Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1995-12-06 i . I T"-' CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION ~ AGENDA of DECEMBER 6,1995 7:30 P.M. · City Council Chambers 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA Next Resolution: #95-25 I. fLEJ)GE OF ALLEGIANCE n. lWLL..!:;ALL m. APPROVAL 9F AGENQA By Motion of the Planning Commission, this is the time to: . (a) Notify the public of any changes to the agenda; (b) Rearrange the order of the agenda; and/or (c) Provide an opportunity for any member of the Planning Commission, staff, or public to request an item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. IV. O~COMMUNJCATWNS At this time, members of the public may address the Planning Commission regarding any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning commission, provided that NO action or discussion may be undertaken by the Planning Commission unless otherwise authorized by law. V. CONSENT C~Al\ Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by one motion unless prior to enactment, a member of the Planning commission, staff or the public requests that a specific item be removed from Consent Calendar for separate action. 1. Approve Planning Commission Minutes of November 8, 1995. . -e . . 2. Minor Plan Review 95-6 Address: Applicants: Property Owner: Request: 53/54 Riversea Road William and Kathy Susa Bill Dawson/Seal Beach Partners, Ltd. Architectural Review for a two-story cabana, an addition of a 1,160 square foot second story and a 237 square foot garage to an existing mobilehome. Recommendation: Approve MPR 95-1 Subject to Conditions and Adopt Resolution No. 95-_. 3. Receive and File: City Letter re: Final Operable Unit-4 Site Inspection Report, Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station 4. Receive and File: City Letter re: Federal Consistency Determination CD 90-95. Local Coastal Program Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach, Plan Amendments No. 8 and 15; and Bo/sa Chica Land Use Plan Amendment 1-95 ana Implementing Actions Program. 5. Receive and File: Staff Report to City Council, dated November 27, 1995, re: Receipt of Response to Comments re: Droft EIR - Huntington Beach General Plan Update. 6. Receive and File: Staff Report to City Council, dated November 27, 1995, re Notice of Intent to Prepare EIS - Disposal and ReuSe of Long Beach Naval Station. The City of Seal Beach compliea with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. If you need assistance to attend this meeting, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (310) 431-2527 at least 48 hours in advance of this meeting. -- . . i' .... 3 - CilJ '" SooI _1'IoaIIiq C<lmmiuiaG . "'_ of December 6. 1995 VI. I!I1BLIc..HEARINGS 7. Zoni~g Text Amendment 95-1 [Continued from 11-8-95] Applicant: Request: City of Seal Beach To establish City-wide standards for the temporary display of advertising banners in commercial/industrial zones. The proposed regulations would establish a permitting process and set maximum time and size limits for the display of temporary banners. Recommendation: Recommend to City Council approval of Zoning Text Amendment 95-1 Subject to Additional provisions as determined appropriate and Adopt Resolution No, 95-_. , 8. Negative Declaration 95-5 Department of Water and Power Specific Plan - Revision 95-1 Property Owner: Request: Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Adopt Negative Declaration 95-5, and approve any amendments to the DWP Specific Plan determined appropriate. Recommendation: Recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 95-5 and Approve Resolution No. 95- Approve any amendments to the DWP Specific Plan determined appropriate and Adopt Resolution No. 95-_, VII. STAFF CO~ vm. COMMISSION CONCERNS 9. Receive and File: Staff Status Memo re 1733 Crestview Dr.lDeck . The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. If you need assistance to attend this meeting, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (310) 431-2527 at least 48 hours in advance of this meeting. . . . .... 4 - Cifr '" SooI -l'Ioaaioc CaauaiuiaG . Aa- of Dooombcr 6, 1995 IX. ~ The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. If you need assistance to attend this meeting, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (310) 431-2527 at least 48 hours in advance of this meeting. i;" .... 5 - Cifr at SooI _ l'Ioaaioc Cammiui... . A...... of Dooombcr 6, 1995 . DEC 20 122!i: JAN 03 JAN 17 FED en FED 21 MAR 06 MAR 20 APR 03 APR 17 MAY 08 MAY 22 JUN 05 . JUN 19 JUL 03 JUL 17 AUG 07 AUG 21 SEP 04 SEP 18 OCT 09 OCT 23 NOV 06 NOV 20 DEC 04 DECl8 1995 AGENDA FORECAST . Code Enforcement Mechanism [Tentative] . Main St. Specific Plan [Tentative] . CUP 94-8/327 MainlNip 'n Stuff @ 6 mos. . CUP 95-111013 PCH/Pietro's 12 mos. hours. . CUP 92-1/909 Ocean/EI Burrito 12 mos, ABC . CUP 94-1/600 MarinalRadisson 12 mos. ABC . CUP 94-8/327 MainlNip 'n Stuff 6 mos, 2nd review . The City of Sell'l Beach complies witli the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. If you need assistance to attend this meeting, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (310) 431-2527 at least 48 hours in advance of this meeting. .'- CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES of DECEMBER 6,1995 The City of Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular session at 7:34 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. BOLL CALL Present: Chairperson Campbell Commissioners Sharp, Law, Dahlman, Brown Also Present: Deoartment of Develqpment Services Lee Whittenberg, Director Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary . AGENDA APPROVAL . Director Whittenberg indicated Leonard Wilson, Rossmoor Center's Marketing Director, requested continuation of Zoning Text Amendment 95-1 to the first Planning Commission meeting in January to allow him more time to interface with the merchants in Rossmoor Center [FAX attached], Staff concurred, The Commission requested Agenda items I, 2, 5 and 6 be extracted for separate consideration. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Sharp to approve the Agenda with items I, 2, 5 and .. extracted for separate consideration. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Dahlman, Sharp, Law, CampbeU, Brown There were no persons wanting to speak, . . 4t .....1. CiIf '" SooI _ I'IoIIa/Ir8 ............. _ '" Ilocembor 6, t995 MOTION by ))Ahlman; SECOND by Brown to approve tbe Consent Calendar: MOTION CARRIED: AYFJ;: 5-0-0 Dahlman, Sharp, Law, CampbeU, Brown 3. Receive and File: City Letter re Finol Operable Unit-4 Site Inspection Report Seal Beach Naval Weapons Stotion 4. ReceIve and File: City Letter re Fedeml Consistency DetennintJlion CD 90-95 Local CoasttJl Progran, Port of Los Angeles Plan Amendments No.8 and 15 Bo/sa Chica Lond Use Plan Ametulme1ll1-95 and Implementing Actions ProglTllll. The Planning Commission next considered the items pulled from the Consent Calendar: 1. Approve Planning Commission Minutes of November 8, 1995. Commissioner Brown said that at the November 8, 1995 Planning Commission meeting Jim Caviola spoke at Oral Communications. Commissioner Brown felt the Minutes as presented did not reflect all of Mr. Caviola's statements. Commissioner Brown said Mr. Caviola directly contradicted one of the City employees and actually produced a photograph which seemed to contradict what the City employee was saying. He felt this was an important part of the testimony and he requested the secretary put this in those Minutes. Commissioner Law indicated Mr. Caviola had produced an undated picture which was really a real estate advertisement. Commissioner Brown said Mr. Caviola didn't speak about his feelings about trees, he had some very pointed and direct comments about previous comments that a City employee made. "And I think in fact, you can check the tapes, I believe he called him a liar, And that type of thing, I think should be in the Minutes". The Chairperson asked if Commissioner Brown wished to have a verbatim transcript of Mr. Caviola's comments entered into the Minutes, '! Commissioner Brown said he wanted the following sentences added: . . . .... 3 - Cifr <lSool _........ CamlliuiaG _., _ 6, 1995 Mr. Caviola produced a photograph dull he claimed directly contradicted the statements of Bob Eagle and took issue with Mr. Eagle's statements and felt that they were untrue. Director Whittenberg advised the Commission the Minutes of the meeting are the Minutes as this body, as a group, feels they should. be approved. If, as a group, the Commission feels there needs to be additional clarification to that discussion staff would be happy to provide that as a correction to the Minutes. Commissioner Brown said he was suggesting the verbiage as' a fair extra sentence. Commissioner Sharp said he had no objection to clarifying the Minutes. Commissioner Dahlman said he would support the addition of the sentences. Commissioner Law felt a "mountain was being mode of a molehill" but Chairperson Campbell said sometimes the mountains have a way of coming back and getting in the path and she agreed with adding the additional sentences to be on the safe side. Staff will correct the Minutes. Chairperson Campbell advised that Leonard Wilson is the Marketing Director for Rossmoor Center, not the Parking Director; the Minutes will be corrected, MOTION by Dahhnan; SECOND by Sharp to approve the Minutes of November 8, 1995 as corrected. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Dahlman, Sharp, Law, Campbell, Brown ... 2. Minor Plan Review 95-6 Address: Applicants: Property Owner: 53/54 Rlversea Road William and Kathy Susa B I II D a w son / Sea I Be a,c h Partners, Ud. Approval for a two-story cabana, an addition of a 1,160 square foot second story and a 237 square foot garage to an existing mobilehome. Request: Commissioner Dahlman asked staff for information on tax considerations of mobilehomes, specifically if this mobilehome would be considered as personal property or real property for tax purposes. Staff will research the taxing structure and report back to the Commission. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Sharp to approve Resolution No. 95-25, thus approving Minor Plan Review 95-6 with all conditions recommended by staff. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Dahlman, Sharp, Law, Campbell, Brown . . . ......-CilJ"'SooI_l'Ioaaioc" . ....Miooia"'_6.1995 Mr. Steele advised that with the adoption of the resolution the Planning Commission's action is fina1 and the appeal period will begin running for ten calendar days beginning tomorrow. ... 5. Receive and Yale: Staff Report to City Council, dated November 17, 1995, re: Receipt of Response to Comment. re: Drqft BIR - Huntington Beaeh General Plan UpdoJe. Commissioner Dahlman asked staff for clarification on this item. Director Whittenberg explained this document comments on a proposed update to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. It proposes a substantial increase in the future potential for new residential, commercial and industrial development throughout the City of Huntington Beach. The City of Seal Beach commented on the proposed intensification, saying the proposals may not be in conformance with regional planrrlng guidelines set forth by SCAG. The City of Seal Beach suggested the City of Huntington Beach should try to keep their growth projections in line with the current regional projections. The Huntington Beach response was that the regional projections will be changed based on their proposed.increase, This is not an unusual situation in Southern California. Commissioner Dahlman felt the City of Huntington Beach's response was terse, ... 6. Receive and File: Staff Report to City Council, dated November 17, 1995, re Notice of Intent to Prepore BIS - DiBpoBal and ReUle 0/ Long Beach Naval SItJIion. Commissioner Dahlman asked if an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be forthcoming from the City of Long Beach? Director Whittenberg said no, it would be an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), An EIS is a Federal document prepared by the Army Corps of Engineers. This document will be prepared and distributed for public review and comment in the future; he did not know the schedule, When the City of Seal Beach receives the full document it will be reviewed by staff. Staff will prepare proposed sets of comments for review by the City's Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) and the City Council. These comments will be submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers as they consider what to do or not to do with the Long Beach Naval Station. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by taw to Receive and File Agenda Items #5 and #6. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Dahhnan, Sharp, Law, Campbell, Brown .. . . PlIo 5 - Cifr <l SooI -1'IIoDioI CaIImlI............ at_ 6, 1995 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. Zoning Text Amendment 95-1 [Continued from 11-8-'5] Applicant: City of Seal Beach Request: To establlsb City-wide standards for tbe temporary display of advertising banners in commerclaVindustrlal zones. The proposed regulations would establish a permitting process and set mJIYimwn time and size Omits for the display of temporary banners. Chairperson Campbell indicated this item has been continued to the Commission meeting of January 3, 1996. ... I. DWP Specific Plan - Proposed Revisions Property Owner: City of Los Angeles, Department of Water & Power. Staff Rc;port Director Whittenberg presented the staff report, [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. He indicated tonight's Public Hearing is to consider two actions: 1. AdOJIt Nel!ative Declaration 95-5 rel!ardinl! the DI"QJlO....l amendments to the DWP SpPcific Plan. Adopting this Negative Declaration would indicate the amendments to the proposed DWP Specific Plan would not adversely impact the environment. 2. Consider J'f't'.ommendinl!' to the CiIJl Council amendments to the current provisions of the DWP Specific Plan. The DWP Specific Plan was initially adopted in 1984 and the provisions of that Plan have not changed. Between 1989 and 1995, the City has been working with the DWP to prepare a Request for Proposals (RFP), seeking developer proposals for construction of a project on the site. Economic issues and personnel changes have governed a number of stops and starts in the process. In early 1995 there was a document which had been reviewed by both City Attorney Offices and everyone felt comfortable in forwarding that document to the City of Seal Beach City Council, the Los Angeles City Council, the Los Angeles City Mayor's Office and the DWP's Board of Directors for approval and authorization to circulate the document for developer proposals. When that document was submitted to the City of Seal Beach's Redevelopment Agency (our City Council), the Council felt the provisions of the Specific Plan should be revisited due to the length of time since initial adoption. The Council was concerned there might be changed community concerns which should be reflected in the Plan prior to it's . . . ....6-ClIJ<l__l'IIIIIIiIIIln '......_<l~6. t995 going out for review to developers. The Agency instructed Planning Department staff to have the DWP Specific Plan Advisory Committee, which has existed since 1984, review the document and recommend any amendments they felt appropriate. They held three meetings and their recommendations were forwarded to the .City Council. The Council determined it would be advisable to hold Public Hearings to consider whether or not to amend the Specific Plan in accordance with recommendations from the DWP Specific Plan Advisory Committee. The City of Seal Beach's DWP Specific Plan A4visory Committee is recommending revisions to the existing Department of Water and Power Specific Pltm as follows: 1. Delete "theater" from the existing "Open Space Uses Defmed" language; 2. Reduce the maximum number of permi~ hotel rooms from 300 to 150; 3. Delete the clause which allows a greater number of rooms "upon City Council authorization", under subsection "b.", ~; 4. Combine "RlInQuet Room (Required)" and "Meetinll/Conference Rooms" under subsection "b.", 1k!1lll, specifying the total capacity of these facilities at 175 persons; 5, Amend "BUILDING HEIGHT, Open Space", to read: The maximum height of a structure shall not exceed fifteen (15') feet,' 6. Include the following clause at the end of Section 7.b., to read in its entirety: Subterranean parking is specifically authorized, subject to approval of security measures by the Seal Beach Police Department; 7. Amend the compact car parking provisions to read: Up to 30% compact parking is specifically authorized, or the standard City requirement as set forth in the Zoning Code. if greater than 30%; 8. Require that valet parking be restricted to "On Site",' 9. Delete the provision allowing for the credit of parking spaces in the First Street parking lot, under subsection "7.b.", ~. Mr. Whittenberg said the three most substantial recommended changes are: (I) Reducing the maximum number of hotel rooms from 300 to 150 for the hotel; (2) Combining the banquet and meeting facilities to accommodate 175 persons; (3) Deleting the crediting of required hotel parking to be met by counting some of the parking spaces in the existing First Street beach parking lot. . . . .....7-CilY<l__PIoooiarC . ',._afDoccmbcr6,t995 He noted that none of the public parking could be credited