BLUE FOLDER ITEM
Blue folder items are additional back up material to administrative reports and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 24, 2023
• Public Communication
• PowerPoint Presentation - Obagi D4
L.1. PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION OF
AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION CERTIFYING A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL
FINDINGS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND, APPROVING
A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (DENSITY
BONUS, OUTDOOR DINING TASTING ROOM, AND MULTIPLE DWELLING
UNITS), AN HISTORIC VARIANCE, PLANNING COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW, AND A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP NO. 82561 FOR A PROPOSED 30-
UNIT RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BONUS PROJECT WITH ADAPTIVE REUSE OF
NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES ON
PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN A LOW-DENSITY, MULTIPLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (R-3A) ZONE AT 100-132 N. CATALINA AVENUE Procedure:
1)Announcement and motion to open the public hearing; 2) Motion to receive and file affidavit of publication, case file, and written correspondence; 3)Staff presentation; 4)Public testimony and presentation of evidence; 5)City Council questions; 6)Motion to close the public hearing; 7)City Council discussion and debate
CONTACT: BRANDY FORBES, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
2 I would ask the City tonight to carefully examine the Planning Department’s outcomes, and carefully consider the elements in the Appeal, before gifting the developers their unreasonable demands. Other cities are very careful to protect their residents against overcrowding and bad planning, regardless of state laws.
When this project’s lack of parking impacts the surrounding established community I can see serious conflicts with cars parking in neighborhood HOA guest parking.
Thank you so very much for your service to us, your residents.
Barbara Epstein
Redondo Beach
Sent from my iPad
AUTHORITIES
IMPACTING
DECISIONS IN
THE COASTAL
ZONES
COASTAL ACT,
PUBLIC RESOURCES
CODE § 3000, ET SEQ.
Chapter 1. Findings and Declarations and General Provisions Cal. Pub. Resources Code, § 30001.5
The Legislature further finds and declares that the basic goals of the state for the coastal zone are to:
(a) Protect, maintain, and, where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial resources.
(b) Ensure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of the state.
(c) Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resources conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners.
…
2 COASTAL ACT,
PUBLIC RESOURCES
CODE § 3000, ET SEQ.
Chapter 1. Findings and Declarations and General Provisions Cal. Pub. Resources Code, § 30001.5
….
(e) Encourage state and local initiatives and cooperation in preparing procedures to implement coordinated planning and development for mutually beneficial uses, including educational uses, in the coastal zone. (f) Anticipate, assess, plan for, and, to the extent feasible, avoid, minimize, and mitigate the adverse environmental and economic effects of sea level rise within the coastal zone.
2023 A U T H O R I T I E S I M P A C T I N G D E C I S I O N S I N T H E C O A S T A L Z O N E S 3 AB 2797 BLOOM
Gov. Code § 65915(m)
“This section does not supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section
30000) of the Public Resources Code). Any density
bonus, concessions, incentives, waivers or reductions of development standards, and parking ratios to which the
applicant is entitled under this section shall be permitted in a manner that is consistent with this section and
Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the
Public Resources Code.”
2023 A U T H O R I T I E S I M P A C T I N G D E C I S I O N S I N T H E C O A S T A L Z O N E S 4 AB 2797 BLOOM, PREAMBLE
“It is the intent of the Legislature in amending
subdivision (m) of Section 65915 of the Government
Code to address the holding and dicta in Kalnel
Gardens, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 3
Cal.App.5th 927 regarding the relationship between
Section 65915 and the California Coastal Act of 1976
(Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the
Public Resources Code). The Legislature’s intent is
that the two statutes be harmonized so as to achieve
the goal of increasing the supply of affordable
housing in the coastal zone while also protecting
coastal resources and coastal access.”
