1 EWM:ag A22-02829 (9/30/2022)
01451369.docx
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
411 W. Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF LONG BEACH ESTABLISHING A SENSITIVE
COASTAL RESOURCE IMPACT FEE AND ADOPTING A
COMPREHENSIVE IMPACT FEE (NEXUS) STUDY FOR
CERTAIN PARCELS WITHIN THE SOUTHEAST AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN AREA WITHIN THE CITY OF LONG
BEACH
WHEREAS, many cities and counties, including the City of Long Beach, have adopted and imposed development impact fees on new development to pay for new development's fair share of the increased demand on infrastructure and services; and WHEREAS, on November 1, 2022, the City Council of the City of Long Beach adopted Ordinance No. ORD-22-0032, establishing a Sensitive Coastal Resource Impact Fee for specific parcels in the Southeast Area Specific Plan area (“the Area”) within the City of Long Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City retained the consulting firm of PlaceWorks to prepare a nexus study entitled "Nexus Study for Sensitive Coastal Resource Impact Fee" dated August 31, 2022 for the City of Long Beach (the "Study") in accordance with Government Code §§66000 et seq. The Study is attached as Exhibit “A”, and is incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full, word for word; and WHEREAS, the Sensitive Coastal Resource Impact Fee shall apply to the areas designated for mixed-use, community core and mixed-use marina uses as shown in Figure A-1 in the Appendix to the Study and as further described in Section 6 of the Study; and
WHEREAS, the Study provided the City with information and data regarding the nexus between anticipated new development to be located in the Area and the RES-22-0185
2 EWM:ag A22-02829 (9/30/2022)
01451369.docx
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
411 W. Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
additional infrastructure and services required to protect and sustain sensitive coastal resources (inclusive of wetlands, buffers, and habitat) as a result of the anticipated increase in development in the Area; and
WHEREAS, the Study provided data outlining the various necessary infrastructure and services to sustain and protect sensitive coastal resources in the Area, including but not limited to, the preparation of a Baseline Study, subsequent monitoring activities, and ongoing maintenance, including but not limited to, periodic trash and debris removal; and
WHEREAS, it is the City's policy that future new development should contribute its fair share of the increased demand to existing infrastructure and public services though the imposition of impact fees which will be used to finance, defray or reimburse the City for the appropriate portion of the cost of additional public infrastructure and services which will be necessary to serve such development in the Area; and WHEREAS, Chapter 18.19 of the Long Beach Municipal Code (Sensitive Coastal Resource Impact Fee) recognizes that residential and non-residential development on publicly and privately owned land within the Area will result in additional growth and that such growth will place additional burdens on various public infrastructure and services. Chapter 18.19 further recognizes the types of land development (both residential and non-residential) that will generate impacts necessitating the additional infrastructure and services required to protect and sustain sensitive coastal resources (inclusive of wetlands, buffers, and habitat) to meet and accommodate them; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held at least one duly noticed public hearing on the proposed development impact fees with an opportunity for the public to be heard, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code §§66016 — 66018; and WHEREAS, the Study prepared has been available for public review and comment pursuant to the provisions of Government Code §66016; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance No. ORD-22-0032 , the City Council of the City of Long Beach desires to impose and adopt the Development 3 EWM:ag A22-02829 (9/30/2022)
01451369.docx
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
411 W. Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
Impact Fees (Sensitive Coastal Resource Impact Fee) in accordance with the nexus calculations and recommendations in the Study; and
WHEREAS, imposition of fees to finance additional public infrastructure and service improvements is necessary in order to protect and sustain sensitive coastal resources (inclusive of wetlands, buffers, and habitat) in the Area.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Long Beach resolves as follows:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Long Beach finds that the purpose of the impact fees hereby established is to prevent new development from reducing the quality and availability of public infrastructure and services in the Area by requiring new development to contribute its fair share to the additional cost to protect and sustain sensitive coastal resources (inclusive of wetlands, buffers, and habitat) from the increased number of residents and increased economic activity from the new development to which the impact fee applies.
