The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1 - Approve PC Min 2012-05-02 City of Seal Beach - Planning Commission May 2, 2012 Chair Massa-Lavitt called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 2, 2012. The meeting was held in the City Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag led by Commissioner Goldberg. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Massa-Lavitt; Commissioners: Cummings, Everson, Galbreath, Goldberg Staff Present: Greg Hastings, Interim Director of Community Development Jerry Olivera, Senior Planner Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney Anita Chapanond, Deputy City Clerk APPROVAL OF AGENDA By motion of Chair Massa-Lavitt, the agenda was approved as presented. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chair Massa-Lavitt opened oral communications. There being no speakers, Chair Massa-Lavitt declared oral communications closed. CONSENT CALENDAR Cummings moved, second by Everson, to approve the recommended action on the consent calendar. AYES: Cummings, Everson, Galbreath, Goldberg, Massa-Lavitt NOES: None Motion Carried 1. Approved Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes of March 14, 2012. 2. Approved Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 21, 2012. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR No items were removed. SCHEDULED MATTERS There were no matters for consideration at this time. Page 2 – Planning Commission 05/02/12 PUBLIC HEARING General Plan Amendment 11-1; DWP Specific Plan Amendment 11-1; 2. Zone Change 11-1; Tentative Tract Map #17425; Development Agreement. Proposed “Ocean Place” Project – DWP Specific Plan Area – 10.9 st acres located at the SW corner of 1 Street and marina Drive; APN’s 043-171-02; -172-08; -172-12; -172-13; and portions of -172-07. Applicants: Ed Selich for Bay City Partners, LLC Owners: Bay City Partners, LLC Request: For a General Plan Amendment; Specific Plan Amendment; Zone Change; Tentative Tract Map; and Development Agreement for the aforementioned property. The proposed subdivision would create a 48-lot residential development on the northerly 4.5 acres of the specific plan area and leave the remaining 6.4 acres for open space/passive recreation purposes. Recommendation: Staff recommends that after considering all relevant written and oral testimony presented during the public hearing, the Commission recommend that the City Council: (1) certify the Final EIR, and adopt the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and a statement of overriding considerations; (2) approve General Plan Amendment 11-1, Specific Plan Amendment 11-1, Zone Map Amendment 11-1 and the development agreement; and (3) approve Tentative Tract Map (“TTM”) 17425 subject to the conditions of approval and revisions as suggested by staff in this report. Interim Director Hastings delivered the staff report – provided background information regarding the former DWP property site – briefly presented applicant’s requests and explained each individual request – discussed conditions of approvals along with staff’s suggestions for revisions. Assistant City Attorney, Steven Flower, addressed public noticing issues – public notice that was circulated included a development agreement, applicant has since withdrawn development agreement application, recommended the Commission accept any public testimony on the development agreement. Page 3 - Planning Commission 05/02/12 Eddie Torres, consultant with RBF, provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) including the process and purpose. RBF further provided an overview of the conclusions of the Draft EIR: less than significant impacts, with no mitigation measures – land use and relevant planning, greenhouse gas emissions, and population and housing; less than significant impacts, with mitigation measures – biological resources, cultural resources, traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, public services and utilities; unavoidable impacts – determined to occur for aesthetics and light/glare. Alternatives listed included: no project/no build; no project/1996 DWP Specific Plan; and modified layout. RBF provided an overview of environmental comments made at the EQCB (Environmental Quality Control Board) meeting: baseline used, traffic and parking impacts, on-site hazardous materials on-site; impacts to migratory birds, and loss of open space. Chair Massa-Lavitt opened the public hearing. Ed Selich, for Bay City Partners (BCP), applicant/owner, provided a PowerPoint presentation: planning history – 1979 Coastal Conservancy Plan, 1982 Specific Plan, 1996 Specific Plan Amendment; history of previous development proposals; highlighted opportunities City had to purchase property; history of Bay City Partners acquisition; eminent domain/CEQA lawsuits; stressed major points of settlement agreement; property facts; key issues to decide – (1) residential or hotel use and (2) open space development area – conflicting specific plan boundaries; responded to community concerns that have arisen; highlighted objections to statements made in EIR concerning aesthetics; provided an alternative plan for consideration that addressed staff recommendations. Dennis O’Neill, legal counsel for Bay City Partners, provided for the record their agreement to the conditions of the tract map except for language in indemnity provision of condition 1.10, not in keeping with settlement agreement. Mr. Selich then concluded with reasons to approve the project – residential use less intrusive than hotel use, open space for $1.1M, beautifying pubic eyesore; removal of fence, avoids future litigation of regulatory undertaking, and fair compromise. Commission Questions to Applicant: Commissioner Everson: received clarification regarding lot sizes on alternative plan and street widths; inquired about why the number of lots needed to be 48 (BCP would be able to make the deal of $1.1M for open space, if they can build 48 twenty-five foot lots). Commissioner Goldberg: received clarification regarding the number of lots (the alternate plan, proposed by RBF and staff in the EIR, had varying lot widths). Commissioner Cummings: received clarification regarding the alley widths (18’ meets the criteria of Orange County Fire Authority). Commissioner Massa-Lavitt: received clarification regarding open-space. Page 4 – Planning Commission 05/02/12 Speakers: Jim Caviola, Old Town resident, had concerns with vacating public street; Carla Watson, Hill area resident, disagreed with conclusions of hotel feasibility