to the hotel, the height change was not intended for the hotel but for the open spacelrecreation park area as the Advisory Committee was concerned certain types of gazeboes might be too high. If the Planning Commission were to agree with the DWP Specific Plan Advisory Committee's recommended changes, staff would reformat the document to meet the provisions of the new plan which would restrict the type of future development proposals which the City would accept for that site. He indicated staff has limited knowledge of marketing hotel properties to certify that that site would support a 150 room hotel with the other amenities set forth in the Specific Plan. Mr. Whittenberg explained if the DWP Specific Plan is amended and developer proposals are sought, the developers may say that the amended provisions are not ones which can work for this site. The City would then have to revisit, the Specific Plan and determine what makes reasonable economic and social sense for the City for development of that site. The same scenario would apply if the Commission recommends to the City Council to not amend the Plan and leave the provisions as they are. That would allow greater flexibility by developers because the current provisions allow a more intense project. Staff is not positive the setbacks, height and parking requirements would allow a 300 room hotel project to be built on that site. Developers could suggest something smaller, which would work, or that a hotel project is not viable for that site. Commission Comments on Staff Reoort Beach Parkin!!: Lot Commissioner Law asked if the beach parking lot would be available to a hotel if they were to have a function in the banquet room? Mr. Whittenberg said no, that under the proposed revision the beach lot would not be available to the hotel. The current provisions would allow for that lot to be used for overflow parking with/without a valet provision. It could also be used as part of the required parking for hotel guests. The Committee felt that was an inappropriate use of a public parking lot for a private enterprise. The majority of the members recommended the change. Commissioner Law said she was thinking the use of the beach lot would keep hotel parking off the surrounding streets. Commissioner Sharp indicated the beach lot could be used for overflow if they paid the regular parking fee. Nentive Declaration . Commissioner Brown asked if a certairi dev~opment is less intensive for a site would it require an EIR? Mr. Whittenberg said no, only if a development deteriorates the current environment. Some impacts; primarily traffic, noise and air quality, would not be affected as much by the proposed amendments as they would under the current provisions. . . .....-CilJ"'--l'Ioaaioc"-. . '-"'__6, 1995 Chairperson Campbell asked why an EIR was not prepared, given the size of the potential project? Mr. Whittenberg said an EIR was done in 1983 when the original Specific Plan was adopted and that's referenced in the Negative Declaration. He explained that when working on an amendment to a planning document you can evaluate that document in light of the earlier EIR. If the earlier baseline information is basically acceptable, you can use that as a basis to determine if additional environmental studies are needed. For example, the EIR indicated the level of traffic service on area streets would remain at . A. or .C. . The City requires anything over level of service .Do be analyzed. At the time an actual development application is submitted, another Initial Study would be done and there might be specific traffic, noise or air quality studies required. Change Directions Commissioner Brown asked if the Commission was setting itself up for a later additional report? For example, if the Commission recommended changing the DWP Specific Plan now, from a 300 room hotel to a 150 room hotel, and no worthwhile development proposals were received, would an EIR be required to intensify the use again, to go back to a 300 room hotel? Mr. Steele said maybe. Assuming the existing DWP Specific Plan is changed, in that situation, you'd be talking about intensifying a use again and it might be a situation where we'd have to go back and do more environmental analysis. Co~dence 1!...,..;ved Director Whittenberg said the City received a letter from R, C. Moffitt, Sr. of Santa Barbara, indicating he has a Power of Attorney to represent Donald E. Willdns of 301 Spinnaker Way, Seal Beach. The letter indicates Mr: Wilkins.supports the proposed revisions as set forth in the Notice of Public Hearing. [Attached], Public Hearing Gat;y E. Langewisch. Assistant Manar:er of Ene~y Sunport Services. Los An~eles Department of Water and Power. Mr. Langewisch's testimony was written out and presented to the Commission and staff prior to his delivering his statements. [This has been attached to these Minutes for reference and his comments are not repeated here]. Commissioner Dahlman said the letter Mr. Langewisch distributed has a different tenor to it than do his own comments. He noted the letter says, in part, . ... constitutes a c01fliscatory ta/dng of DWP's Seal Beach property ,.. being deprived of its property without due process of law ... co'lflict of interest, bias and violations of the Political Reform Act...". He indicated that while he takes the DWP letter seriously, DWP also needs to take. the City's problems seriously. He asked if DWP appreciates that Seal Beach has parking problems. Mr. Langewisch said yes. Commissioner Dahlman, indicating this is a complicated amendment, asked if there were some . DWP parts of the proposed amendment DWP could live with and some that they couldn't? Mr. . . . .... 9 - CilJ '" --1'I!=ioI c ,. _ "'__ 6, 1995 Langewisch said DWP's primary problem is the limit placed on the number of hotel rooms - the reduction from "300 to 150 rooms. Their sense is the proposed amendment limits the development status to where the value of the property is not nearly what it should be, DWP is not a marketing expert in hotels, and their proposal is to put out an RFP and see what the market bears. Commissioner Sharp said he felt the proposed amendments are too exacting. He indicated there has been very little development response for this property: The restrictions currently on the site are too restrictive - asking DWP to appoint 70" of their land as open space was asking too mucl\. Chairperson Campbell said that when the proposal was first done in the mid-1980's things were a lot different in Seal Beach. Although they chose not to develop anything on this site at that time, now unfortunately DWP must bear whatever the City of Seal Beach bears. Everything has been so highly developed we must now all share the burden of increased traffic and that is why the amendments were suggested by the Committee. Commissioner Brown asked if Mr. Langewisch was prepared to address the issues raised in his comments? Mr. Langewisch said that would depend on which issues needed addressing. He indicated he brought someone from DWP's environmental assessment office with him. Mr. Whittenberg said there's an attachment in the staff report and memos prepared by the City Attorney's Office that respond to the issues brought up in DWP's comment letter on the Negative Declaration; pages 35 and 36 of Attachment 8. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Langewisch if he knew anything about the conflict of interest allegations? Mr, Langewisch said no, Commissioner Brown asked if Mr. Langewisch had comments about contacting the responsible agency? Mr. Langewisch replied that DWP is a public agency and the property owner of the site in question. DWP's contention is that they should have been contacted at the initial stages of any environmental considerations.' . Commissioner Brown asked if an RFP ever went out for this property and was any interest expressed? Mr. Langewisch said no RFP went out. Mr. Whittenberg explained there is a long and convoluted history on this property, In the early 1980's there seemed to be a number of parties interested in seeking City approval to develop the property. At that time DWP wanted to retain ownership of the property and enter into a long term ground lease. Most of the developers were not willing to enter into a long term ground lease, In 1983 - 1984 the economy went bad and there was no interest in the site during that period. When he came to the City in 1989 one of his first assignments from the City Manager was to work with DWP to develop a RFP which could be circulated for interest. From 1989 to 1995 staff has been working on ~t process, There were times when DWP felt it was not . . . . .... to - CIIj '" _ -.. --. '"-'...... __ '" Iloccmber 6. 