2023 A U T H O R I T I E S I M P A C T I N G D E C I S I O N S I N T H E C O A S T A L Z O N E S 5 PUB. RES. CODE § 30003 –
COMPLIANCE BY PUBLIC
AGENCIES
A l l p u bl i c a g e nc i e s a nd a l l f e d e r a l a g e nc i e s , to th e e xte nt p o s s i bl e u nd e r f e d e r al l aw o r r e g u l a ti ons o r th e U ni te d S ta te s
Co ns ti tu tion, s h al l co mp l y w i th th e
p r o v i s io ns o f th i s d i v i s i on.
2023 6
PUB. RES. CODE § 30005 –
LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL POWERS;
NUISANCES; ATTORNEY GENERAL'S POWERS
N o p ro vi s i o n o f t hi s d i vi s i o n i s a l i m i t a tio n o n a n y o f t he f o l l o w in g:
( a ) E x c e p t a s o t h e r w i s e l i m i t e d b y s t a t e l a w , o n t h e p o w e r o f a c i t y o r c o u n t y o r c i t y a n d c o u n t y t o a d o p t a n d e n f o r c e a d d i t i o n a l
r e g u l a t i o n s , n o t i n c o n f l i c t w i t h t h i s a c t , i m p o s i n g f u r t h e r c o n d i t i o n s , r e s t r i c t i o n s , o r l i m i t a t i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t t o a n y l a n d o r w a t e r u s e o r o t h e r a c t i v i t y w h i c h m i g h t a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t t h e r e s o u r c e s o f t h e c o a s t a l z o n e . ( b ) O n t h e p o w e r o f a n y c i t y o r c o u n t y o r c i t y a n d c o u n t y t o d e c l a r e , p r o h i b i t , a n d a b a t e n u i s a n c e s . 2023 A U T H O R I T I E S I M P A C T I N G D E C I S I O N S I N T H E C O A S T A L Z O N E S 7 PUB. RES. CODE § 30007 –
HOUSING; LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS
Nothing in this division shall exempt local
governments from meeting the requirements
of state and federal law with respect to
providing low- and moderate-income
housing, replacement housing, relocation
benefits, or any other obligation related to
housing imposed by existing law or any law
hereafter enacted.
2023 8
PUB. RES. CODE § 30007.5 –
LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND
DECLARATIONS; RESOLUTION OF
POLICY CONFLICTS
The Legislature fur ther finds and recognizes that
conflicts may occur between one or more policies of
the division. The Legislature therefore declares that in ca rr ying o ut the pro visions of this division s uch
co nflicts be res olved in a ma nner which o n ba lance is the mo s t pro tective of s ignificant co astal resources. In this context, the Legislature declares that broader
policies which, for example, ser ve to concentrate
development in close proximity to urban and
employment centers may be more protective, overall,
than specific wildlife habitat and other similar
resource policies.
2023 A U T H O R I T I E S I M P A C T I N G D E C I S I O N S I N T H E C O A S T A L Z O N E S 9 PUB. RES. CODE § 30009 –
CONSTRUCTION
This division s hall be liberally co nstrued to
a ccomplish its purposes a nd o bjectives.
2023 A U T H O R I T I E S I M P A C T I N G D E C I S I O N S I N T H E C O A S T A L Z O N E S 10 CAL. PUB. RES. CODE § 30108.6, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
“Local coastal program” means a local
government's (a) land use plans, (b)
zoning ordinances, (c) zoning district
maps, and (d) within sensitive coastal
resources areas, other implementing
actions, which, when taken together,
meet the requirements of, and
implement the provisions and policies of,
this division at the local level.
2023 A U T H O R I T I E S I M P A C T I N G D E C I S I O N S I N T H E C O A S T A L Z O N E S 11 CAL. PUB. RES. CODE § 30108.6, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
“Local coastal program” means a local
government's (a) land use plans, (b)
zoning ordinances, (c) zoning district
maps, and (d) within sensitive coastal
resources areas, other implementing
actions, which, when taken together,
meet the requirements of, and
implement the provisions and policies of,
this division at the local level.
2023 A U T H O R I T I E S I M P A C T I N G D E C I S I O N S I N T H E C O A S T A L Z O N E S 12 C A L . P U B . RE S . C OD E § 3 0 2 1 1 D E V E L OPMENT N OT T O IN T E RFERE W IT H A C C E S S Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative
authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.
