The Seal Beach Planning Commission, in the early hours of Thursday, June 7, voted to recommend the approval of the Bay City Partners’ development project to the City Council. The following is a detailed account that expands on the condensed version that appeared in the Thursday, June 14, print edition of the Sun.
The property owners wanted to build a 48-home residential project on the land. The meeting began at 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, June 6, and ended after 1 a.m., Thursday. The meeting was a continuation of a public hearing that began on May 2.
Bay City Partners didn’t get everything they wanted last week. Planners wanted the project to include mixed-width lots. Bay City Partners proposed 25 foot lots for each potential house in the project. Essentially, planners are recommending that the project be built with fewer houses.
The commission’s decision is a recommendation. The final decision will be made by the City Council.
Planners voted 4-1 in favor of a resolution that recommended approval of five requests made by the owners of the Old Town oceanfront property formerly owned by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.
District 3 Commissioner Robert Goldberg cast the dissenting vote because of his objection to what he called the movement of 1.1 acres of land from the open space area of the property to the development area of the property.
He said he was willing to compromise on the land issue but not on the 70 percent open space formula in the current specific plan for the site.
However, District 1 Commissioner David Everson disagreed. He said he thought Seal Beach should move forward. He said he didn’t feel the 70 percent/30 percent formula was the best way to look at the property.
District 2 Commissioner Esther Cummings agreed with Everson. She said she didn’t want to see a fence around the lot for another 30 years.
Commission Chair Sandra Massa-Lavitt, who represents District 5, said for the public to get the open space they want the northern part of the property has to be developed.
The five requests before the commission were to amend the General Plan, amend the DWP Specific Plan, amend the Zone Map, approve the development agreement and approve a tentative tract map. Planners took preliminary votes on each of these issues as well as the EIR.
Planners certify Final EIR
Planners began by voting unanimously to certify the EIR, with the stipulation that a memo be included to tell the council that 1.1 acres of land previously designated for open space had been converted to development use.
Massa-Lavitt said that whether you liked the project or not, it was clear that the Final EIR was “definitely adequate.”
Goldberg said he did not know why the Environmental Quality Control Board voted to tell the City Council that the Final EIR was inadequate. He suggested a memo be included with the planning resolution saying the Planning Commission was not “trumping” the Environmental Board’s decision.
Everson said that was part of the public record and the council would take the two committees’ recommendations separately. Everson said he was comfortable with the EIR.
Debate over zoning and site
Planners differed, however, on the General Plan amendment request. That vote was 3-2, with Goldberg and District 4 Commissioner Jerry Galbreath dissenting.
Currently, city laws will only allow the construction of a 150-room hotel adjacent to a residential neighborhood.
Galbreath said he was not happy with the number of lots requested for residential development.
He was unhappy with the narrowness of one of the proposed private streets for the housing project. Galbreath was also unhappy with the fact that the legal description of the property included land under the San Gabriel River as part of the open space.
Commissioner Everson, whose constituents include a large number of opponents of the project, argued in favor of allowing the property owners to develop residential housing.
Opponents of the project argued for the 70 percent open space and 30 percent “visitor serving” formula that the original Specific Plan called for. Everson said that a hotel hadn’t been built there in 30 years and probably never would.
Goldberg argued that there was a vast difference between a 150-room hotel and 48-lot housing project. Goldberg argued that houses would not generate any sales tax revenues for the city.
As a compromise, Goldberg suggested a 35 house project which would be close to the 70/30 formula. He later proposed a 29-house project for the site.
Goldberg also suggested developing restaurants and shops or a combination of shops and second floor condominiums on the property.
Everson said he was concerned that if the commission imposed an overly stringent land use on the property that the result would be the same as the hotel restriction—a property that wouldn’t be developed at all.
Goldberg said the commission was being asked to make two big changes—to reduce the amount of open space and to allow residential instead of “visitor serving” development of the smaller section of land on the 10.7 acre property.
He said residential development would be least beneficial to the city. He said he had not heard a reason why the city should compromise on open space.
Galbreath said the project was too dense and that the Bay City Partners were not listening to the commission.
Hotel or no hotel
Commissioners, residents and a consultant debated the proposed elimination of the requirement that only a hotel could be built on the development area of the property.
Consultant Larry Kosmont, whose firm evaluated the economic sense of building a hotel on the Bay City Partners’ property a year ago, said the market for ground-up hotels had “tanked” at that time.
“And that hasn’t much changed,” Kosmont said.
He said new hotel construction is still not possible in this market. He said in those communities where hotels are being developed, they are getting significant community support, including reimbursement of the hotel bed tax.
He said the financing market had dried up. He said a 150-room hotel would not work.
He said you could find almost any other investment than a boutique hotel and get a better return.
He said there was a time when you could get financing for a hotel and the risk would be entirely on the lender. He put that period at 2004 to 2008.
Goldberg questioned Kosmont’s use of a $4 million figure as part his analysis to determine the feasibility of the project.
“I’d feel the same way if I didn’t have to put a down payment on a house,” Kosmont said.
He said he did not run calculations based on zero land cost.
Massa-Lavitt agreed with Ksomont’s assessment. “We all know that a hotel is never going to be built there,” she said.
Everson said the fact no hotel had been built there in 30 years supported Kosmont’s analysis.
Brian Kyle, one of the Bay City Partners, said no one did a financial analysis of the site plan when the city changed the plan from a 300-room hotel to a 150-room hotel in 1996.
“This property will never be a hotel,” Kyle said. “It’s a dream—that’s all it is.
Feasibility debate
However, those Seal Beach residents opposed to the project said the feasibility of building a hotel wasn’t relevant.
Ocean Avenue resident Wendy Rothman urged the commission to reject Bay City Partners’ application. She said she served on the DWP Advisory Committee in the 1990s. Rothman said she tried to bid on the property in 2003 or 2004.
She said it was made clear to potential buys that 30 percent of the land was zoned commercial. She said zoning determined the price.
“Feasibility is not relevant,” Rothman said.
“They should have hired Kosmont before they bouth this land,” Rothman said.
The commission gave members of the public three minutes each to speak. However, when Massa-Lavitt said Rothman’s time was up, Rothman insisted that she be allowed to continue because she had not spoken on this project before.
One other person also insisted on continuing to speak past three minutes after Massa-Lavitt said their time was up.
Barbara Wright, who served on the original DWP Advisory Committee, said they worked for many months on the plan that now governs how the property can be developed.
“We should have liked the whole area to be park,” she said. However, that wasn’t financially possible so the group opted for 70 percent open space and 30 percent hotel.
Parks Commissioner Carla Watson also opposed changing the zoning and site plan. “This developing group missed the window,” she said.
Watson said the developers were good citizens who have contributed time and money to the city.
“If I cannot sell my home for a profit, can I came to the Planning Commission and ask to change it to a bed and breakfast?” she asked.
Reactions
Bay City Partners’ Project Manager Selich was pleased with the outcome of the hearing.
“We are pleased with the Planning Commission’s decision. We appreciate the hard work and thoughtfulness they put in to their deliberations,” Selich said.
Jim Caviola, a City Council appointee to the Tree Advisory Committee, was unhappy. Caviola has testified against the project at the Environmental Board, DWP Advisory Committee and Planning Commission meetings. He criticized the City Council’s decision to settle two lawsuits between the city and Bay City Partners. One suit was filed by Seal Beach against the property owners, the other was filed by Bay City against Seal Beach.
“For whatever reason, our Planninger Commissioners and City Council members are pro-development and anti-law,” Caviola said.