1995 appropriate to proceed because the economy was in a recession; there has been no recent interest in the property. Commissioner Brown asked if there was ever a time when DWP was free to pursue what developers would ~ interested in doing? Mr. Whittenberg advised the Commission should keep in mind that the property is owned by DWP but is also within the City's Redevelopment Agency. Anything which is built on that site has to have approval of the Redevelopment Agency. Throughout this period of time, there has always been the need for a joint effort by both governmental bodies to go through the developer evaluation and selection process. It has never been just one agency being able to make that decision by itself. Mr. Langewisch'said the State's Coastal Commission's report didn't come out until 1983. So DWP went from the mid-1910's lQ 1983 with people wanting to put a residential development on the site but with .the Coastal Commission saying no. The Specific Plan came out in 1983. Commissioner Brown noted DWP is willing. to sell the propetty to the City of Seal Beach and asked if there was a price? Mr. Langewisch said he did not want to comment on specific numbers but would say that in the 1970's there was a handshake deal for $3,000,000, Commissioner Sharp said there was on~ developer who wanted to put a very deluxe senior citizen tolal-care complex on the site. Mr. Whittenberg brougbt the Commission back to the issues under consideration --- whether they are willing to consider amendments to the DWP Specific Plan as recommended by the DWP Specific Plan Advisory Committee? There were no other persons wishing.to speak in favor of or against this application. . The applicant did not wish to rebut and the Chairperson Closed the Public Hearing. Commission Discussion Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Steele to address some of the issues. . '. DWP Was Not Consulted Mr. Steele began by discussing why wasn't DWP, as a responsible agency and property owner, consulted during the Initial Study process and prior to determining the adequacy of the Negative Declaration? Mr. Steele said DWP was consulted. The October 27, 1995 letter from DWP to Barry Curtis was a response to receiving a copy of the Initial Study and the proposed Negative Declaration. No Negative Declaration exists yet, not until the City Council adopts one. The consultation ~ taken place and DWP has had an opportunity to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration and Initial Study. . . Under CEQA" DWP is not a responsible agency on this project. CEQA talks about lead agencies, which is the agency that has the ultimate approval authority over a project. A responsible agency, an agency that has a piece of the approval process on a project. The CEQA . t - ....11- Cifr "'__....... '"-....... _ "'DoceaIIlcr 6, 1995 guidelines defines responsible agency as including all public agencies other than the lead agency which have discretionary approval power over the project. He did not think that applies to DWP because DWP does not have to issue a permit for this project to go forward. DWP is a land owner that wants to make money off its property. Under the law DWP does not have a responsible agency status. However, whether or not they do, the City complied with' CEQA by consulting witli them prior to the time the Initial Study and Negative Declaration came before the Planning Commission for Public Hearing, Confiscatory Takin~ Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Steele to address th~ alleged confiscatory taking ofDWP's Seal Beach property. Mr. Steele said the Planning Commission and staff has been made aware, from the number of meetings ~ded, that every property owner would like to be able to develop his property or . sell his property with no development guidelines or restrictions imposed at all; that's not the law. The law says property owners have to be left with an economically viable use of their property after a'community imposes the zoning and development restrictions needed to protect the public health and welfare. He did not think the Planning Commission has been presented with any fact or evidence which would prove to the City that 150 rooms and all the other facilities is not economically viable but 300 rooms is economically viable. As far as he could tell, the Specific Plan leaves a very viable economic use of this property. If proof were presented that alSO room hotel was not economically viable, the City would then have to review the Specific Plan. There has been no confiscatory taking by imposing the limit of 150 rooms. Violation of Due Process Rights Mr. Steele said DWP is entitled to Notice and the right to be heard. DWP received Notice of this hearing, they 'are here and they were heard, They will receive Notice of the Public Hearing(s) before the City Council and any other hearings that are scheduled and they will have the opportunity to be heard. Their due process rights, to the extent that a public agency has due process rights as a property owner, have been proteCted. Conflict of Interest- Issue Mr. Steele said the conflict of interest issue does not affect the validity of anything before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is the advisory body which will make recommendations to the City Council. None of the Commissioners have any conflict of interest issues of which he was aware. The fact that some DWP Specific Plan Advisory Committee members may live in the vicinjty of this property is not relevant under the Political Reform Act because they are not a decision making body. If there are conflicts among the decision making bodies, i.e., the City Council and Planning Commission, t1ic::y will be dealt with as the conflicts arise. Concern for EncouraJin~ Litigation Commissioner Dahlman said he was concerned for possible legal ramifications, He felt that if the figure of ISO rooms were used in the Specific Plan it would lead to litigation. If the figure , , ....12 - CIlJ'" __ --. .............. _ <l _ 6, 1995 . of 300 rooms were used, there would be the possibility that there won't be any expense to the City in legal fees. _ Concern for Property Ownership _ Chairperson Campbell referred to page 20. Attachment B, the DWP Specific Plan Advisory Committee Minutes of February 27, 1995: Chalrmml SJum1rs indicated the historical society 1uul been approached by the eJesandants of the family which originally owned that property, indicating that if the property was no longer used for public purposes it would revert to their ownership. She asked staff for further clarification. Director whittenberg explained that paragraph related only to the abandoned right-of-way for Ocean Avenue, as it extends westerly from First Street. That area would remain as public use under existing provisions, Under the proposed revisions that area w~uld be part of the park. It has nothing to do with the DWP property, Straw Poll on Amendments Commissioner Dahlman said he ~ould like to know how the other Cpmmissioners felt about items #2 and #4: . . 2. - ~uce the maximum number of permitted hotel room from 300 to 150; 4. Combine "Banauet Room (Requirec!)" and ';Meeting:/Conference Rooms" under subsection "b,", Hmcl, specifying the total capacity of these facilities at 175 persons; ... Commissioner Sharp said he did not think the Specific Plan should be changed and the Plan should be circulated for (\eveloper replies as it is. He noted if and when a proposal is received, that developer would have to come before the Planning Commission and the City Council for approval. . Chairperson Campbell noted there were several revisions suggested to the Specific Plan and asked Commissioner Sharp if he was opposed to all the revisions or just #2'1 Commissioner Sharp said he -thought the Specific Plan should be left entirely alone. Commissioner Law asked if no developers bid to develop 150 rooms could DWP then come back to the City and request permission for more rooms to be built? Mr. Whittenberg said if the Specific Plan is changed pursuant to Planning Commission and City Council hearings and there are no developer interests expressed at that point, staff would then recommend to the City Council that they revisit the provisions of the Specific Plan to fmd something that is an economically viable use of the property. . . . ....13 - ai, <l __ ..