Section 2. That the City Council of the City of Long Beach finds and determines that the "Sensitive Coastal Resource Impact Fee Study" dated August 31, 2022 prepared by PlaceWorks (the "Study") complies with California Government Code § 66001 by establishing the basis for the imposition of the fees on new development. This finding is based on the fact that the Study:
A. Identifies the purpose of the fees;
B. Identifies the use to which the fees will be put;
C. Shows a reasonable relationship between the use of the fees and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed; D. Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the need for the public infrastructure and services and the type of development projects on which the fees are imposed; and
E. Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fees and the cost of the public infrastructure and services or portions thereof attributable 4 EWM:ag A22-02829 (9/30/2022)
01451369.docx
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
411 W. Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
to the residential and non-residential development on which the fees are imposed.
Section 3. That the City Council hereby determines that the fees collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be used to finance the public infrastructure and services described or identified in the above referenced ordinance and Study.
Section 4. That the City Council finds that the projects and fee methodology identified in the Study are consistent with the City’s General Plan, Southeast Area Specific Plan and Capital Improvement Plan.
Section 5. Based on analysis presented in the above referenced Sensitive Coastal Resource Impact Fee Study, the City Council of the City of Long Beach finds that there is a reasonable relationship between:
A. The use of the fee and the development type(s) on which it is imposed;
B. The need for the public infrastructure and services and the type(s) of development on which the fee is imposed; and
C. The amount of the fee and the cost attributable to the development project.
Section 6. The adoption of the Study and the Sensitive Coastal Resource Impact Fee are statutorily and categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), because the setting of development impact fees merely establishes a funding mechanism for the provision of future projects, and as such, the Resolution is not an essential step culminating in action which may affect the environment, and environmental review required under CEQA will be performed when projects funded by the development impact fees are chosen and defined. (Kaufman & Broad South Bay, Inc. v. Morgan Hill (1993) 9 CaLApp.4th 464).
Section 7. That the City Council adopts the Development Impact Fees as set forth in Section 5 of the Study.
Section 8. That the fees specified in Section 5 of the Study shall become effective sixty (60) days following the adoption of this Resolution by the City Council, and
Nexus Study for
Sensitive Coastal Resource Impact Fee
City of Long Beach
Southeast Area Specific Plan
August 31, 20 22
Exhibit A
Prepared For:
City of Long Beach
Development Services
411 W. Ocean Blvd.
Long Beach, CA 90802
562-570-5237
www.longbeach.gov/lbds/
P
repared By:
P
laceWorks
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, CA 92707
(714) 966-9220
www.placeworks.com
Sensitive Coastal Resources Impact Fee Nexus Study Page i Contents
Summary ....................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction .............................................................................. 2 1(A) Southeast Area Specific Plan ................................ . 2 1(B) Sensitive Coastal Resources ................................ .. 3 1(C) Los Cerritos Wetlands Final Conceptual Restoration Plan ................................ ................................ .. 5
2. Land Use and Development Projections ................................. 5 2(A) Existing Development ................................ ........... 5 2(B) Planned Development ................................ .......... 5 2(C) Location of Planned Development .......................... 6
3. Covered Activities .................................................................... 6
4. Estimated Cost of Covered Activities ..................................... 8
5. Amount of Fee .......................................................................... 8 5(A) Cost Allocation by Land Use Type .......................... 8 5(B) Amount of Impact Fee by Land Use Type ................ 9 5(C) Financial Feasibility ................................ ........... 10
6. Applicability of the Fee .......................................................... 11
7. Nexus Findings ....................................................................... 12 7(A) Purpose and Use of the Fee ................................ 13 7(B) Relationship Between the Fee and Types of
Development ................................ .................... 13
8. Appendix .............................................................................. A-1
Page ii City of Long Beach | Southeast Area Specific Plan List of Figures
Figure A-1: Sensitive Coastal Resources Impact Fee: Areas in Which the Fee Applies to New Development and Areas in
Which Impact Fee Revenue May Be Used for Covered
Activities ................................ ................................ ... A-4 Figure A-2: SEASP Areas of Land Use Change ...................... A-4
List of Tables
Table 1: Existing Development, SEASP Plan Area ..................... 5 Table 2: Net Increase in Development (SEASP Development Cap) ................................ ................................ ............ 6 Table 3: Estimated Costs for Activities Covered by the Proposed Sensitive Coastal Resources Impact Fee ............................ 8 Table 4: Cost Allocation by Type of Development ..................... 9 Table 5: Impact Fee for Residential and Nonresidential Building Space per Gross Square Foot ................................ ......... 10 Table 6: Financial Feasibility Impact of Proposed Sensitive Coastal Resources Impact Fee................................ ........ 11