2023 A U T H O R I T I E S I M P A C T I N G D E C I S I O N S I N T H E C O A S T A L Z O N E S 13 13 C A L. P U B . RE S . C OD E § 3 0 2 1 2. 5 P U B LIC F A C IL IT IE S; D IS T RIB UT ION Wherever appropriate and feasible, public facilities, including parking areas or facilities, shall be distributed throughout an area so as to mitigate against the impacts, social and otherwise, of overcrowding or overuse by the public of any single area. 2023 A U T H O R I T I E S I M P A C T I N G D E C I S I O N S I N T H E C O A S T A L Z O N E S 14 14 C A L . P U B . RE S . C OD E § § 3 0 2 5 1. S C E N IC A N D V IS U A L QU A L ITIES The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting. 2023 A U T H O R I T I E S I M P A C T I N G D E C I S I O N S I N T H E C O A S T A L Z O N E S 15 15 C A L . PU B. RES. C OD E § 3 0 8 0 2 D E CI SIO N S O R A CT I O N S N O T A P P E A L AB L E T O CO MMI SSI ON ; P E T I T ION F O R WR I T O F MA N D A TE; I N T E R V EN TI ON Any person, including an applicant for a permit or the commission, aggrieved by the decision or action of a local government that is implementing a certified local coastal program … which decision or action may not be appealed to the commission, shall have a right to judicial review of such decision or action by filing a petition for writ of mandate in accordance with the provisions of Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure within 60 days after the decision or action has become final. The commission may intervene in any such proceeding upon a showing that the matter involves a question of the conformity of a proposed development with a certified local coastal program or certified port master plan or the validity of a local government action taken to implement a local coastal program or certified port master plan. Any local government or port governing body may request that the commission intervene. …
2023 A U T H O R I T I E S I M P A C T I N G D E C I S I O N S I N T H E C O A S T A L Z O N E S 16 16 C A L . PU B. RES. C OD E § 30353. R E I MB UR SAB L E CO S T S; CR I T ER IA …
(e) Litigation costs which, but for the operation of a certified local coastal program, would not have been incurred may be paid. Where an action is brought against a local government and the action states as a principal cause of action the operation of the local government's local coastal program and the local government prevails in the action, litigation costs may be paid to the extent the costs are not assessed against the party bringing the action.
2023 A U T H O R I T I E S I M P A C T I N G D E C I S I O N S I N T H E C O A S T A L Z O N E S 17 17 C A L . PU B. RES. C OD E § 30353. R E I MB UR SAB L E CO S T S; CR I T ER IA …
(e) Litigation costs which, but for the operation of a certified local coastal program, would not have been incurred may be paid. Where an action is brought against a local government and the action states as a principal cause of action the operation of the local government's local coastal program and the local government prevails in the action, litigation costs may be paid to the extent the costs are not assessed against the party bringing the action.
2023 A U T H O R I T I E S I M P A C T I N G D E C I S I O N S I N T H E C O A S T A L Z O N E S 18 18 REDONDO BEACH LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM
RBMC 10-5.814
2023 19
Views from Czuleger
Park shall be protected
by ensuring that two
story buildings are not
clustered or lined up in
a manner that creates a
wall-like impact on
views from the park.
REDONDO BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
RBMC 10-5.814
20 21
“The regimes of boarding houses, fraternity houses, and the like present urban problems. More people occupy a
given space; more cars rather continuously pass by;
more cars are parked; noise travels with crowds.
A quiet place where yards are wide, people few, and
motor vehicles restricted are legitimate guidelines in a land-use project addressed to family needs. This goal is a permissible one within Berman v. Parker, supra. The
police power is not confined to elimination of filth,
stench, and unhealthy places. It is ample to lay out
zones where family values, youth values, and the
blessings of quiet seclusion and clean air make the area a sanctuary for people.”