--. ..................... <l December 6, 1995 Commissioner Sharp spoke to the economics of this site. He noted 70% of the site must be open space, which leaves the property owner trying to get his money back from 30% of the site. Although he did not have exact figures, he noted hotel vacancy rates are at 55 %. If the vacancy rates are high, Chairperson Campbell asked why then would you want more rooms? Commissioner Brown said he thought it would very 'economically viable to have a 150 room hotel on that site. It could be even less' than 150 rooms. Commissioner Sharp said there has not been much deVelopment in the City of Seal Beach, However there has been development in other areas which has caused traffic problems in Seal' Beach. The City of Seal Beach sits stagnant and a hotel would bring in more revenue to the city than anything else that could be built in the City. Commissioner Brown asked if the COastal Commission's wishes are known? Mr. Whittenberg said it's difficult to know the formal position of the California Costal Commission, There's a comment letter from them in the staff report regarding the Negative Declaration. From the tone of that letter he concluded they have some concerns but they will not formalize their concerns until they have a.development application for a particl!lar project before them. Com.missiOrter Brown said the Coastal Commission's overall tenor is to'provide as much public access as possible. Commissioner OOlman asked if he could then interpret that since the discussion is centering on the number of rooms that the other provisions' are acceptable to everyone except Commissioner Sharp? H~ continued to say he felt something should be done about the parking in reforming the Specific Plan and pei'haps it would best to let the City Council work with DWP to decide the best number of rooms. However, it may not be possible to get ISO rooms on the site and do the caliber of development required on an ocean front site. He said he would support the Negative Declaration and the Committee's recommendations but suggest to the City Council that they cOnsider reviSing the number of rooms specified to something greater than 150 but less than 300 rooms. Chairperson campbell said that in studying the proposed revisions, she kept in mind this was initially done in the 1979 to the mid-J980's and felt times have changed. Seal Beach residents are very protective of the quality of their life. The community is constantly deluged by traffic and are very sensitive to traffic. She said she has no qualms with the proposed revisions. If there are no development proposals for 150 rooms then the City will have to revisit the decision. ~ . . .....14-Cifr<l__.........-r . ..._<l_6,t995 Commissioner Brown spoke about revision #4: 4. Combine "8an(pJet Room fRe(JJlired)" and "Meetin.vICo,yere1lt:e Rooms" under subsection. "b.", lJJJJd, specifYing the total capacity of these facilities at 175 persons; He said he could not see requiring a banquet room as it would intensify the use of the property. If somebody wanted to develop a smaller hotel with no banquet room that would be fine. Why require them to, use their limited space for a banquet room? Commissioner Sharp said that would not dictate they have a banquet room, but it would dictate if they had a room which could only seat 175 persons. Mr. Whittenberg said the provisions of the Specific Plan requires a banquet facility and this would amend the number, of persons that facility could accommodate from 300 down to 175, Commissioner Sharp said' he agreed with Wendy Rothman's comment that we should let the person who is building make the decision on the size of the banquet room. Commissioner Brown agreed. ' Commissioner Dahlman said he didn't have strong feelings either way. Commissioner Law said she would like to see the banquet room stay. She asked about a developer's coming back and requesting a banquet room. Commissioner Sharp said a requirement is a requirement. When a project is put out to bid and one of the requirements is for a banquet room seating 175 that's a requirement, it's not negotiable. When too stringent qlialifications are placed on a site you lose every chance of getting developer interest. ' Chairperson Campbell said to Commissioner Sharp "Then you're looking at this as a trade-off ... you're giving them more flexibility by saying maybe the banquet room won't be a requirement but we're going to stick with the 150 rooms ..,.. Commissioner Sharp said if he was going to build a hotel he would have a banquet room. If it's going to be a hotel seeking conventions they would need meeting rooms, a banquet room, a conference room. But if they're a family oriented hotel they wouldn't need as many banquet room facilities. ' . Chairperson Campbell discussed the reasoning behind this requirement, indicating it would not be local residents who would use the hotel but out-of-town visitors. Requiring a banquet facility is something the local residents could use for receptions, meetings, et cetera. . . . ....15 - CIIr <l __......... "'"""'...... M..... <l _ 6, 1995 Commissioner Brown agreed, but added a elegant Bed & Breakfast wouldn't want a banquet room for 175 people. A smaller project might make more sense. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Brown to adopt Resolution 95-26, approving Negative Declaration 9,5-5 to tbe City Coundl. MOTION CARRIED: A. YES: 5-0-0 Dahlman, Campbell, Law, Sharp, Brown ... MOTION by Dah1man to approve Resolution No. 95-27, approving DWP Specific Plan Advisory Co~'s proposed revisions numbers 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 to the DWP Specif'ac Plan: 1. Delete "theater" from the existing .Open Space Uses Defined" language; 3. DeIete the clause which allows a greater number of rooms "upon City council . authorizati~n", under subsection "~.", 1IsW:I; Amend "BUILDING HEIGHT, Open Space", to read: The maximum height oj a structure shallllOt exceed lifteell (IS') feet; 6. Include the follOwing clause at the end of Section 7.b., to read in its entirety: Subterranean parking is speclflcally authorized, .ubJea to approval of tlecurity mealure. by the Seal Beach Police Deptlltment; 5. 7. Amend the compact car parking provisions to read: Up to 30% compact parking is specifically authorized, or the tltandard City requirement fltl .et fonh in die Zolling Code, if greoler t1uJR 30%; 8. Require that valet parking be restricted to "Oil Sile"; 9. Delete the provision allowing for the credit of parking spaces in the First Street parking lot, under subsection "7.b.", 1IsW:I. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Dab1man, Campbell, Law, Sharp, Brown ... .... 16 - 0, <l __ PIIDIIiIIe CamoIiuiool_ at DooalIbcr 6, t\l95 _ MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Law to adopt the recommendation of the DWP Speclfic Plan Advisory CODUilittee with the request to the City Council that the City Council meet with DWP to determine if there is a more appropriate number of units that would be aeceptable to DWP, somewhere between 150 and 300 rooms. 2. Reduce the maximum number of permitted botel rooms from 300 to 150; . provltJed tIwt, lithe City Council, after ncelving inputfrom the property owner Merna this provision is too n"rieti~e, it is the ncommendotlon of the Planning Commission tIwt the City Council direct the City Manager to negotiole a viable number of pennitted room. not to exceed 300. Before the vote the Commission discussed revision #3: 3. Delete the clause which allows a greater number of rooms "upon City Council authorization", under subsection "b.", Hmd; Commissioner Brown suggested the number of rooms is steered by revision #3 and Commissioner D~lman's Motion may be voti~g against something he just voted for, Chairperson Campbell said revision #3 would take the number of rooms over 300. . Commissioner Dahlman said revision #3 was a way out for a developer who could process an entire application and then change it. Mr. Steele said it was 300 or more rooms at the time and there was a way out which allowed the City Council to negotiate a separate number of rooms in excess of 300. The Commission is now recommending the way out be eliminated. Commissioner .pahIman is making a different suggestion, suggesting consideration of a number different than 150, a specific number, but less than 300 rooms, in the actual amended Specific Plan. There would be discretion between 150 and 300 but not over 300. Commissioner.Dahlman suggested rewording that the Council reduce the number of rooms below 300. Commissioner Brown objected, saying that would be weakening what the Advisory Committee recommended. Mr. Whittenberg IllIid if the Commission feels 300 as a cap is too high, the Council would appreciate direction in that regard, If 150 is too low, the Commission could recommend that something less than 300 should be an appropriate number but the Commission doesn't know what that number should be. . Mr. Steele IllIid he had another point of view. He felt Commissioner Dahlman's point of view was the City Council ought to deliberate with DWP and fmd a number between 150 and 300 that . . . .... J7 - Cifr <l _ _ ......... ........,...... ....... <l _ 6, 1995 can be made to work -- ~at's two different points. If