Table A -1: Parcels Designated in SEASP for Mixed -use
Community Core and Mixed-use Marina Use Upon Which
Proposed Sensitive Coastal Resource Impact Applies ........ A-2 Table A -2: Parcels Desi gnated in SEASP for Coastal
Habitat/Wetlands/Recreation Use Upon Which Impact Fee
Revenues May Pay for Covered Activities ........................ A-3
Sensitive Coastal Resources Impact Fee Nexus Study Page 1 Summary
The Southeast Area Specific Plan (SEASP) represents tradeoffs and compromises that are inherent in a planning process with lengthy and complex efforts to fully engage residents, businesses, and prop- erty owners. SEASP eliminated residential and commercial devel- opment that the former Southeast Area Development Plan (SEADIP) previously authorized in areas now understood to potentially be wet- lands and/or habitat, and it authorized an increase in development density and intensity in a limited area of change, primarily along Pacific Coast Highway. SEASP also planned for the establishment of an impact fee on new development with the purpose of funding limited activities to ameliorate potential impacts on sensitive coast resources, which impacts result from residential development and increased economic activity in proximity to these resources . The covered activities are only eligible for funding in areas planned for Coastal Habitat/Wetlands/Recreation uses. The proposed fee is set at a level that would fund covered activities on approximately eight acres of sensitive coastal resources. However, the specific location and acreage will be determined by a subsequent restoration plan (not funded by the impact fee) and may occur anywhere in the area designated for Coastal Habitat/Wetlands/ Recreation uses.
This study presents the analysis for determining the amount of the impact fee, its applicability, and the types of activities that may be funded with revenue from the impact fee. The report recommends a financially feasible development impact fee of $0.25 per net in- crease in gross residential building square footage and $0.25 per net increase gross square foot for nonresidential development. The fee would apply only to new development in close proximity to sen- sitive coastal resources, namely the areas planned for Mixed -use Community Core and Mixed-use Marina uses.
1. Introduction
This study estimates the cost preserve sensitive coastal resources in the area subject to the Southeast Area Specific Plan, establishes the nexus between new development and sensitive coastal re- sources (inclusive of wetlands, buffers, and habitat) , and recom- mends a development impact fee to pay for certain costs to sustain these resources. This study is intended to satisfy the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code sections 66000 through 66008) to establish a nexus between the purpose of the fee and the types of development subject to and the amount of the fee.
Specifically, Section 66001(a) requires that the City do the follow- ing in order to establish a development fee:
(1) Identify the purpose of the fee.
(2) Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified.
That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in Section
65403 or 66002, may be made in applicable general or
specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged.
(3) Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.
(4) Determine how there is a reasona ble relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.
1(A) Southeast Area Specific Plan
The City of Long Beach adopted the Southeast Area Specific Plan (SEASP) in the fall of 2017, replacing the Southeast Area Develop- ment and Improvement Plan (SEADIP) adopted in 1977. Because part of the plan area lies within the coastal zone, the City has sub- mitted to the California Coastal Commission an update to its Local Coastal Program for review and certification. The review and certi- fication process was ongoing at the time this study was prepared.
Sensitive Coastal Resources Impact Fee Nexus Study Page 3 Adoption of SEASP was the culmination of two years of intensive outreach, analysis, and planning. The lengthy and comprehensive outreach involved City staff an d officials, residents, property own- ers, businesses, and environmental groups. By necessity, the re- sulting plan represents a set of interconnected compromises across these stakeholder groups.
Relevant to this study, SEASP eliminated future development that SEADIP would have allowed on parts of Los Cerritos Wetlands and adjacent buffers, and it increased the density and intensity of de- velopment allowed in areas adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway.
SEASP increased the overall density/intensity of development in these areas so that infill development and intensification would be financially feasible under current market conditions . For residents of the plan area, SEASP preserves the existing and potential wet- lands, buffers, and habitat areas, calling for a development impact fee to fund efforts to improve and maintain sensitive coastal re- sources.
The proposed impact fee would only apply to a portion of the SEASP plan area: the area designated for Mixed-use Community Core and the area designated Mixed-use Marina when the specific plan was adopted. This area is adjacent to or across the street from sensitive coastal resources, and increased activity and the potential addition of residential uses will have direct impact on the functionality and maintenance of the adjacent sensitive coastal resources.
