that occupy the existing square footage of a housing unit and therefore, are typically smaller in size, less expensive to construct, and a more affordable housing option, the City anticipates that the construction of ADUs will continue to increase. ADU production in 2021 totaled 445 units and in 2022, 508 ADUs were permitted. Based on the more recent data, using a five-year average (2018-2022), the City now estimates 2,290 ADUs will be developed during the Housing Element period, which is a net increase of 1,015 units. ADUs for the City’s RHNA were allocated within the affordable categories, which includes moderate-income units, and the revised projection represents additional capacity for additional units in the “moderate-income” RHNA category. Furthermore, ADUs are more likely to be naturally affordable and have comprised a higher share of the housing production over time. This again is a conservative approach given the upward trend over time. This increase alone more than accounts for the lost potential of five moderate-income units for the proposed project.
Policies and Programs for Moderate Income Units
Like many cities throughout the state, Long Beach has struggled to produce moderate income units. As part of the Housing Element, the City has committed to a multitude of strategies for increasing production of moderate-income units. One of the primary mechanisms for incentivizing the development of moderate-income units is through the City’s Enhance Density Bonus (EDB) Program, which was adopted in 2021 to provide incentives and bonuses that go above and beyond those provided under state law in order to garner a larger number of affordable units than would otherwise be built. The EDB is designed with the greatest incentives for moderate income units because the City performed the poorest in providing moderate units in the 5th Cycle Housing Element of any category. In fact, in developing the site inventory, City staff assumed that the subject site would produce moderate income units in exchange for incentives provided under EDB. Unfortunately, the EDB has not yet been certified in the Coastal Zone (EDB was approved by the Coastal Commission in June 2023 and is coming back to the City Council for consideration and action on September 19, 2023 and then must go back to the Coastal Commission thereafter).
Therefore, this project was not able to take advantage of the EDB program. Other strategies in the Housing Element for providing moderate income units include the inclusionary housing requirement for moderate income units in ownership projects (Housing Element (HE) Policy 1-11); increasing the overall housing supply (Policy 1-1); providing for a variety of housing types in low density zones (i.e. duplexes, triplexes and ADUs, see Housing Element Program 2-4); facilitating “naturally occurring” affordable housing typologies like bungalows and courtyards (HE Action 1.1.2); and providing assistance to first time homeowners including through downpayment assistance (HE Program 3.3). Some of the zoning strategies, such as the EDB Inclusionary Programs, are implemented, while others are underway through the Citywide rezoning efforts. The City’s new First-Time Homebuyer Assistance Program launched in Spring 2023 through use of funding via the Consolidated Plan.
In summary, while the project does not provide the five moderate-income units allocated for the site as part of the original site inventory for the 2021-2029 Housing Element, the project provides more housing units overall and provides a greater number of units (17) at a deeper affordability level than what was projected as part of the site inventory, serving to offset some of the deficit that would be created by the approval of other projects in the City. In compliance with its obligations under state law, the City has identified that it has the additional capacity, capability, and feasibility to meet its RHNA obligation, based on the net increase in ADU production and through policies and programs to support the development of moderate-income units.
Lot Line Adjustment (LLA)
According to the record of survey, there are three existing legal parcels on the project site. Under existing conditions, the easternmost property line for APN: 7237-020-050 (6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway) shares a common property line with APN: 7237-020-041 (6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway). This shared property line bisects the surface parking lot that is shared between all three parcels and maintains access rights via the CC&Rs in place for the Marketplace Shopping Center, Marketplace Office Park (project Applicant), and City-owned parcel. The easternmost shared property line between APNs 7237-020-050 and 7237-020-041 would be adjusted eastward and would remain within the existing surface parking lot (Attachment H). The adjusted property line would remain located between the buildings at 6695 E. Pacific Coast Highway and 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway.
Prior to the lot line adjustment there are three legal parcels (two parcels with frontage along E. Pacific Coast Highway and one parcel with frontage along the unbuilt portion of Shopkeeper Road), and there would continue to be three legal parcels after the lot line is adjusted. The easternmost parcel to be adjusted (APN: 7237-020-041 [6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway]) maintains a front lot line along Shopkeeper Road pursuant to Section 21.15.1150 (Front Lot Line) of the Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC), due to the dimension of the lot line along Shopkeeper Road in comparison to the lot line dimension along the unbuilt section of Studebaker Road that forms the southern lot line.