the Commission thinks 150 is not the right number from a land use perspective, that's an issue which should be dealt with at the CommissiOll1evel and a number should be chosen. Or, tell the City Council the Commission just doesn't know what the number is. If the Commission thinks the City Council ought to negotiate with the land owner and choose a number that's less than 300 -- that everybody can be bappy with - then he thought the Coinmission ought to tell the City Council that. "I think you ought to separate the planning issue from the "making everybody on all sides happy-ish"". He questioned why the Commission was making the change. If it's to make the landowner and the City more comfortable with the number then the Commission needs to tell the City Council that so they get the appropriate flavor of the Commission's decision. Chairperson Campbell said the Commission is going full circle with this, "If it's left at 150 and it doesn't fly it's going to come back ariyway". Commissioner Brown said he felt Commissioner Dahlman w~. trying to forestall a lawsuit from DWP before it even goes back. Commissioner Dahlman agreed. Mr. Steele suggested going back to the original language, that the Commission adopt the recommendations of the Advisory Committee but request the City Council meet with DWP to see if there's a more acceptable number of units that can be arrived at before the amendments are enacted. That would convey the Commission's feeling that maybe there's a better number but there needs to be a round-table discussion to decide what that number is, MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Dahlman, Law, Sharp, Campbell, Brown ... MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Law to change revision #4 by deleting tbe word "required" and replacing it with tbe wo~ "optional": 4. Combine "~nquet Room (llelluiped ~n and "Meeting/Conference Rooms" under subsection "b.", Hotel, specifying tbe total capacity of-these facilities at 175 persons; Before the vote there was continued discussion on the banquet/meeting room. Mr. Steele questioned the Code. Mr. Whittenberg said in the Specific Plan there is a current provision which required meeting rooms with no capacity specified and a banquet facility which was specified at a 350 person capacity. The DWP Specific Plan Advisory Committee felt that was very large and was not appropriate given the site and the impact on the community. So they felt by combining the two and reducing the capacity of those facilities in total to the 175 that would be more in line with what the community could support. He said he was hearing a concern that if a faCility were built for meeting and banquet facilities that the Commission would .... II -Cifr "'__ PIoIIeIaa CaIIeIiooioIl_ "'__ 6, t995 . still want to place a cap as to the maximum size of that facility and most likely at 175. The Commission could achieve that .by striking the word "required" and inserting the word "optional". That would make it clear to a developer that if they want this type of facility, while it's optional, they must adhere to the Cap of 175 persons. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Dahlman, Law, Sharp, CampbeU, Brown Mr. Steele said .staff will bring back a revised resolution reflecting all the changes. Mr. Whittenberg said the Commission's next meeting date is December 20th but there is nothing agendized for that meeting, He asked whether the Commission wished to meet that night to consider the above-referenced resolution? Commissioner Sharp asked if the Chairperson could be authorized by the ComlJlission to sign the resolution? Mr. Steele said due to the nature of the changes whicl! were made this evening, the public should be given a chance to comment on the resolution by agendizing it on a regular agenda, The Commission determined to consider the resolution on Ianuary.3, 1996. Director Whittenberg wished the Commissioners a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from . staff since there will be no meetings until January .1996. ' Commissioner Law asked if staff determined what the red ribbon on the tree at Electric Avenue and Main Street meant. Mr. Whittenberg said that ribbon was not placed there by any City staff so staff does not know what it means. . Commissioner Dahlman wished the staff happy holidays from the Commission and thanked them for the h8rd work done during 1995. 9. Receive and File: Starr StatuS Memo re 1733 Crestview Drive/Deck There were no questions on the memorandum re 1733 Crestview Drive and the memorandum was received and filed. There were no other Commission concerns. Chairperson Campbell again thanked staff for their hard work during the year. - e . . ~.lg-Cifrat__I'IoaIIiqC '......_"'_6.1995 ~ Chairperson Campbell adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m., to January 3, 1996. Respectfully Submitted, . qO....,...~."",..r-.. Joan Fillmann . Recording Secretary APPROVAL: The Planning Commission Minutes were approved on January _, 1996, ~u~~nuu~ Du~!n~~~ ~~~I I~~'~~~-r~~-u~~~ ~~~ U~'~J ~~I~~ 11U.UV~ r.u~ ~~ . . --- ~ _""._IlIlIAT_ '2t21_'IIlCIlIOULE~AIlD __CAUrDIlNlAlOlOO DBCBMBQ... 1995 MEMO TO: BARRY CURTIS, CITY OF SEAL BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PIWM: LEONARD WILSON, leMA MAlUCETING DJRBCTOR REF. PROPOSED JtEOVLA. nONS POll 'I'BMPORAIlY SlONS AND BANNERS . WE lUlSY&: I rLJU.. Y IBQ1JEST THIS MATlllR. BE CONTJNUBD ON YOtJR JANUARY AGENDA. WE ME IN nm MIDST OF mE HOLIDAY SEASON caBATlNO SALES TAX RJMINUE, 10MB OF OUR BUSINESSES DO 4mi OJ! THEIR SALES THE LAST SIX WEEKS OF THE YEAR. WE APPltECIATB YOUR. CONCIDtN. ~~..) . 12121 SEAL BEACH 1I0UL!VAAD. SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA 80740 (310) 430-1823 fJrrFlaNMg-~r .. .. . . . R. C. MOFFITT, SR. P. 0, Box 50240 8lII1Ia BIrbIra. CA 93150 ?''' IIaTf Ill' IlEAL lEACH 1tC~. cal .....t filii) __t November 29, 1995 Planning cOlllJllladon Ci~y of Seal Beach Ci~y Council ChaJD))er 211 Bighth S~ree~ Seal Beach, CA 90740 RB: Public Bearing - Wednesday, Dec. 6, 1995, 7:30 p... proposed Revision to DWP Specific Plan Nega~ive Declara~ion 95-5 Donald B. Wilkins, Whose residence is 301 Spinnaker Way in Seal Beach, is unaJ:lle ~o a~tend the hearing referred to aJ:love due to being needed in handling _~~ers a~ his ranches in the San Joaqilin Valley. He has asked me to present his posi~ion on this subject since I handle various ma~ters for him under a Power of A~torney. (See enclosed copy) Mr. Wilkins has owned his residence and lived there for years. The location of his property has many appealing aspec~s to him - uncluttered ocean views, a quie~ seaside residential communi~y. good air quali~y, min1m\UII a~trac~ions for disturbing ac~ivi~ies and the many other desirable fea~ur.. of Seal Beach which he anticipates others will express. He therefore strongly supports the proposed revisions.' sincerely, R. RaI:t ee: Donald B. Wilkins . 11 rr:-,:J CH P7SA.JT ~Q~~;;_~~7~~~i~ ~~ NonCE IS HEREBY GIVEN'tiaai tbe "IDDIDi CommllsloD orthe City orSeal Beach wW .00d a public .earlnl OD WedDudlY, December" 1"5. at 7:30 p.aa.1a the City C.UDeD almben, 211 Ellhtb Street, Seal Beach, Call1orala, to consider the foUowlDI hem: , ....,,J?.,,~ DEPARTMENT OF WATER .ufo'POWER SPEaFJC PLAN - PROPOSED REVISIONS TO SPECIFIC PIAN NEGATIVE DEClARATION '~5 (F1RST STREET. BETWEEN MARINA DRIVE AND THE PUBUC B&fCH, SE,U. B&fCH) . " ~ . Request: , The City of Seal Beach proposes to revise the provisions of the current , "Department o/Wal.r IIIIIl Power Specific Plan" In the foUowing manner: + deletion of "dieater" ttom the existing "OpeII-Space Uses Defined. language . + I reduction in the maximum number ofpennitted hotel rooms &om 300 to 150 . , + deletion of the dause which dows'l peater number ofrooms "upon City CouncU authorization., under aubsection "b.., HU + the combination of the .Banouet Room tReauirecll. and .MeetinRIConference Rooms. under aubsection .h.., Hmel.lplCifyins the total capacity of these f8ci1jties It 175 perIOIII ,:,. .. . + the amendment to .Bun.DINO HEIGHT, Open Space", to read II foUows: .The maximum Illlilllilll beipt grl ItNcture Ihal1 lie p:e (2) lIaftll not.. exceed twlftty 1i.'Il Ea.' fifteen liS, feet. . + to include the roUowifta clause It the end of Section 7.b., to read in its entirety .Subtemnean parkin. is. speciflcany authorized, _bJ.ct to IIpprovtllo/ "curtly mllUlHU by the Seal Bem:h Police Departm,nr , , ~\ 'lZl'AlNtot ICCI- , e' . . . . I '. . .' I ~ . ...'J . ."': III" 1'1.1 IN IIIlbvll.. ./ . iWl"/~\\\\\\~~^\~ilVA7~ I RECORDING REQUESTED IY IUILPII c. MOFFaTT. SR. WHIII RlCORDID MAIL to 'Ir Ralph c. Moff,h. Sr., .'UI ~~~.7 Lanai Road .~~. Santa Barbara, CA '3l0B .L. -l tn... W.o. VllJ"L'111 I. _ DOC " ?J-Q::ilI'I411~ J ('- ,.,~ IU- ,c...'c. J (II ~i \", .