Figure A-1 in the Appendix at the end of this report shows the plan area and planned land use and the areas in which the impact fee applies and areas in which the funds generated may be used. As noted below, funds generated by the impact fee would only be used for activities in areas designated in SEASP as Coastal Habitat/Wet- lands/Recreation.
1(B) Sensitive Coastal Resources
The specific plan designates 293 acres for use as Coastal Habi- tat/Wetlands/Recreation. Some of the properties in this area are pri- vately owned and some are owned by public agencies. Much of the area within this land use designation is included in the Los Cerritos Final Conceptual Restoration Plan (LCWC Restoration Plan), but not all. Some but not all of the area within this land use designation has delineated wetlands pursuant to the requirements of:
(1) US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
(2) CDFW jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code.
(3) RWQCB jurisdiction pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and Section 13260 of the Porter-Cologne Act.
(4) Wetlands as defined under the California Coastal Act.
A portion of the area designated for use as Coastal Habitat/Wet- lands/Recreation is owned by Synergy Oil and Gas, LLC, which is moving forward with a plan to establish a wetlands restoration bank.
Because the LCWC Restoration Plan does not yet include full wet- lands delineation and detailed restoration design plans and because the wetlands restoration bank on the Synergy Oil and Gas property have not been prepared and made public, the full extent of the in- dividual components of sensitive coastal resources (i.e., wetlands, buffers, and habitat) cannot be identified at the time of adoption of the impact fee.
For brevity, this report refers to the entire portion of the area desig- nated for use as Coastal Habitat/Wetlands/Recreation as sensitive coastal resources. The revenue generated by the sensitive coastal resources impact fee would be restricted to use for covered activities on publicly owned parcels and parcels with public easements, at the time of expenditure, within this area. The s pecific parcels in- cluded in this area are identified by Assessor Parcen Number (APN) in Table A-1 in the Appendix at the end of this report, and Figure A-1 shows the area included as sensitive coastal resources. Solely for the purpose of estimating costs and the amount of the proposed impact fee, the analysis assumes that covered activities would oc- cur on 4.0 acres of buffer and 4.0 acres wetlands. Actual activities may occur on a larger or smaller area throughout the area shown in Figure A-1, but costs exceeding revenue generated by the impact fee would be fund through additional sources.
Sensitive Coastal Resources Impact Fee Nexus Study Page 5 1(C) Los Cerritos Wetlands Final Conceptual Restoration Plan
The Los Cerritos Wetlands (LCW) complex historically covered ap- proximately 2,400 acres. Much of this area has been developed, and currently the LCW complex covers about 565 acres, about 209 acres of which are owned by public agencies. About 175 acres of the LCW complex lies within the SEASP plan area.
The Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority prepared a Conceptual Resto- ration Plan (CRP) in 2015 and is currently evaluating the environ- mental impacts of the types of restoration in the CRP.
2. Land Use and Development
Projections
This section summarizes the level of development SEASP a uthor- izes. The level of development is important to the amount of reve- nue the wetlands/habitat restoration fee will generate, and the loca- tion of the development is important in establishing the nexus be- tween development and wetlands/habitat restoration.
2(A) Existing Development
Table 1 provides measures of the level of existing development in the plan area when the specific plan was being prepared. There were 4,079 residential dwelling units—a mix of mobile homes and single-family and multifamily housing. The estimated plan -area population was 6,486 persons. There were 2.2 million square feet of nonresidential building space. The total plan -area employment at the time was estimated at 3,555.
Table 1: Existing Development, SEASP Plan Area
Total Number of Residential Units 4,079
Population 6,486
Nonresidential Building Square Footage 2,226,760
Source: City of Long Beach, SEASP Initial Study, Table 4, 2015. 2(B) Planned Development
SEASP focuses new development in concentrated infill areas, gen- erally along Pacific Coast Highway. The development capacity the plan provides would result from infill development on vacant or un- derutilized parcels and redevelopment of existing developed
properties. Because redevelopment would account for a significant amount of the development capacity, SEASP manages growth with a cap on the net increase in development. Table 2 provides the net increase in development authorized by SEASP.
Table 2: Net Increase in Development
(SEASP Development Cap)
Residential Development (dwelling units) 2,547
Commercial/Employment (sq. ft.) 307,071
Hotels (number of rooms) 0
Source: City of Long Beach, Southeast Area Specific Plan, Table 9-1, 2017.