The adjustment would increase the size of APN: 7237-020-050 (6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway) to 125,221 square feet in compliance with SEASP. The resulting lot size portion of APN: 7237-020-041 (6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway) would be 68,691 square feet and there would be no change to the width of the remaining portion of the parcel as the adjustment would slightly reduce the existing depth of the lot. Furthermore, as conditioned, the remaining office building at APN: 7237-020-041 (6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway) would be required to maintain vehicular parking onsite and on the shared City-parcel (APN: 7237-020-904) through an amendment to the CC&Rs in place through agreements by all parties. Two rows of surface parking lot areas would remain between the adjusted lot line, which would ensure the maintenance of adequate setbacks pursuant to SEASP. There would be no reduction in onsite open space for the office building to remain at APN: 7237-020-041 (6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway). Surface drainage and all applicable utility easements would be maintained with the adjustment. As such, all required findings to approve the lot line adjustment can be made in the affirmative.
Lot Merger (LM)
As previously noted, there are three existing legal parcels on the project site. The development site (6615 and 6695 E. Pacific Coast Highway) would be the location of the requested lot merger. The lot merger would merge the adjusted APN: 7237-020-050 (6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway) and APN: 7237-020-040 (6695 E. Pacific Coast Highway) to result in one 163,249-square-foot (3.75-acre) lot. There would be one legal parcel after the lots are merged. The APN: 7237-020-041 (6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway) would remain a separate parcel.
Local Coastal Development Permit (LCDP)
In accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, a LCDP is required for applications that include a discretionary action or subdivision within the Coastal Zone. The purpose of the LCDP is to ensure that all public and private development in the Long Beach Coastal Zone is developed consistent with the City’s certified LCP.
The LCP identifies the project site within the SEASP area of the Coastal Zone. This sub-area where the project site is located encompasses the entire southeast corner of Long Beach. Although principally a residential community, it also contains wetlands, considerable commercial development and two very large electric generating plants. Some land in SEASP is used for oil production. When this resource is depleted, the land will be available for other uses.
The operation of the mixed-use building, including the public outdoor open space, is consistent with the applicable development standards contained in the SP-2-MU-CC Zoning District as applicable under State Density Bonus Law. This property is currently developed with two office buildings and surface parking areas which will be demolished to facilitate the mixed-use building. The other properties at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Studebaker Road in this extreme southeast corner of the City are currently developed with commercial uses and retail shopping centers, consistent with the certified SEASP. The development site is located approximately 194 feet from the nearest wetlands associated with the Marketplace Marsh and the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex.
The proposed mixed-use building includes an incentive and waivers from certain development standards as allowed under the State Density Bonus Law. The incorporation of affordable units is consistent with the certified LCP and Coastal Act, which encourages a mix of housing opportunities to meet the public access goals of the Coastal Act. Maximizing public access “for all the people,” is part of the Environmental Justice policies adopted by the Coastal Commission. Without the concessions for massing, height, and stories, the project would be developed with market rate units only, which would not help to fully realize the robust public access policies and broad concern for equitable access to the Coast by all. The project conditions of approval ensure that the affordable units are distributed throughout the various residential levels, including the upper floors, and shall be generally reflective of the mix of unit sizes and number of bedrooms in the overall project. The SEASP area is designated as a high resource area under state law and as reflected in the City’s Housing Element; therefore. The development of affordable units within SEASP helps meet the goals not only of the Coastal Act but also of the City’s Housing Element Goal 6 of ensuring Fair and Equal Housing for Opportunity including in high resource areas where there has historically been a lack of affordable housing. The specific concession/waivers requested to support the project are not incongruent with the certified LCP and Coastal Act. The increased height by one-story to six-stories does not obstruct an established view corridor. Furthermore, this concession in height is not unlike the waiver process allowed under the SEASP for additional height granted to low-cost overnight visitor-serving accommodations. The incentives/waivers include increased height and parking reduction to support the additional density for the affordable dwelling units. A parking utilization study was prepared to demonstrate that the reduced parking rate provided in SB 1818 under the government code would address the anticipated demand for off-street parking based on traffic engineering principles. Therefore, the parking provided would be sufficient for the demand of the development. Furthermore, increased density is known to reduce both Vehicle Miles Traveled and energy consumed, consistent with Coastal Act and the City’s climate goals and policies.