study; Robert Ringstrom, Long Beach resident, stated concerns with traffic safety and streets; Cynthia Metzger, Old Town resident, proponent of project – opposed to public taking of private property; Libby Appelgate, DWP Specific Plan Advisory Committee member and Hill area resident, spoke about actions of the DWP committee and supports 70/30 designation; Seth Eaker, DWP Specific Plan Advisory Committee member and Old Town resident, concurred with Kosmont Companies’ (City consultant) findings regarding hotel infeasibility, spoke to being the dissenting/minority vote on the DWP committee; Gary Johnson, Old Town resident, would support residential use at 70/30 designation and had concerns regarding street and lot widths; Tim Kraushaar, Old Town resident, believes hotel use would be incompatible and believes owners will develop the land into a beautiful and beneficial property to the City; Gary Halker, Riverbeach resident, concerned with street access to the property, traffic on Marina Drive, and improvements to bike trail increasing traffic; Chris Aldinger, in favor of the City purchasing the open space property and not letting the opportunity pass; Bruce Bennett, Old Town resident, in favor of residential st use over hotel use, concerned with drainage at 1 Street and Marina Drive, in favor of project; Mary Parcell, representative of El Dorado Audubon, concerned with impacts on Los Cerritos Wetlands, need to broaden scope greater than just nesting season/area to see impacts on migratory birds; Eric Lenore, spoke on behalf of Thomas Lenore (father), Hill area resident, spoke in favor of the project (will beautify area and is economically viable) and to property rights of the owners; Marc Loopesko, Old Town resident, supports 70/30 designation of contiguous property and believes 30% area should not come from street; Nancey Kredell, DWP Specific Plan Advisory Committee member and Old Town resident, spoke in opposition to the project; and Stan Anderson, Hill area resident, favors residential project over a hotel, supports the project; Charles Antos, Old Town resident, spoke to concerns regarding CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review and inquired about statute of limitations on filing lawsuits. Commission comments and inquiries: Commissioner Galbreath: believes 18’ alley is too narrow; does not support pockets of open space as part of the overall inclusion of open space; and would like to see a concurrence between the City and the applicant regarding where the 70/30 spilt boundary is. Commissioner Everson: highlighted improvements in alternative plan presented – orientation of homes and the continuation of Central Way; concerned with lot widths; not in favor of street facing garages; and prefers variation of building sizes and volume. Commissioner Cummings: concurs with comments made by commissioners; supports variation of lot sizes; supports realignment of street; and would like to see a couple of homes on the river eliminated in order to achieve 70/30 designation. Page 5 - Planning Commission 05/02/12 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt: not in favor of counting pockets of opens space as part of the overall open space, especially if maintained by HOA (Home Owners Association); does not support public/private street combination or width of street; would like to see modification of Alley A st access from 1 Street to deter cut-through traffic; prefers variation of lot sizes – would help in varying architecture, entry points and allow view corridors; spoke to Mr. O’Neill’s comments regarding indemnity clause (not in the Planning Commission’s purview to modify that condition, and is a standard in all resolutions); and would like to see entry focal points to the subdivision. Commissioner Goldberg: believes loss of open space is underestimated; commented that the northerly 30% of developed space refers to north of Central Way; argued that 1996 Amendment did not amend map; stated that the 70/30 designation stems from the land use plan of the specific plan, not the legal description of the property; believes the environmental document utilized the incorrect map; provided comments regarding the project - thinks a compromise can be met; believes other visitor serving purposes can be developed, even if one accepts the conclusions of the hotel feasibility study (restaurant/shops); suggested that the number of homes could be reduced to 24 to achieve 70% open space, and provided other combinations that could be achieved based on his calculations; opposed to eyesore of fence; and does not want to compromise on 70/30 open space designation. Moved by Everson, second by Galbreath, to continue the item and the public hearing to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on May 16, 2012. AYES: Cummings, Everson, Galbreath, Goldberg, Massa-Lavitt NOES: None Motion Carried DIRECTOR’S REPORT Interim Director Hastings provided notification regarding the cancellation of the AdHoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee meeting of May 8, 2012; announced that the Housing Element approved by the City Council has been submitted to the State HCD (Housing and Community Development) and an acceptance is expected in mid-July. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Cummings inquired about a status update regarding the Marina Park Expansion Project grant (the City did not receive any grant monies from the State regarding this project). Page 6 – Planning Commission 05/02/12 ADJOURNMENT At 10:50 p.m. Chair Massa-Lavitt adjourned the meeting and continued the Planning Commission public hearing to Wednesday, May 16, 2012 to meet at 7:30 p.m., there was no objection. Deputy City Clerk Approved: Chair Attest: Deputy City Clerk NOTICE: The following document has not been approved for accuracy and may be corrected, modified or amended before final approval. Because it is being made available prior to final action, it should not be considered a true record of the meeting. It is not the official Minutes of the Planning Commission and cannot be relied on or used as an official record of the proceedings. Although the City of Seal Beach makes every effort to see that proper notes are taken at a meeting, and although draft Minutes are generally approved as submitted, changes and corrections are sometimes made before a final version is approved. The City therefore makes no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the contents of this document. Once Official Minutes have been pproved, a copy can be obtained from the City Clerk. a