Accordingly, the wetlands/habitat restoration impact fee will apply to development that causes a net increase in gross residential or nonresidential building square footage.
2(C) Location of Planned Development
Generally, SEASP maintains the existing land use designations from the 1977 SEADIP for a majority of the land area. However, SEASP specifically eliminated commercial and residential land use desig- nations in the Los Cerritos Wetlands and increased the commercial and residential development potential in areas adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), areas designated as Mixed-use Community Core and Mixed-use Marina. Figure A-2 in the Appendix identifies the areas of land use change. The net increase in development identified in Table 2 is expected to occur in the areas of land use change.
The impact fee would be applied only to new development in the areas of land use change. The area to which the impact fee applies is shown with the areas in which the fee may be used on Figure A- 1 in the Appendix.
3. Covered Activities
The City of Long Beach intends to use revenue from the sensitive coastal resources impact fee to cover a limited set of activities as- sociated with an increase in population near sensitive coastal re- sources. Activities that may be funded th rough the impact fee in- clude:
Sensitive Coastal Resources Impact Fee Nexus Study Page 7 + Baseline Study. This activity is a baseline study, conducted prior to new development, to document the state and func- tion of the buffer area and adjacent wetlands.
+ Monitoring. Subsequent to restoration of the buffer and wet- lands, the area will need to be monitored to ensure that the restoration is successful and functional. The impact fee will cover that portion of the monitoring that is related to im- pacts of nearby development (new residents and increased business patrons) such as damage from pedestrian/hikers in the buffer and wetlands areas , exposure to non -native seeds from landscaping, lighting, and increased trash and debris. It is assumed that this activity would cover monthly monitoring in the first year after restoration and quarterly monitoring in years two through five following restoration.
For the purpose of this memo, it is assumed that the area to be monitored includes four acres of buffer and four acres of adjacent wetlands. A precise definition of the area in- cluded will be identified in conjunction with the preparation and/or adoption of a wetlands restoration plan for the area or part of the area covered by the impact fee.
+ Maintenance. This activity includes pe riodic trash and de- bris removal of the assumed four acres of buffer area and four acres of adjacent wetlands.
To estimate the cost for covered activities, this study is based on the eight acres that is in closest proximity to the specific plan’s areas of change (see Figure A-2). It is estimated that this would include about four acres of sensitive coastal resources in buffer areas and about four acres of sensitive coastal resources in adjacent wetlands.
Because these areas are in proximity to areas where new develop- ment will occur under the specific plan, they are the sensitive coastal resources that will be most impacted by new residents and increased business patrons. Finally, the City intends that the list of covered activities and areas may be refined in conjunction with the preparation and/or adoption of a wetlands restoration plan.
4. Estimated Cost of Covered Activities
Glen Lukos Associates Regulatory Services developed estimated costs for the covered activities. These costs are identified in Table
3. The estimated cost for the baseline study is a rough order of mag- nitude cost. The cost estimate for monitoring assumes monthly monitoring in the first year after restoration and quarterly monitoring in years two through five following r estoration. The estimate also assumes that the area to be monitored includes four acres of buffer and four acres of adjacent wetlands. The cost estimate for mainte- nance assumes twice monthly maintenance, four hours per visits, and a gross City cost of $60 per hour; the present value of 25 years of expenditures would be about $100,000 at the current prime in- terest rate.
Table 3: Estimated Costs for Activities Covered by the Proposed Sensitive Coastal Resources Impact Fee
Baseline Study $10,000
Monitoring $560,000
Maintenance $100,000
Total $670,000
Source: Glen Lukos Associates, 2022.
5. Amount of Fee
5(A) Cost Allocation by Land Use Type
The estimated cost for covered activities is allocated among land uses based on the amount of net new development authorized by the plan.
For nonresidential uses, the allocation of cost is straightforward be- cause the plan allows a net increase in nonreside ntial building square footage—307,071 sq. ft. For residential, however, the in- crease in development capacity is based on number of units.
SEASP allows for a net increase of 2,547 residential dwelling units.
Based on the weighted average of gross residentia l square footage per residential dwelling unit in city -approved residential develop- ment (excluding high -rise buildings and single -family detached housing) since 2019, new development in Long Beach averages
Sensitive Coastal Resources Impact Fee Nexus Study Page 9 971.68 gross residential square footage per dwelli ng unit. Thus, the net increase of 2,547 dwelling units can be expected to result in a net increase of 2,474,874 gross square feet of new residential development.