The project incorporates new coastal access and wetland view recovery opportunities on the site with the inclusion of a public paseo/view corridor, public seating areas along Pacific Coast Highway and Studebaker Road as well as direct, new, and improved access for pedestrians and bicyclists to the Pacific Coast Highway and Studebaker Road public right-of-way consistent with LCP and Coastal Act goals for the Coastal Zone. Those policies (5.1 through 5.32) contained in Chapter 5 of the SEASP Document, shall be included as project design features implemented through the project conditions of approval (Attachment I).
The project design includes bird-safe features, lighting, and a landscape palette all consistent with SEASP requirements. SEASP Chapter 8.3.14 includes requirements for glazing areas and building design to reduce the potential for bird strikes. The project has been designed to comply with SEASP requirements through the use of ultra-violet glass, glazing with less than 30 percent coefficient "reflectivity out", and use of recessed and projecting balconies to cast shadows. Furthermore, the glazing area on the building is limited to windows, storefronts, and railings, surrounded by opaque building materials and finishes. Landscaped areas next to the buildings, including courtyards, will be planted in accordance with the spacing requirements in SEASP. As required under SEASP, the proposed plant palette has been designed in conformance with Appendix D of SEASP. As conditioned, the final selection of landscaping shall be designed to maximize habitat potential when fully grown. With the incorporation of bird-safe treatments on glazing areas and the proper placement of landscaping, the project design would be in conformance with the SEASP requirements.
A Sea Level Rise Analysis (Moffatt & Nichol, 2023) was completed for the proposed project to assess the potential vulnerability of the project area under projected future sea level rise scenarios. Analyses first focus on the extent to which local coastal hazards change under future sea level rise scenarios. The overlap of projected future hazard zones and the project area is then used to identify potential future vulnerabilities to hazards related to sea level rise. Based on current topography data, the project site is not projected to experience any flood hazards with 4.3 ft sea level rise, the projection for the 55-year Project design life (time horizon of 2080).
Raising the elevation of select portions of development and paved areas as part of project design represents an effective solution to mitigate projected flood hazards. To address potential hazards beyond the 55-year project design life, adaptive measures such as fill have been used to inform the building design and increase elevation throughout the project area or in targeted areas along the eastern and northwestern project boundaries to reduce hazard exposure under the 6.7 ft sea level rise scenario. Floodproofing retrofits were also identified in the analysis to be applied to structures to address any projected increases in coastal hazards over time, as needed. Given current sea level rise projections, it is highly unlikely that any adaptation actions would become necessary until after 2080, allowing for significant time to monitor hazard conditions and plan for implementation accordingly. The proposed design and elevation of the new building have been designed in consideration of the sea level rise analysis and based on the analyses the project would be safe from risk for the design life of the project.
The SEASP planned for the establishment of an impact fee on new development for certain parcels with the purpose of funding the monitoring and maintenance of sensitive coastal resources, along with improved public access. On November 1, 2022, the City Council adopted an ordinance and resolution to establish a Sensitive Coastal Resource Impact Fee (Chapter 18.19 of the LBMC). As conditioned, the project would be required to pay the Sensitive Coastal Resource Impact Fee prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project. The collected fees would cover a baseline study, monitoring, and maintenance of 4 acres of buffer and 4 acres of adjacent wetlands in the SEASP area.
Environmental Review
This project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the project was analyzed as part of the previously certified SEASP PEIR (State Clearinghouse No.2015101075) (EIR 02-16) (Attachment J). The SEASP PEIR included technical reports that analyzed the buildout of the entire plan area, including analyses for Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling, Biological Resources Assessments and Wetland Delineation, Cultural Resource and Native American Correspondence, Geotechnical Conditions Memorandum, Phase 0 Site Assessment, Infrastructure Technical Report, Noise Modeling, Transportation Impact Analysis and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Memorandum, Public Services Correspondence, and Water Supply Assessment. During the course of the process of certifying the PEIR, the City of Long Beach recirculated Section 5.16, Transportation and Traffic, and Appendix J (Traffic Reports) in 2017 based on comments received during the public review period. The SEASP PEIR, including the recirculated traffic analysis, was completed in consultation with the public, Caltrans, Cities of Seal Beach and Westminster, and other interested parties.