- r:r:fJrdl'" in 1I1f1d':lJ RfI~"I"!O !'If lII"..-I.f"'-.b". f'!'Jiforl'u C,., l. Ijr"llJ'illll. (Ip' -flc. ,,,,t", ,." I nl J 11111'..1 t 10. 1"., I e. lINE 11M 'lI.ll1E '00.__'. UIl) . ~ ~ . POWER OF ATTORNEY - GENERAL 1........1........ DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEYI KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: TIIIII. . DONIlLD I!l. WILKIN!, u;;;..III1gQnI" "1M,,,,. d .....IIoa. ...1......., .....,...ItIIIIII.nd....... '-RlILPII C. .' . ~FFm-,-1U!.:- I ',I \{ \ "" ....... .....UI Al....., ... .. IIId on "" ..... ,1111 ..........nd lor "" u.. .nd ......1'. "l ,....-""........-.-....-..............,-..-...-......,.-...........-.-.... _""__.._ __dul._."""""~.._Iot.......II.............,-.........."c....., -.........""'.....-......-....-.-.--..._........_11__.--.., -.- .b! ,._..,......,..__......._...,__........,....."".... ,._oct'" ""''''''.........'''' ....IIIUIS.. MI... 1NI1lI....... II ri..... tit................ _nII_................... lit......... ......net. ""'01 Inlt/or.....1I 1f...~.""1lI It RII. 'IIC~. .Iftlor aner ''''..._.. wIIIlIIUI warr....... ifill II .......... .......,,11II....................... ..... .-................-. .................. ................,.......... ..-. tel 1.....ClIt...,. ...._..............n II.... ........................... ...._~_ *1: _".... _... Dr*"'''' JlIHII!SteIIIIF"'." '._rlCllDr........... ...................""IIIII.........II.......................ftIDrtgIOI. ....1... ...1IIt ., ....... - . __II ..................... II........... ___..... .......__....,......... ..-. 1_' ,....,.._...........""'__..........-__....___........._....-........ ., ... fIIODItItIIt ....s ...ttar ..... ." nCUl', " .,. ItIIII tIIIrii ....: . 1.,1oa....._._....._..;~........IIS.....""_...........,__...,....""'..._._ry . .....n1 .... ""I ,IDe'. 1.Il'CIII .. ngIlIl.1CCIOI MlIINI_""...... "nIlUIIIfI."",. tIlI'...., alfllDl'lIIlInInC"'I ....Nt"1IIft -II'. 1IQudI..... ~hIft. aIhIr........... 'I'll I......... alIftIlfIl'IIIt. CIftVIr...... ........ entIrUlNfll.IortdDIIH.....,. "CIIIIUftC'IIIft.... ......... IftI'car.IltIlltt..1IOnd IWlIt dIIIInIur......IICIIhII' .........CIIIlDIMIII...'.............,..............RaIftO.unslCVl"d ...Dr . 10........ ...... KCtII lIlY ......,.,. MIl. 1nIIIIY...... .. IlII ...... ................ tllllIIIDIIII.......1IIVftlII'I .......... utn.1It_ ....... 1'1 ,.."""'........ II.., konlI......... II.......... _..... _..._.... -.., _. ..........-..-. CMftIft1.1ftdIfdUr1 .......Iy. ......I.1IWIpOI tIftlf If IMI ......... If..... . II'" 1IIftI1qI.........- of "'111. tlleftItDft .......11 t1'l"fIllllll"'Ift.""__.WII\IIrII ,,"""......tron ~.c.......fIIItJ.""......"'DI"'." .......... _1IlI1~.IIDII' ...-.,.._. _11_. "". .....,_. _......._....................._... _. ""_'''-'' mlllld _III..... IllS"'....... ".... .. ..... IafIII ., class n ...... MCnury.. Ill'" II .. ........ fill ISO*' .... _I ""' _ II _.... _... .._.... _ _.... ..-lW'4M""'."1II_""'1I "'lC..X.F.xxxxxx~UlIUCi"UIH"_~ .....JlJDllJI...-'II..................................III.......................1DKIC,,1. lUCXXXXXXX__II_IlIl_lJlIIl_ "I .111....'. .11 "' ... ........ ... -... ..... ....... . WIlIlllNa TO ....aN UECUTlND TII. DOCUMENT: TIoII Is .. ,,"PIIl.oIlIs" _. . CII.... .lIurlllll pllllllI......,. ..... _....IlIlI....... "" ..""" .... ..... "jIII... 1Icts: t. nls _oo.nI III' .._'11I ..... "" dnI..... .. fill' ..., In IIcI ....lIIIId ...... .. ....C' oIIslll". .11I,"" _ "'" 1fII.1' ....... ",pIl\f.' III11m1i ..., ........ piIpIIIr.. IIC1II ,lor I.. ..... . I. TIoI.. ....... wi! OIls' III .1 Ind._ ....... II... ...... ~ ...1IIIIr .._1I11l1s _.... Till.. .-.. .. con\lnuI II llIIIl _hsllOdln. "'" .......,nI iIIIOIIIIr . .......,. I. YIa _'101 d.lII.. ... ..........11II. _ II......,. .. 111IIII11.."101.._........ tUI,.."1II .............,......... II. ."""'11..,..... II PI. GIVING AND GRANTING ....""...AaInlIy..._...-..,........................,oct.......__._ . ........1oOI. .._,...._.. ..__ ..,....-... ",__,... _...'poIjaoIIIJ...............'_.."'" ""... ......'......IuIIr.... ........-................-... ""_.""'-..,.......--""*.......,.................... .............._,. -.....--. ........-............-- 11'..._....._...::.'::....._.....'......_....._._...............-...,-.....-'... _"""_...m_.....'.. ...-..._....,_._-IlIIf..-.,....'...II!I............ ...._._lIIDnol.......-_'....IlIIIAaInlIy---_....--.-.a......."'-or. -............--.,.S.14 "ttomev .hall l'aa"l.,. nil OOlIP"ft"ation oth"r thlln .. ............... ......... _...... _lIoI_.../II _. _.. ...... - _.. 11IOII" wnMESSlllftllndlhll ,.." daylll h.......-d~ .1l9L. .. out-of-pock"t exp.n... apl;>rov.d .. ~- ~ t.. ~.~ bY Roy L. Gooddch. IlIlEGF_ } all"''' III W5. 41,~ . II '. ,. ..."" ~ "'11 ~."'t, .!'.....IIZL._.....~............,-"'-...IlIIISIIIo. ................ n.., _ _ _ &.II LMod. . . .......,_...(01,.-11......_01....-,_111......11II---... -....--. _all M....... 1M... _11I-........ . WlIIlESS "" _.... __. ...... .....'!.!'J!!I!!:..."..=r- .. ~lrr..:...!...~. 'I ""'UIII . ..._. ................_............_.........~,-!!' ... __ .......1 ................. ...........,..........-......... _1.IHAW COMII . 11m' I ---~ ~ lei AlCILR COI.MV I ....~.!_.rM.", 199~ .. .. .. the amendment of the compact car parking provisioDJ to read as follows, "Up to 30"-' compact parking is Ipecifically authorized, or the 6Iandard City requirement lIS #tjorth in the Zoning Code, if greater ... thon 30", .. the requirement that valet parkins be nstricted to "On-Site" .. deletio~ of the provision which a11~1 for the credit of parking apace~ in the lit Street parkins lot, under IUbJection "7.b.".JmW The propl;)sed revisioDJ to the Specific Plan wiD update the current plan, and reault in fbture development of the site which il more compabDle with the surrounding land uses and acceptable to ttoe community in general, Environmental Jleview: '" . A Negative Declaration has been prepared ..,d il on file at the Department of Development Services, 211 Eiahth Street. . Code Sections: Applicant: Property Owner: Article 29,5 of Chapter 28 Cty of Seal Beach Cty ofLoI Angela. Department of Water and Power . AI the above time and place aU interested persons may be heard irao desired. If you challenge the .proposed actions in court, you may be limited to nising only those issues you or someone else nised at the pubUc hearing described in this notice. or in written correspondence delivered to the Cty of Seal Beach at, or prior to, the pubUc hearing, DAI~~7:~'~ Lee Whittenberg Department of Development services ~\ IZTAW,oo IICCAoo . . TESTIMONY OF CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER BEFORE THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING NEGA TIVE DECLARA TION 95-5 DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER SPECIFIC PLAN: PROPOSED REVISION TO SPECIFIC PLAN . TESTIMONY GIVEN BY GARY R. LANGEWISCH ASSISTANT MANAGER OF ENERGY SUPPORT SERVICES LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WA TER AND POWER DECEMBER 8,1995 . ArrACHIl/~r . . . - ] - Good evening commissioners, my name is Gary R. Langewisch, I am the Assistant Manager of Energy Support Services for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP). Thank you for the opportunity to address the Plaming Commission tonight on an issue that Is very important to DWP. as a property owner in your City. We are very concerned with the proposed revisions to the City of Seal Beach Specific Plan (Specific Plan) for our property, especially in light of the long cooperative working relationship we have had with the City of Seal Beach. There has been an ongoing history since about 1975 of DWP working with the City of Seal Beach for mutually compatible development of this property. The early plans in the mid-1970s for development as single family lots with some park land was not supported by the Coastal Commission. In 1977. 'the California State Coastal Conservancy was invited to prepare a plan for this property. Their report titled, "A Plan by and for Seal Beach, Guidelines for Development", was then issued in 1979. Subsequently, a plan developed by a citizens group was approved by both the City of Seal Beach and Coastal Commission in 1983, This plan is the Specific Plan previously referred to and involves development of a commercial hotel of up to 300 rooms on 30 percent of the property, with the balance of the site to be designated for open space uses. DWP and the City of Seal Beach have jointly developed a Request for Qualifications/Proposal (RFP) for development of the property in accordance with this approved Specific Plan. Unfortunately, worsening economic conditions of the late 1980's and early 1990's have delayed issuing the RFP. We now believe that it is time to issue the RFP to test the development potential of the property. DWP has serious concerns with the issuance of Negative Declaration 95-5 and the proposed revisions to the Specific Plan. These proposed actions appear to be unilateral and arbitrary. We are very surprised at this recent and new direction that is being taken regarding the zoning requirements for this property. . . . -2- DWP, like any other property owner in the City of Seal Beach, is concerned with and opposed to any action that reduces the value of our property. We are not willing to "give "ay" property value just because we are a public agency, and we want to go on record as opposing Negative Declaration. 