Table 4 allocates the estimated cost for covered activities to resi- dential and nonresidential development based on each use type’s share of the net increase in gross building space. To pay for the covered activities would require $596,000 to be generated in fees from residential development and $ 74,000 in fees from nonresi- dential development.
Table 4: Cost Allocation by Type of Development
Estimated cost of covered activities (Table 3) $ 670,000 Residential Development Share (89.0%) $ 596,000
Nonresidential Development Share (11.0%) $ 74,000
Source: PlaceWorks, 2022.
5(B) Amount of Impact Fee by Land Use Type
For individual development projects, the impact fee will be based on the project site’s increase in gross building square footage for residential and nonresidential development. In addition, the City will charge a reasonable administrative fee of 3 percent.
Table 5 provides the sensitive coastal resources impact fee. For res- idential development, the total allocated cost of covered activities, $596,000, is divided by the estimated net increase in residential square footage authorized by SEASP to determine the per square foot cost of $ 0.24. With an administrative fee of 3 percent, the sensitive coastal resources impact fee for residential development is $0.25 per gross square foot.
For nonresidential development, the total allocated cost for covered activities, $74,000, is divided by the net increase in nonresidential gross building space—307,071 square feet—to determine the per square foot cost of $0.24. With an administrative fee of 3 percent, the sensitive coastal resources fee for nonresidential development is $0.25 per gross building square foot.
Table 5: Impact Fee for Residential and Nonresidential Building Space per Gross Square Foot
Cost allocated to residential development $ 596,000
Net increase in gross residential square footage 2,474,874 Cost per gross square foot $ 0.24
Administrative fee (3%) $ 0.01
Impact fee per residential gross building sq. ft. $ 0.25 Cost allocated to nonresidential development $ 74,000
Net increase in gross nonresidential square footage 307,071 Cost per gross square foot $ 0.24
Administrative fee (3%) $ 0.01
Impact fee per nonresidential gross building sq. ft. $ 0.25 Source: PlaceWorks, 2022.
5(C) Financial Feasibility
During preparation of SEASP, a financial feasibility analysis was conducted, finding two development prototypes to be financially feasible to be developed under the proposed plan. Scenario 4, with 710 multifamily units, 109,000 square feet of ground -floor retail, and 90 hotel rooms , was the more financially challenging of the two prototypes. The proposed sensitive coastal resources impact fee required for Scenario 4 is provided in Table 6.
The financial feasibility analysis was based on the resulting residual land value. The analysis indicated that the market value of land was between $3 and $4 million, so any residual land value resulting from new development that was in this range or above would be deemed to be financially feasible.
Table 6 shows the residual land value for Scenario 4 as presented in the analysis for the specific plan, before the application of the proposed sensitive coastal resources impact fee. It also shows the residual land value after the application of the proposed fee. The fee results in a reduction in residual land value of 0.6 to 0.8 per- cent. The final residual land value is between 3 and 4 million dol- lars or higher. Thus, the proposed fee should not impact the finan- cial feasibility of new development.
Sensitive Coastal Resources Impact Fee Nexus Study Page 11 Table 6: Financial Feasibility Impact of Proposed Sensitive Coastal Resources Impact Fee
Scenario 4
Total sensitive coastal resources fee $ 350,959
Total fee per acre $ 29,120
For-sale Condominiums
Residual land value per acre before fee $ 4,927,748
Residual land value per acre w/fee $ 4,898,628
Percent reduction w/fee 0.6%
For-rent Apartments
Residual land value per acre before fee $ 3,782,739
Residual land value per acre w/fee $ 3,753,619
Percent reduction w/fee 0.8%
Source: PlaceWorks, 2022, using data from the Strategic Economics’ Memorandum on Fi- nancial Feasibility Analysis, June 2015, prepared for SEASP.
6. Applicability of the Fee
The wetlands/habitat restoration impact fee shall apply to all devel- opment in the area s of change in SEASP , specifically to the areas designated for Mixed-use Community Core and Mixed-use Marina uses at the time of SEASP adoption, as shown in Figure A-1 in the Appendix. Table A-1 in the Appendix identifies the specific parcels by APN.