2023 A U T H O R I T I E S I M P A C T I N G D E C I S I O N S I N T H E C O A S T A L Z O N E S 21 22 “The regimes of boarding houses, fraternity houses, and the like present urban problems. More people occupy a
given space; more cars rather continuously pass by;
more cars are parked; noise travels with crowds.
A quiet place where yards are wide, people few, and
motor vehicles restricted are legitimate guidelines in a land-use project addressed to family needs. This goal is a permissible one within Berman v. Parker, supra. The
police power is not confined to elimination of filth,
stench, and unhealthy places. It is ample to lay out
zones where family values, youth values, and the
blessings of quiet seclusion and clean air make the area a sanctuary for people.”
2023 A U T H O R I T I E S I M P A C T I N G D E C I S I O N S I N T H E C O A S T A L Z O N E S 22 U.S. SUPREME COURT
VILLAGE OF BELLE TERRE V. BORAAS, 416 U.S. 1, 9 (1974)
23 …“there is a rational relationship between the City's decision to limit to three the number of unrelated individuals who may live together as a single housekeeping unit and the legitimate governmental interests of controlling the undesirable qualities associated with “mass student congestion.”
(under Due Process Clause of the South Carolina Constitution) 2023 A U T H O R I T I E S I M P A C T I N G D E C I S I O N S I N T H E C O A S T A L Z O N E S 23
SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT
MCMASTER V. COLUMBIA BD. OF ZONING APPEALS
(2011) 395 S.C. 499
24 “When residential units exceed the
occupancy limits, there is additional traffic,
trash and noise that affect neighbors and the
possibility of unsafe living conditions for the
occupants.”
2023 A U T H O R I T I E S I M P A C T I N G D E C I S I O N S I N T H E C O A S T A L Z O N E S 24
CITY OF COLUMBIA, SC
25 2023 A U T H O R I T I E S I M P A C T I N G D E C I S I O N S I N T H E C O A S T A L Z O N E S 25 CITY OF SAN JOSE, CA –
STAFF REPORT
January 30, 2019
The Mayor directed staff to get to this goal by
updating the Downtown Zoning Districts to eliminate
parking requirements and encouraging density and
development.
...
This new use will be required to provide ample
common living space for residents, provide extensive
bicycle parking, and offer other transportation
demand management (TDM) incentives that support
this urban living option.
The power granted under the [Coastal] Act is not confined to the narrow circumspection of precedents, resting on past conditions which do not cover and control present day conditions obviously calling for revised regulations to promote the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the public . []
The imposition of parking regulations to provide adequate parking for the customers using the restaurant which the petitioner proposes to build is within the power of the State Commission and the fixing of the amount of space so required is a legislative, not a judicial, function and is to be tested solely by answering the question: is there any reasonable basis to support the legislative determination of the regulation's wisdom and necessity?
2023 A U T H O R I T I E S I M P A C T I N G D E C I S I O N S I N T H E C O A S T A L Z O N E S 26
CALIFORNIA CASE LAW
LIBERTY V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COM.
(1980) 113 CAL.APP.3D 491
The California Coastal Commission has discretion to determine adequacy of parking for development in the coastal zone.
San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition v. California Coastal Com. (2019) 253 Cal.Rptr.3d 314.
---
Imposition of parking regulations as a condition to granting application by petitioner to construct restaurant in order to provide adequate parking for customers using restaurant was within power of the coastal commission and, given need for more parking in area in fact that other restaurants had not satisfied need for parking with amount of parking area required of them, was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary and did not contravene principles of due process or equal protection.
Liberty v. California Coastal Commission (App. 4 Dist. 1980) 170 Cal.Rptr. 247, 113 Cal.App.3d 491.
2023 A U T H O R I T I E S I M P A C T I N G D E C I S I O N S I N T H E C O A S T A L Z O N E S 27
CALIFORNIA CASE LAW
The California Coastal Commission has discretion to determine adequacy of parking for development in the coastal zone.
San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition v. California Coastal Com. (2019) 253 Cal.Rptr.3d 314.
