Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1 - Approve PC Min 2012-06-06 , City of Seal Beach - Planning Commission June 6, 2012 Chair Massa-Lavitt called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 6, 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 (Commissioner Cummings arrived at 7:47 p.m.) Staff Present: Greg Hastings, Interim Director of Community Development Jerry Olivera, Senior Planner Michael Ho, City Engineer Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney Anita Chapanond, Deputy City Clerk APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion by Galbreath, second by Everson, to approve the agenda as presented. AYES: Everson, Galbreath, Goldberg, Massa-Lavitt NOES: None ABSENT: Cummings Motion Carried ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chair Massa-Lavitt opened oral communications. Carla Watson, Hill area resident, asked for clarification about speaking during oral communications. There being no other speakers, Chair Massa-Lavitt declared oral communications closed. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Galbreath, second by Everson, to approve the recommended action on the consent calendar. AYES: Everson, Galbreath, Goldberg, Massa-Lavitt NOES: None ABSENT: Cummings Motion Carried 1. Approved Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 2, 2012. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR No items were removed. Page 2 — Planning Commission 06/06/12 SCHEDULED MATTERS There were no matters for consideration at this time. PUBLIC HEARING 2. General Plan Amendment 11-1; DWP Specific Plan Amendment 11-1; Zone Change 11-1; Tentative Tract Map #17425; Development Agreement. Proposed "Ocean Place" Project — DWP Specific Plan Area — 10.9 acres located at the SW corner of 1st 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; (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 the report. Interim Director Hastings delivered the staff report — indicated the item was continued from the May 2, 2012 public hearing — staff and consultants have analyzed the revised tentative tract map — briefly presented applicant's requests and explained each individual request — spoke to Commission's concerns from previous meeting — staff has provided recommendations and concerns regarding the revised tentative tract map — outlined the presentations from staff and consultants that would be given. Page 3 - Planning Commission 06/06/12 City Engineer gave a presentation regarding the property boundary and ratio of open space to development: Figure 1 "Legal Boundary" — northerly right-of-way line of the Central Way prolongation as divider — derived from 1982 specific plan — used as baseline — 10.70 total acres — open space is 7.08 acres (67%) and visitor serving area is 3.62 acres (33%); Figure 2 "Legal Boundary" — staff's calculations and boundary adjustments to achieve 70/30 designation — open space is 7.49 acres (70%) and visitor serving is 3.21 acres (30%) — 70/30 boundary split is 42 feet horizontally from the northerly right-of-way line of the Central Way prolongation; Figure 3 "Project Boundary" — county assessor's parcel map from 1969 — 10.87 total acres — open space is 7.25 acres (67%) and visitor serving is 3.62 acres (33%); Figure 4 "Project Boundary" — staff's calculations and boundary adjustments to achieve 70/30 designation - open space is 7.61 acres (70%) and visitor serving is 3.26 acres (30%) — 70/30 boundary split is 38 feet horizontally from northerly right-of-way line of the Central Way prolongation; Figure 5 "Project Boundary — Stippled Area" — open space is 8.43 acres (78%). Assistant City Attorney stated for the record that Commissioner Cummings had arrived for the meeting. The City Engineer continued with his presentation: Figure 5 — visitor serving area is 2.44 acres (22%) — the stippled area of the map does not reflect an accurate 70/30 designation; Figure 6 "Proposed Tract 17425 — open space is 6.4 acres (59%) and visitor serving is 4.5 acres (41%); recapped that legal boundary is 10.70 acres, project boundary is 10.87 acres, and proposed tract map is 10.80 acres. (PowerPoint presentation is available on the City's website at www.sealbeachca.gov) Commission Questions and Comments: • Commissioner Goldberg: received clarification regarding the proper denominator for calculating designation of open space to visitor serving (Assistant City Attorney opined that the legal boundary would be most appropriate with the actual legal description). • Commissioner Massa-Lavitt: received clarification that 1st Street is a public right-of-way; inquired about additional 0.10 acre in proposed tract map (lot line adjustments included in applicant's request). Larry Kosmont, with consulting firm Kosmont Companies, presented the conclusions and findings of their Hotel Feasibility Study — evaluated potential for hotel based on various scenarios — not economically feasible for "ground-up" new hotel construction - lenders are looking for 40-50% equity with preferred financing