Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 1981-09-28 #P • , September 22, 1981 (;� ,. . MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Allen J. Parker, City Manager SUBJECT: Department of Water and Power 9 Acre Parcel Update The following represents the status of negotiations with all parties relative to the Department of Water and Power (DWP) site. Department of Water and Power. On September 4, 1981, the City was formally notified by the DWP that the Department would only make the property available under a long- term ground lease, and that the lessee would be selected through a competitive bid process. In effect, the City no longer had an exclusive right to purchase and/or lease the property. Since that time, I have been informed by the DWP that it still desires City involvement in the negotiations with proposed developer(s) . My assumption is that any final contract will be a three (3)-party agreement which will include the City, the DWP and the developer. Potential Developers. At the present time, seven potential developers are still interested in pursuing projects: three desiring to build a hotel on the site, three desiring a residential development ranging in size from twenty (20) luxury condos to 135 affordable condos, and one desiring to build an office complex. Each of these developers are willing to "front" the current appraisal price of $3 million should the Community Redevelopment Agency wish to acquire the property via condemnation. Coastal Commission Staff Position. In view of the fact that no developer has been found willing to build the project according to the concept plan - 14 to 22 luxury condos on top of visitor-serving commercial - City staff met with Coastal staff on September 21st to determine types of development that would be permissible. We were informed of the following: 1. Their preference is for visitor-serving commercial . The concept plan, which included condos, was acceptable only because it included commercial uses. 2. A residential-only development will not be looked upon favorably. There must be a substantial visitor-serving commercial element to the development. 3. In the event visitor-serving commercial cannot be developed, the Commission has been known to not allow any development to take place in the hopes that a commercial use will be found in the future. 4. The 70% public open space, 30% private development division of the land is still a mandate. City Staff Conclusions. First, it appears that the concept plan as conceived by the citizens of Seal Beach is no longer valid except for the 70/30 division of land. As stated previously, no developer has been found willing to build the project according to the concept plan. Second, of the proposals submitted thus far, only a hotel development would be accep- table to the Coastal Commission. The question then becomes: is a hotel acceptable to the City Council and those citizens involved in the concept plan? If the answer is "yes," then negotiations can continue immediately with the DWP and prospective hotel developers. However, if the answer is "no," then it is my opinion that we are back to square one. . .the parcel must be replanned to reflect a visitor-serving commercial development that is acceptable to all parties concerned and one that a developer will build. Furthermore, we would stand a very good chance of losing the $450,000 County park grant owing to additional but necessary delays. Therefore, it is critical that the issue of hotel vs no hotel be resolved. Respectfully submitted, Allearker - AJ"'ci AGENDA ITEM #P. .t` kr • • _.. _ __ __ _ ... _ __.. . ..._ . . __ _________ . _. : - • _ . . . . .. __ _____ __.______ _ . . __ _ . .. ___ ______ ,- 4 . . _ _____._. -- '� - - the S'c u Gabriel - 'aci Pacific Park/t Society '`� Sal <'c1C/1,C. aii on'ia 213-596-2579 Seal Beach City Council, Honorable Members: We greatly appreciate Mr. Parker's report on the DWP parcel update to the City Council, however it seems to us that we are limiting our options solely because of what one staff member, who is not the executive director of the Coastal Commission and who is not a member of the Commission Board has said. What this staff person has said leaves no room for optional concepts other than the Hotel developers. A proposal which includes housing can still have substantial visitor-serving commercial. The previous proposals have had public service, and residential uses and were acceptable to the State Coastal Commission Board. • When the State Coastal Commission granted permission to the City to expand the number of condo miniums from 14 to 22 there was still some confusion over the foot-print of the housing area. Consequently the Seal Beach city staff along with the Coastal Conservancy and the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission at a meeting in San Francisco obtained further ' flexibility, which some developers requested, that would allow the condos to be placed all or a portion of them on the ground. One of the attractive concepts presented, we understand, was that if the shops were necessary in the plan, they be part of the upper galleria of •the culture center. This would allow housing to be placed in a way that would maximize views and enhance their sales value. More revenue would then be generated in the 3C portion. Further revised wording of the Coastal Commission findings were agreed to at that meeting which stated that; "condos shall be located in such a way so as to minimize their number if feasable, and their impact on the site so as not to pre empt visitor services along the river bank". The City Council has therefore further options with visitor-serving commercial (such as restaurants and or cultural space) and residential, May we suggest time-share condos that are likely to use less land and have less impact than a hotel, and provide a sounder discal future for the City. We therefore suggest this Council hear proposals from the three hotels, three residential developers and the office complex builder, setting time for their presentations as quickly as possbile, and advising the general public of this-date. Thank you 7i6"�i .7� Hoard of Directors, • ir • &i.A :':0 edei,ek.