---
Imposition of parking regulations as a condition to granting application by petitioner to construct restaurant in order to provide adequate parking for customers using restaurant was within power of the coastal commission and, given need for more parking in area in fact that other restaurants had not satisfied need for parking with amount of parking area required of them, was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary and did not contravene principles of due process or equal protection.
Liberty v. California Coastal Commission (App. 4 Dist. 1980) 170 Cal.Rptr. 247, 113 Cal.App.3d 491.
2023 A U T H O R I T I E S I M P A C T I N G D E C I S I O N S I N T H E C O A S T A L Z O N E S 28
CALIFORNIA CASE LAW
Residential parking for the project was found by the Commission to be adequate. However, the Commission found provisions for commercial, off-site parking to be inadequate. The LCP calls for the creation and implementation of a parking management program. LCP policies require adequate off-street parking to serve the needs of a development.
One policy states: “Once an approved parking management program for the City providing off-street parking resources has been developed and implemented as part of the LUP, new development shall be allowed to satisfy parking requirements through participation in such a program.
If the program includes an in-lieu fee system, the new development shall provide an in-lieu fee of an amount equal to the purchase of land and construction of the number of spaces needed to serve the development's needs.”
….
Reddell v. California Coastal Com. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 956,, as modified on denial of reh'g (Dec. 29, 2009)
2023 A U T H O R I T I E S I M P A C T I N G D E C I S I O N S I N T H E C O A S T A L Z O N E S 29
CALIFORNIA CASE LAW
…
Denial of land use permits for lack of adequate parking has a long history. (Martin v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (1959) 52 Cal.2d 238, 248–249, 340 P.2d 1.) As with other Coastal Act policies, the Commission has discretion to determine adequacy of parking for development in the coastal zone. The Commission did not abuse its discretion when it found that the provisions for commercial off-site parking did not satisfy LUP and Coastal Act standards. (See, e.g., Jeffery v. City of Salinas (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 29, 37– 38, 42 Cal.Rptr. 486 [city's determination whether parking was adequate involves factual determinations and is binding on the court].) Although reasonable minds might differ as to the adequacy of the parking fee, the determination of the question falls within the broad discretion the Commission is empowered to exercise in protecting coastal resources. A decision on the compatibility of the project with the surrounding area is a subjective decision.
….
Reddell v. California Coastal Com. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 956,, as modified on denial of reh'g (Dec. 29, 2009)
2023 A U T H O R I T I E S I M P A C T I N G D E C I S I O N S I N T H E C O A S T A L Z O N E S 30
CALIFORNIA CASE LAW
…
As stated by our Supreme Court in one of the earliest cases challenging the Commission's authority, “[e]ven the most cursory examination of the Act reveals that determination of whether an applicant qualifies for a permit is entrusted to the Commission's discretion. Thus, a permit may not issue unless the Commission finds, for example, that the development will not have any substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect [citation] or irreversibly commit coastal zone resources, and that the proposed development will enhance the environment of the coastal zone [citations]. The application of these factors requires the Commission to undertake a delicate balancing of the effect of each proposed development upon the environment of the coast as a predicate to the issuance of a permit. This process is manifestly inconsistent with an assertion that the Commission's functions in this regard are purely ministerial in character.” (State of California v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 237, 247–248, 115 Cal.Rptr. 497, 524 P.2d 1281.) ….
Reddell v. California Coastal Com. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 956,, as modified on denial of reh'g (Dec. 29, 2009)
2023 A U T H O R I T I E S I M P A C T I N G D E C I S I O N S I N T H E C O A S T A L Z O N E S 31
CALIFORNIA CASE LAW
OUR TEAM
N I L S N E H R E NH E I M
M a y o r P r o Te m
Z E I N E O B AGI , J R
N o n - C o a s t a l C o u n c i l
M e m b e r
2023 A U T H O R I T I E S I M P A C T I N G D E C I S I O N S I N T H E C O A S T A L Z O N E S 32
R E D OND O P U B L I C