Bay City Partners won this round.
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 property owners want 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.
Details of the meeting will appear in the Thursday, June 14, print edition of the Sun.
However, Bay City didn’t get everything they wanted. 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 recomendation. The final decision will be made by the City Council.
Planners voted 4-1 in favor of a resolution that recomended approval of five requests made by the owners of the Old Town oceanfront property formerly owned by the Los Angeles Departrment of Water and Power. District 3 Commissioner Robert Goldberg, who favors visitor serving uses over residential, cast the dissenting vote. The resolution also included the commission’s decision to certify the Environmental Impact Report that was previously rejected by the Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board.
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 unanimously voted 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.
Planners differed, however, on the General Plan amendment request. That vote was 3-2, with Goldberg and District 4 Commissioner Jerry Galbreath dissenting.
District 1 Commissioner David Everson, whose constituents include a large number of opponants of the project, argued in favor of allowing the property owners to develop residential housing.
Reisdents opposed to 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.
Everson said he was concerned that if the commisison 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.