methods such as a return on transient occupancy tax — based on analysis, would not be able to support financing a construction loan under economically viable terms. Page 4 — Planning Commission 06/06/12 Commission Questions and Comments: • Commissioner Goldberg: received clarification regarding using a 10 year model, rather than a 5 year term for a new hotel (10 year justification because slow market to achieve average daily rate); questioned the alternative of condominium/hotel being financially feasible (potential to raise equity through sale of the rooms, but amenity driven, highly speculative market, dependent on operator). • Commissioner Everson: questioned whether boutique hotel more feasible and if hotel could have been built within the last 30 years (likely to demand higher room rate, however more difficult for owner/operator to raise capital; it would have been possible to be built within the context that lenders took a majority of the risk, but that context would most likely lead to foreclosure as seen in current economic situation). Eddie Torres, consultant with RBF, provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding an overview of the findings of the environmental effects of the revised site plan: background information regarding circulation of Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report; highlighted similarities and differences between Draft EIR project and revised project; areas where impacts are reduced from Draft EIR project - aesthetics/light and glare; areas requiring modification to mitigation measures - traffic/transportation — no new impacts, modifies two mitigation measures. (PowerPoint presentation is available on the City's website at www.sealbeachca.gov) Commission Questions and Comments: • Commissioner Everson: received clarification regarding light and glare having no mitigation measures (there are no significant impacts that require mitigation measures aside from short-term construction). • Commissioner Goldberg: questioned inconsistencies regarding acres of open space lost when going from hotel/visitor serving to residential use (1.1 acres can be clarified in a memorandum attached to the EIR). Ed Selich, for Bay City Partners (BCP), applicant/owner, provided a PowerPoint presentation addressing Commission's and staff's concerns: public to private street transition, on-street parking, alley width, lot width variation, reducing lots along river, lots facing Marina Drive, vehicular entry points, design of lots #9-10, trash containers for lots #9-11, garage dominated, lot width, temporary landscaping, and conditions of approval. Commission Questions and Comments to Applicant: • Commissioner Cummings: questioned why the development agreement was withdrawn for consideration (objected to indemnification language). • Commissioner Everson: received clarification regarding setbacks for lots along river, concerned with wall being too tall along the river, stated concerns regarding drainage plan and grading. Page 5 - Planning Commission 06/06/12 Trevor Dodson, Fuscoe Engineering on behalf of applicant, highlighted over the drainage plan for the proposed development area — clarified which areas are bio swales, detention basins, landscaping — discussed strategy behind drainage flow and ability to treat water onsite. Commission Questions and Comments to Applicant (continued): • Commissioner Goldberg: received clarification regarding 45 on-street parking spaces (derived by applicant's traffic engineer); ability to control architectural features to soften streetscape (can be controlled through architectural standards that go along with the sale of the lots). • Commissioner Massa-Lavitt: concerned with alley opening to Marina (not advisable, but can be done); questioned using maintenance district for streets - Mello-Roos assessed from the first day and lots would be vacant during development phase (Mello Roos community facilities district is the most common way of assessing); suggested either all public or all private streets; commented on varying lot and home sizes — more homogenous with Old Town; stated that focal points are important to a subdivision; main concern is to reduce the number of lots and vary them. Speakers: William Hallpin, Old Town resident, opposed to project and concerned with public street vacation and state lands; Helen Sebring, Hill area resident, spoke to protecting the property, supports varying lot sizes and architecture, opposes project as is; Ray Fortner, Old Town resident, supports the project, believes it to be a reasonable plan and vacant area will become an extension of Old Town; Robert Ringstrom, Long Beach resident, commented on leniency in interpreting the 70/30 designation; Barbara Wright, Hill area resident and former DWP Advisory Committee member, provided background information as to intentions of 70/30 designation with a small hotel use, believes specific plan should stand as adopted in 1996; Louise, Seal Beach resident, concerned with property being a degraded estuary