Because of changes to state law the traffic analysis at the time of SEASP PEIR certification utilized Level of Service (LOS) as the metric of review with additional consideration of VMT. Mitigation measures were included in the SEASP PEIR to address traffic impacts where LOS would degrade to below the acceptable thresholds. While some mitigation measures were determined to be feasible, they were included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). In some instances, mitigation was determined to be infeasible or would not fully mitigate impacts, and impacts were considered to be significant and unavoidable. Examples of infeasible mitigation included insufficient public right-of-way to accommodate the additional lanes due to existing development patterns and encroachment into the adjacent wetlands. The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) as part of certification of the SEASP PEIR, which included approval of the SEASP in light of the significant and avoidable impacts that would result from the buildout of the specific plan. Where mitigation remained feasible, the MMRP would be the mechanism to trigger compliance with those required actions.
In addition, the SEASP PIER introduced peak hour trip budget tracking and controls the amount and intensity of residential and non-residential uses in the SEASP area. As long as the collective project trips associated with proposed development projects do not exceed the trip budget analyzed in the SEASP PEIR, the projects can be found to be consistent with the findings of the SEASP PEIR, and no additional transportation analyses would be required for a project under CEQA.
The Draft PEIR for SEASP was initially circulated for a 60-day review period between July 20, 2016 and September 19, 2016. During this circulation period public comments including comments from the City of Seal Beach, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), as well as the Los Cerritos Wetlands Trust. In response to these public comments the traffic analysis was updated. The analysis included an expanded study of intersections, revised trip generation and VMT analysis, the incorporation of significance criteria from the City of Seal Beach and Caltrans, revised mitigation measures, clarification on mitigation measures and feasibility at each intersection, and the creation and analysis of a Transportation Demand Management Plan as a project design feature. Upon completion of the updated analysis the Draft SEASP PEIR section regarding Transportation and Traffic was recirculated for an additional 45-day public review period between February 17, 2017 and April 3, 2017, and certified by the City Council with the reduced intensity alternative on September 19, 2017.
A PEIR Compliance Checklist (PECC 03-23) was prepared for the specific project per CEQA in compliance with Sections 15162,15168(c)(2), and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines (Attachment K). Technical studies were prepared to inform the analysis included in the Compliance Checklist, which include topical areas of Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas, Biological Resources, Historic Resources, Geotechnical, Hazardous Materials, Sea Level Rise, Noise, Transportation, and Utilities/Service Systems. Project activities have been determined to be within the scope of activities analyzed in the PEIR and will not result in any new significant impacts.
Based upon build out of the SEASP area, there are several topical areas within the SEASP PEIR that have impacts and require the implementation of mitigation measures to reduce those impacts as applicable for each project proposed for the area (Attachment L). Those topical areas requiring mitigation include Air Quality, Biology, Cultural, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Traffic. All mitigation measures are included as conditions of approval for the proposed project. The SEASP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is designed to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures during project implementation. For each mitigation measure recommended in the SEASP PEIR that applies to the Applicant’s proposal, specifications are made that identify the action required and the monitoring that must occur. In addition, the party responsible for verifying compliance with individual mitigation measures is identified.
Air Quality mitigation measures require Energy Star Appliances, compliance with the Air Quality Management District’s rules relating to construction equipment, and installation of infrastructure relating to electric vehicles. Fair-share payments will be required as part of the traffic mitigation measures for future improvements to different intersections as noted in the mitigation monitoring table. These, and the remainder of the topical areas are discussed in greater detail and all mitigation measures included in the adopted MMRP.