For an individual development project, the sensitive coastal re- sources impact fee is intended to be applied to the net increase in development for that project. For a development project that would result in the demolition or elimination of then-existing residential or non-residential building space, the fee would be applied to the total new construction less a credit for the reduction or eliminated resi- dential or nonresidential building square footage. For example, the fee for a project that would demolish a 10,000 -square foot shop- ping center and replace it with 19,434 square feet of new residen- tial development among 20 new residential units would be $4,858 ($0.25 X 19,434 gross sq. ft. ) minus $2,500 ($0.25 X 10,000 square feet) for a total of $2,358. The credit for reducing or elimi- nating residential or nonresidential building square footage shall not exceed the amount of the fee required for the new construction. In
other words, the sensitive coastal resources impact fee shall never be less than zero.
7. Nexus Findings
SEASP represents an intentional effort, based on extensive outreach and public engagement, so shift development away from property with sensitive coastal resources to properties most suited to more intense development, to allow densities and intensities of new de- velopment that would be financially feasible, and to preserve, pro- tect, and enhance sensitive coastal resources that provide tangible benefits to residents and business patrons in close, walking prox- imity.
The future restoration of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex (which is separate from the activities covered by the proposed impact fee) is intended not only to restore the wetlands ’ natural hydrological function and to ameliorate sea level rise but also to facilitate passive use of the wetlands, habitat, and buffer as natural open space. As is well documented with park usage
1, the primary beneficiaries of
this open space will be nearby residents and business patrons.
However, increasing the number of residents and the amount of economic activity in proximity to the sensitive coastal resources may serve to overload these resources with public use. In addition, in- creased public passive use will result in increased litter, and the increase in population in the Mixed -use Community Core and the Mixed-use Marina areas will result in increased trash and debris being blown into the areas with sensitive coastal resources.
1 See, for example:
• In a study of 12 neighborhood parks in Los Angeles, it was found that 81 percent of park users live within one mile of the park (Cohen, Deborah, et. al. 2006, Park Use and Physical Activity in a Sample of Public Parks in the City of Los Angeles. Santa Monica: the Rand Cor- poration).
• In a survey of residents in cities in Texas, it was found that respond- ents living within .25, .5, and .75 miles of a park were significantly more likely to use parks than those residing beyond those points (Walker, Jamie Rae and Crompton, John L. (2012) “The Relationship of Household Proximity to Park Use” in The Journal of Park and Rec- reation Administration, vol. 30, no. 3, Fall 2012, pp. 52 –63. This article provides a summary of literature on park usage and proximity going back to the 1970s.
Sensitive Coastal Resources Impact Fee Nexus Study Page 13 7(A) Purpose and Use of the Fee
The purpose of the sensitive coastal resources impact fee is to pay for covered activities (described in Section 3, Covered Activities) re- sulting from the increased number of residents and increased eco- nomic activity resulting from new development to which the impact fee applies.
The activities covered by the proposed impact fee are specifically targeted to address these issues of increased public use and in- creased litter, trash, and debris, arising from new development and increased population and economic activity. The baseline study will document existing conditions in the sensitive coastal resources ar- eas nearest to the areas planned for more intense development.
This study will provide a baseline for the City to use funds generated by the sensitive coastal resources impact fee for other covered ac- tivities. Similarly, the ongoing monitoring for five years following wetlands and habitat restoration will provide a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of the covered activities for maintenance and a factual basis for future decisions by the City regarding other needed facilities and programs (funded by sources other than the impact fee) to protect and preserve the sensitive coastal resources. Finally, the covered maintenance activities, primarily periodic trash and de- bris removal, will directly address the impacts resulting from in- creased population and economic activity.
7(B) Relationship Between the Fee and Types of
Development
The fee applies to the increase in residential building square footage in the Mixed-use Community Core and the Mixed-use Marina areas.
Neither of these areas currently have residential uses. Thus, new residential development represents new residents in proximity to the sensitive coastal resources.
The fee also applies to the net increase in nonresidential building space. The net increase in nonresidential building space represents an increase in economic activity and an increase in the number of customers who will patronize businesses in proximity to the sensi- tive coastal resources.