and environmental impacts, opposed to project; Wendi Rothman, Old Town resident, supports the 70/30 designation, should not change zoning, and is opposed to the project; Carla Watson, Hill area resident, spoke to concerns of open space and zone change; Karen Mikkelsen, Hill area resident, supports existing zoning and had concerns regarding parking; Elizabeth Kane, Old Town resident, supports 70/30 designation; Jane McCloud, Hill area resident, does not support zone change, had concerns regarding impacts of the project; Mike Buhbe, Old Town resident, opposed to certification of Environmental Impact Report; Elaine Layne, Bridgeport resident, opposed to zone change; Jim Caviola, Old Town resident, concerned with vacation of public road and open space being in the river; Nancey Kredell, Old Town resident, supports small boutique hotel; Audrey Hauth, Hill area resident, opposed to project and the number of homes being proposed; Brian Kyle, Old Town resident and Bay City Partners, provided history of proposed projects and attempts to attract hotel developers, commented that 70/30 designation was implemented with City's intention to purchase open space. There being no other speakers, Chair Massa-Lavitt closed the public hearing. Page 6 — Planning Commission 06/06/12 Applicant's Rebuttal: Mr. Selich commented that Coastal Commission took a position against condominium-hotel projects. Motion by Cummings, second by Everson, to continue discussion of the item through the remainder of tonight's meeting. AYES: Cummings, Everson, Galbreath, Goldberg, Massa-Lavitt NOES: None Motion Carried Commission Questions and Comments: • Commissioner Cummings: stated that in addition to the comments made by the public, the Commission also received many e-mails in favor of the project. The Commission began discussion on each of the sub-items in the request. Final Environmental Impact Report Discussion: Commissioner Goldberg — concerned that EQCB did not approve; Commissioner Cummings — believed EIR is exhaustive and adequate; Commissioner Everson — commented that CEQA requirements have been met; Commissioner Galbreath — reiterated approval; Commissioner Massa-Lavitt — EIR is adequate in reviewing impacts regardless of feelings toward project itself. Motion by Everson, second by Cummings, to vote on each sub-item separately. AYES: Cummings, Everson, Galbreath, Goldberg, Massa-Lavitt NOES: None Motion Carried Motion by Cummings, second by Goldberg, recommending to the City Council certification of the Final EIR with the inclusion of the clarifying memorandum pertaining to varying figures used to describe reduction in open space. AYES: Cummings, Everson, Galbreath, Goldberg, Massa-Lavitt NOES: None Motion Carried General Plan Amendment 11-1 The Assistant City Attorney stated that fundamentally, this would amend land use and allow a residential use, not specifically for this project. Discussion: Commissioner Goldberg — presented graduated table of visitor serving to residential use; Commissioner Galbreath — concerned with high density and applicant not heeding Commission's suggestions; Commissioner Everson — voiced confidence regarding conclusions of Kosmont's study - in favor of changing land use; Commissioner Cummings — voiced agreement in changing land use; Commissioner Massa-Lavitt — argued that hotel would not be built Page 7 - Planning Commission 06/06/12 there, northerly part of property needs to be developed to acquire open space, in favor of changing land use. Motion by Everson, second by Cummings, recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 11-1. AYES: Cummings, Everson, Massa-Lavitt NOES: Galbreath, Goldberg Motion Carried Specific Plan Amendment 11-1 & Zone Map Amendment 11-1 Discussion: Commissioner Goldberg — stated concerns regarding street vacation; Commissioner Everson — questioned the role and relevance of the DWP Advisory Committee in the future with respect to the property if amendment is approved (at the discretion of the City Council) — prefer fronts of lots to face open space when possible — received clarification regarding parking requirements for open space (zoning code does not require a specific amount); Commissioner Goldberg — concerned with architectural features and received clarification regarding development standards for RHD-20. Motion by Everson, second by Goldberg, recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan Amendment 11-1 with modification (front of lots face open space when possible) and Zone Map Amendment 11-1. AYES: Cummings, Everson, Galbreath, Goldberg, Massa-Lavitt NOES: None Motion Carried Tentative Tract Map 17425 (revised) Discussion: Commissioner Goldberg — concerned with narrow lots — recommend 50' lots along the river to echo Gold Coast; Commissioner Cummings — stated that buyer could purchase multiple 25' lots and subdivide to achieve 50' or 37.5' wide lots; Commissioner Everson — remarked that development pattern in the future may not be conducive to combine and divide lots since height limit