The Project, along with other proposed developments in the SEASP are below the trip budget that was environmentally cleared in the SEASP PEIR. Consistent with the transportation impact study for the SEASP PEIR, the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG) Travel Demand Forecasting Model was used to update estimates of employment accessible to the proposed project site. The project would generate 53 trips in the evening peak hour, with a remaining 1,858 evening peak trips in the Southwest Quadrant’s trip budget (within the SEASP). In addition, the project analysis considers the whole of the project, which includes the removal of two commercial office buildings and replacement with a mixed-use project for which the new traffic from residential uses will likely be less than anticipated due to trends in telecommuting and changes in travel behavior.
Appeals
The Planning Commission’s July 20, 2023, approval of this project was appealed by three (3) individuals/groups: (1) Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of SAFER (APL23-011) (Attachment M); (2) Elizabeth Lambe, on behalf of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust (APL23-012) ) (Attachment N); and (3) Ann Cantrell and Anna Christensen, on behalf of Sierra Club Los Cerritos Wetlands Task Force (APL23-014) (Attachment O). Table 3 summarizes the appeal requests.
|
Table 3 - Appeal Summaries |
|
Appellant |
General Description of Appeal |
|
Lozeau Drury LLP - SAFER |
The appeal addresses the reliance on a PEIR for the project. The appeal asserts that a project specific Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required to analyze the project and its impacts. The appeal includes a letter attached to the appeal application that cites additional topics related to height, cumulative impacts, biological impacts, air quality impacts, hazardous material impacts, mitigation measure compliance, energy impacts, and additional impacts allegedly not included in the PEIR. |
|
E. Lambe - LCWLT |
The appeal asserts concerns related to the lot line adjustment for the site, realignment of the Shopkeeper Road extension, implementation of and compliance with the General Plan and SEASP polices, and cumulative impacts allegedly not considered as part of the SEASP PEIR. |
|
Ann Cantrell and Anna Christensen - Sierra Club Los Cerritos Wetlands Task Force |
The appeal asserts concerns related to compliance with SEASP development standards, redesign of the project related to height, preparation of a project specific EIR, safety concern for residents within proximity to oil operations and geological conditions, tribal cultural resource consultation, mitigation, and lot line adjustment. |
The appeals include that assertion that a project specific EIR is needed and that cumulative impacts not considered by the SEASP PEIR would occur with implementation of the project and nearby projects. A Compliance Checklist was prepared to evaluate and document that the project is consistent with the assumptions contained within the previously analyzed and adopted SEASP PEIR. Consistent with CEQA, the checklist documents that none of the criteria requiring the preparation of a new EIR or an Addendum occurred. Therefore, no further environmental study is necessary. As documented in the attached responses to comments, the project-specific analysis included in the compliance checklist appropriately analyzed the project within the SEASP PEIR and applied the mitigation measures correctly (Attachment P).
The appeals also include the assertion that City staff has not reviewed the project in accordance with the SEASP requirements. Per City staff’s and the SPR Committee’s review of the project, the project met all of the development standards contained in the SEASP except those areas for which a waiver/incentive/concession was requested (Attachment E). The provided density bonus in conjunction with the provision of 17 affordable (very-low income) units is in compliance with the State’s Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915 through 65918). As discussed above, there was not a reasoned basis by which City could make the requisite findings to deny the requested incentive/waivers. Further, the lot line adjustment complies with all required findings and would remain outside the 100-foot buffer from the Los Cerritos Wetlands mapped areas.
The biological impacts assertions in the appeals are also without merit as the project area contains no marine, sensitive plant, or river resources. The existing development site is a paved site with ornamental vegetation and the unbuilt portion of Studebaker Road was analyzed in conformance with the CEQA. The attached memorandum addresses the claims raised in the appeals related to biological impacts and the project analysis conducted for the development site. Any future extension of Shopkeeper Road is not part of this project. The project design would not conflict with the conceptual layout of a future Shopkeeper Road Connection as shown in SEASP. Therefore, there is no additional analysis required for a consideration that is not part of the proposed project.
The project is proposed on property that is already developed and will replace two existing office buildings and surrounding surface parking lots. The surface parking lots are illuminated at night and the existing office building includes glass components that predate the SEASP requirements to reduce bird strikes. The entire existing development and surface lot will be removed and replaced with the proposed six story building that is designed and conditioned to comply with the SEASP biological resource protection requirements (including bird-safe glass and landscaping in compliance with SEASP criteria and associated mitigation measures contained in the SEASP PEIR). A photometric analysis was included in the compliance checklist for the project and conditioned to ensure final building specifications comply with the requirements. This argument should likewise be rejected as unsupported by the facts.