Sensitive Coastal Resources Impact Fee Nexus Study Page A-1
8. Appendix
Page A-2 City of Long Beach | Southeast Area Specific Plan Table A-1: Parcels Designated in SEASP for Mixed-use Community Core and Mixed-use Marina Use Upon Which Proposed Sensitive Coastal Resource Impact Applies APN SEASP Land Use Designation
7237-020-022 Mixed-Use Community Core
7237-020-024 Mixed-Use Community Core
7237-020-040 Mixed-Use Community Core
7237-020-041 Mixed-Use Community Core
7237-020-050 Mixed-Use Community Core
7237-020-051 Mixed-Use Community Core
7237-020-904 Mixed-Use Community Core
7237-022-003 Mixed-Use Marina
7237-022-006 Mixed-Use Marina
7237-022-014 Mixed-Use Marina
7237-022-016 Mixed-Use Marina
7237-022-017 Mixed-Use Marina
7242-011-013 Mixed-Use Community Core
7242-011-014 Mixed-Use Community Core
7242-012-006 Mixed-Use Community Core
7242-012-007 Mixed-Use Community Core
7242-012-999 Mixed-Use Community Core
7242-021-002 Mixed-Use Community Core
7242-021-003 Mixed-Use Community Core
7242-021-004 Mixed-Use Community Core
7242-021-006 Mixed-Use Community Core
7242-021-007 Mixed-Use Community Core
7242-021-900 Mixed-Use Community Core
Sensitive Coastal Resources Impact Fee Nexus Study Page A-3 Table A-2: Parcels Designated in SEASP for Coastal Habitat/Wetlands/Recreation Use Upon Which Impact Fee Revenues May Pay for Covered Activities
APN Owner
7237020054 BRYANT DAKIN LLC
7237017019 LCW PARTNERS LLC
7237020053 BRYANT DAKIN LLC
7237017008 LOYNES AND STUDEBAKER LLC
7237017009 LOYNES AND STUDEBAKER LLC
7237017010 LCW PARTNERS LLC
7237017012 LCW PARTNERS LLC
7237017007 LOYNES AND STUDEBAKER LLC
7237017807 AES ALAMITOS LLC
7237017809 AES ALAMITOS LLC
7237017022 IN-N-OUT BURGERS INC
7237017020 IN-N-OUT BURGER
7237017018 LCW PARTNERS LLC
7237017014 LCW PARTNERS LLC
7237017011 LCW PARTNERS LLC
7237020044 LYON HOUSING PUMPKIN PATCH
7237017013 LCW PARTNERS LLC
7237018001 LOYNES AND STUDEBAKER LLC
7237020045 LYON HOUSING PUMPKIN PATCH
7237020900 LONG BEACH CITY
7237020275 L A CITY DEPT OF WATER AND POWER
7237017006 LOYNES LLC
7237022012 ALAMITOS BAY PTNSHP
7237020276 L A CITY DEPT OF WATER AND POWER
7242012008 ASN LONG BEACH LLC
7242012270 SEAL BEACH CITY
7242013004 SEAL BEACH SHORES INC
7242013002 SEAL BEACH SHORES INC
7237020021
7237020055
7237020901 LOS CERRITOS WETLANDS AUTHORITY
7237020901 LOS CERRITOS WETLANDS AUTHORITY
7237022900 LONG BEACH CITY
7237017901 L A CO FLOOD CONTROL DIST
7237022012 ALAMITOS BAY PTNSHP
7237017805 AES ALAMITOS LLC
7237017806 AES ALAMITOS LLC
7237017808 AES ALAMITOS LLC
7237017901 L A CO FLOOD CONTROL DIST
Page A-4 City of Long Beach | Southeast Area Specific Plan 7237022011 ALAMITOS BAY PARTNERSHIP
7237020901 LOS CERRITOS WETLANDS AUTHORITY
7237020276 L A CITY DEPT OF WATER AND POWER
7237020275 L A CITY DEPT OF WATER AND POWER
7237020276 L A CITY DEPT OF WATER AND POWER
7237020281
7237020280
7237020902
7237020282
7237020280 BRYANT DAKIN LLC
Wetlands Restoration Impact Fee Nexus Study Page A-5
Figure A-1: Sensitive Coastal Resources Impact Fee: Areas in Which the Fee Applies to New Development and Areas in Which Impact Fee Revenue May Be Used for Covered Activities
Page A-6 City of Long Beach | Southeast Area Specific Plan Figure A-2: SEASP Areas of Land Use Change
Source: City of Long Beach, Southeast Area Specific Plan, Figure 4.1.
Wetlands Restoration Impact Fee Nexus Study Page A-7