imposed; Commissioner Galbreath — prefers wider lots and varying them - reiterated concerns with alley width (City Engineer responded OCFA would not need to come down Alley "E" or "C" Street as they can suppress fires from alternate position; stated there are maintenance areas that the City will not maintain like the bio swale, landscaping; commented on the processes regarding lot line adjustments, flood control easements, street vacation) — opposed to section of San Gabriel River being included in 70/30 designation. Motion by Everson, second by Cummings, to continue the meeting past 11:59 p.m., if necessary. AYES: Cummings, Everson, Galbreath, Goldberg, Massa-Lavitt NOES: None Motion Carried Page 8 — Planning Commission 06/06/12 Discussion (continued): Commissioner Everson presented the Commission and staff with a list of additional "Recommendations for Approval." Commission considered each recommendation and came to the following consensus regarding modifications to be made to the tentative tract map: • The extended centerline of Central Way shall mark the boundary of public open space/private residential use. The area designated as Lot 48 shall be part of the public open space. With more than 50% of the lot area located to the north of the centerline of Central Way, Lot 47 may remain as part of the residential land use area. • A minimum of two public walkway access routes or easements shall be required through Lot Row 36-48 to allow pedestrian access to the bike path/ river walk from "A" Street. One access point shall be located at the intersection of "A" Street and "C" Street, and one access point shall be located at the intersection of"A" Street and Alley "D." • The Lot widths of Lot Row 36-48 shall be increased to approximately 50 feet. • All Streets, Alleys, and sidewalks shall be Public, not Private. • Alley "E" shall be extended North to Marina Drive, if feasible. • If Lots 36-48 are not widened, the river-facing side (West facing) of lots in Lot Row 36-48 shall be the "Front Yard." The "A" Street facing side (East facing) shall be designated as "Rear Yard." • Revise the garage locations of Lot Row 18-24 (on sheet C.3) so the garage is accessed from Alley 'D.' • If Lots 36-48 are not widened, there shall be a designated public walkway and planted area between the San Gabriel River bike path / river walk and the front yards off the river facing lots. The walkway shall provide direct pedestrian access to all lots along the river. A cross section for this public/private land relationship shall be provided. (See recommendations 18 and 19 regarding lot drainage and building pad.) • Lots 1, 9, 24, and 35 shall be increased in width to incorporate the Land Areas "F", "G", "H" and "J" as part of their lot boundaries if this would not interfere with the drainage program. • Consider revising the building pad elevation heights for Lot Row 36-48 (sheet C.3) to a maximum of 2'-0" above natural grade at the West (river facing) side of the lots, if possible. • Consider revising the drainage pattern on Lot Row 36-48 to drain toward the San Gabriel River, and provide a planted area/drainage swale between the existing bike trail and the west facing project line. • Consider lowering the building pad heights of the Lot Rows 1-8 and 9-17 (as they relate to 1st Street and Marina Drive). • Approximately 50% of Lots 1-35 shall be at least 37.5' wide. Motion by Cummings, second by Everson, recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 17425 subject to the Conditions and Revisions, and the additional recommendations as consented. Page 9 - Planning Commission 06/06/12 AYES: Cummings, Everson, Galbreath, Goldberg, Massa-Lavitt NOES: None Motion Carried Motion by Everson, second by Cummings, approving Resolution No. 12-9 recommending that the City Council: (1) certify the Final EIR subject to clarification that the Project includes conversion of 1.1 acres of open space to residential use, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; (2) approve General Plan Amendment 11-1, Zone Map Amendment 11-1, and Specific Plan Amendment 11-1 subject to amendment of Section B.9 of the Draft Specific Plan to include a statement that the front of lots should face open space or parks if possible, and (3) approve TTM 17425 subject to the Conditions and Revisions, and the additional recommendations as approved by the Commission. AYES: Cummings, Everson, Galbreath, Massa-Lavitt NOES: Goldberg Motion Carried DIRECTOR'S REPORT Interim Director Hastings noted that AB1234 ethics training will occur at the June 20th Planning Commission meeting, and that the Planning Commission meeting of July 4th will be cancelled. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Galbreath commented he will not be present at the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on June 20, 2012. ADJOURNMENT At 1:15 a.m. on June 7, 2012, Chair Massa-Lavitt adjourned the meeting. 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 approved,a copy can be obtained from the City Clerk.