As indicated in the attached memorandums, environmental topics, including but not limited to, air quality, greenhouse gasses, biological resources, hazards, energy, traffic and transportation, geological impacts, and cumulative impacts, were appropriately analyzed in accordance with the SEASP PEIR and CEQA Guidelines. Furthermore, compliance with mitigation measures is included as conditions of approval for the project. Contrary to assertions that the project doesn’t include sufficient tribal cultural resource consultation, the project has been conditioned to include a Native American monitor onsite during all ground disturbing activities in accordance with SEASP policies.
The Planning Commission, City staff, and the City’s CEQA expert for this project (consulting firm PlaceWorks, who also prepared the SEASP Specific Plan and SEASP PEIR) all determined that these contentions are without merit. The Planning Commission and City staff have evaluated the Compliance Checklist for the proposed project and found that: it is appropriate and adequate; the project will not create new or more significant impacts than those preciously analyzed in the SEASP PEIR. Additionally, all potential impacts were adequately accounted for; and the mitigations measures of the SEASP PEIR as applicable to the project are adequate, appropriate, and enforceable. The position of City staff and the Planning Commission is supported by the law, as none of the conditions requiring a new or subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report as stated in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code or in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines are present here. The Compliance Checklist was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 and 15183.The Planning Commission and City staff’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Lastly under the Housing Accountability Act and the Housing Crisis Act, the City is required to process residential projects fairly, objectively and on a timely basis, limiting any unnecessary environmental review or excess requirements.
Based on the foregoing, City staff requests that the City Council deny the appeals and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the SPR (SPR22-082), LLA (LLA22-002), LM (LMG22-012), and LCDP (LCDP22-049) and adopt the findings and determinations related to all entitlement approvals for this project.
Public Hearing Notice
A notice of public hearing for this City Council appeal hearing was mailed on September 5, 2023, in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 21.21 of the LBMC. This notice was also provided to the appellants and to other parties who had commented on or specifically requested notice for this project. Two additional comments have been received since the Planning Commission decision (Attachment Q).
This matter was reviewed by Deputy City Attorney Erin Weesner-McKinley on September 1, 2023 and by Revenue Management Officer Geraldine Alejo on August 31, 2023.
LEVINE ACT
This item is subject to the Levine Act. The Mayor, Councilmembers, and Commissioners who have received a contribution of more than $250 within 12 months prior from a party, participant, or their representatives involved in this proceeding may do either of the following: (1) disclose the contribution on the record and recuse themselves from this proceeding; OR (2) return the portion of the contribution that exceeds $250 within 30 days from the time the elected official knew or should have known about the contribution and participate in the proceeding.
All parties, participants, and their representatives must disclose on the record of this proceeding any contribution of more than $250 made to the Mayor or any Councilmembers within 12 months prior to the date of the proceeding. The Mayor, Councilmembers, and Commissioners are prohibited from accepting, soliciting, or directing a contribution of more than $250 from a party, participant, or their representatives, during a proceeding and for 12 months following the date a final decision is rendered.
TIMING CONSIDERATIONS
Per Section 21.21.504 of the Zoning regulations, a public hearing on the appeal is required to be held within 60 days of receipt of the appeal by the City Clerk from the Development Services Department. The appeals were filed and received on July 27, 2023, July 28, 2023, and July 31, 2023, and the 60-day period expires on September 25, 2023. The timely conclusion of this matter is required under both LBMC Section 21.21.604 and the State Housing Accountability Act.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommendation or the proposed project. The conditions of approval specify that any cost related to improvements and enhancements within the right-of-way will be paid for by the developer and includes street and sidewalk improvements, bus stop improvements and enhancements. This recommendation has no staffing impact beyond the normal budgeted scope of duties and is consistent with existing City Council priorities. There is no local job impact associated with this recommendation.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Approve recommendation.
Respectfully Submitted,
CHRISTOPHER KOONTZ
DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
APPROVED:
THOMAS B. MODICA
CITY MANAGER