95-5 ~nd the proposed revisions to the Specific Plan, We have detailed our more specific objections to Negative Declaretion 95-5 in our letter dated October 27, 1995, to Mr. Barry C, Curtis, Administrative Assistant, City of Seal Beach; which by .reference is made part of this written testimony. For your convenience, a copy of this letter is attached to this written testimony. We were surprised to note that your staff's response to our October 21, 1995 letter did not address an important CECA procedural issue which we raised in our letter: Why weren't we, as a responsible agency and property owner, consulted during the initial study process prior to determining the adequacy of a Negative Declaration? Our objective remains the same as it has been through the years, and that is to make this property available for development in a manner that would be an asset to the community and provide DWP a fair value for the property, We remain willing to sell this property to the City of Seal Beach for subsequent development in whatever manner the City may choose, We also would be willing to sell this property to a private party, recognizing that the ultimate use of the property will still be subject to approval by the City. DWP's recommendation is that we proceed on the course that is already underway, i.e. to develop and issue the RFP for development of the property in accordance with the presently approved Specific Plan. The Specific Plan, without the now pending proposed changes addressed in Negative Declaration 95-5, should be allowed to be tested through the RFP process - not discarded or substantially revised on the basis of assumed economicJbusiness environment conditions. . . . -3- If a market test through the RFP process indicates that the Specific Plan is not workable, there will be plenty of opportunity to pursue appropriate changes, In that case, we would be pleased to continue to work cooperatively with the City of Seal Beach to ensure that the interests of all involved parties ai'e served. As previously stated, we are opposed to the now pending changes addressed in Negative Declaration 95-5, and ask you to NOT approve this Negative Declaration and the proposed revisions to the Specific Plan. Again, thank you for the opportunity to address the Planning Commission tonight on this issue which is very important to all involved parties, and for your consideration of our concems and comments, . .0 . ~ 95 000913 BV October 27, 1995 Mr. Barry C. CUrtis Administrative Assistant City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California 90740 Dear Mr. curtis: Los Angeles Department of Water and Power rDWPl Snecific Plan This letter is in response to your Planning Division Memorandum dated October 10, 1995 transmitting the Draft Negative Declaration for comments for the proposed revisions to the DWP Specific Plan within the City of Seal Beach. DWP has reviewed the Negative Declaration which contains the proposed revision. Several issues must be addressed satisfactorily before any revision to the Specific Plan can occur. . Economicallv Viable Uae of PrODertv The Specific Plan and the proposed revisions thereto (hereinafter Plan) constitute a confiscatory taking of DWP's Seal Beach property. The Plan does not substantially advance any legitimate public interest and denies DWP economically viable uses of its property. The Plan unfairly singles out DWP to bear a burden that should be borne by the pUblic as a whole. The economic impact of the Plan on DWP property is catastrophic. The attempt by the city of Seal Beach to protect aesthetics, preserve open space, and provide for recreational amenities through this process is a sham. Violation of the Riaht of Due P~ocess In addition, DWP is being deprived of its property without due process of law. The provisions of the Plan are clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the pUblic health, safety, morals, or general welfare. . . . 0' Mr. Barry C. Curtis October 27, 1995 - 2 - DWP has also been denied its procedural due process rights under both the state and Federal Constitutions. There was an intentional effort to prevent DWP from participating in the advisory committee meetings, when the co~ittee's sole mandate was to examine the Plan for the DWP property. No notice of the committee meetings was sent to DWP while key decisions were being made concerning the property. Conflict of Interest There is cause to believe that some members of the advisory committee have ownership interests in property adjacent to the subject property. Their decisions concerning the Plan enhances the value of their property. This raises questions of conflict of interest,. bias, and violations of the Political Reform Act. DevelQnment Versus Qnen SnBce The Plan is inconsistent with the Seal Beach General Plan. No essential nexus exists between the 70-percent open space requirement and the other elements of the Plan. There is no individualized determination that the open space requirement is related both in nature and extent to the impact.of the proposed development. Environmental Baseline Considerations The Negative Declaration uses the -Draft Environmental Impact Report - Department of Water and Power site" prepared by Ultrasystems, Inc., in June 1983 as the environmental baseline. Since the preparation of the 1983 Draft EIR, the character of the surrounding neighborhood has changed. Therefore, a 1983 environmental baseline is not appropriate to evaluate a project in 1995. It is questionable that using the 1983 Draft EIR to evaluate a proposed project is defensible without the preparation of a new EIR. Land Use Under No. 8 of the Initial Study Checklist titled -Land Use," the question is asked -Will the proposal result in substantial alternation of the present or planned land use of an area?" The answer at the least is -Maybe" and more likely -Yes." A -Maybe" or -Yes" answer would necessitate additional study and documentation. There appears to be no economic studies to indicate whether the revisions will result in any impacts. The lead agency must consider economic factors together with technical and environmental factors in determining the feasibility of proposed measures to reduce or avoid significant effects (California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA) Guidelines, section 15131, subdivision [c)). .' . . Mr. Barry C. CUrtis October 27, 1995 - 3 - ResDonsible Aaencv Con~act CEQA requires a Lead Agency to consult with all responsible agencies before determining whether a Negative Declaration or an EIR is required. CEQA defines a Responsible Agency as a public agency, other than the lead agency which has the responsibility for carry,ing out or approving a project (CEQA, Sections 21080.3 and 21069). DWP received no notice to consult, therefore, there was no opportunity to discuss the appropriateness of a Negative Declaration versus an EIR. We look forward to receiving your response-addressing the above points. Additionally, we request a delay in the approval of the Negative Declaration or changes to zoning in the DWP Specific Plan Area. It is imperative that the City of Seal Beach deal with the city of Los Angeles in a fair and equitable manner. If Seal Beach officials believe that it is in the .public interest"'to preserve the DWP property as open space, we will work with you to consummate its purchase. Continued subtle acts, such as this, which in effect constitute inverse condemnation are inappropriate. If you would like to discuss this matter, please contact me at (213) 367-3811 or Mr. George Garikian, Deputy city Attorney DWP, ~t (213) 367-4555. Sincerely, , r.:; /-t ORIGINAL SJGfmD BY ~:; ELDON A. COTTON t ., ~ /} ELDON A. CO'l"1'ON - I~ Assistant General Manager Energy Services DEV/WWG:gc c: Mr. Lee Whittenberg Director of Development Services City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California 90740 Mr. George Garikian be: T. Stapleford, PSC Thomas C. Hokinson Eldon A. Cotton (2) .' Raymond C. Burt A. E. Fisher A. R. Cordova C. A. Combs David J. Mahoney M. A. Reavis W. W. Glauz D. E. Varner