The Bay City Partners’ Ocean Place Ocean Place project received tentative approval in the early hours of Tuesday, June 26. Near the end of a marathon City Council meeting, Seal Beach officials voted 5-0 to approve the first reading of an ordinance that amends the DWP Specific Plan.
However, Councilman Gordon Shanks and Councilwoman Ellery Deaton both said they would not vote for the change unless Bay City Partners agreed to give the city 6.4 acres of open space.
City Attorney Quinn Barrow said the council was not required to adopt the ordinance at the second reading.
Ed Seclich, project manager for Bay City, said the partners would meet in two weeks to discuss “dedicating” (giving) the open space area to Seal Beach. The issue of the Tentative Tract Map and the second reading of the Specific Plan Ordinance will be among the issues that return to the City Council on Monday, July 9.
Originally, an out of court settlement agreement of two lawsuits between Seal Beach and Bay City Partners said the developers would sell that land to the city for $1.1 million, after the California Coastal Commission issued a permit for the proposed residential development project.
However, the state will not allow the city’s Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency to spend the $1.1 million earmarked for the open space on the Bay City Partners’ property.
Shanks said there was no way that money would come out of the General Fund.
Councilman Gary Miller indicated he would also like to see Bay City Partners put money into the park.
However, Shanks said he didn’t think the city could do that at this juncture.
The council considered a revised version of the proposed residential development project. Bay City Partners originally requested permission to build 48 homes. When the project came before the Monday, June 25, council meeting, Bay City Partners had reduced the number of houses to 32.
Deaton acknowledged that she had campaigned for her District 1 Council City on the original 70 percent open space, 30 percent visitor serving use that the Specific Plan has historically allowed. However, Deaton said that was based on the development area being north of an imaginary prolongation of Central Way and she was surprised to find that the prolongation was not 30 percent. She said the 1979 plan included the water of the San Gabriel River and piers. She also said the 1979 plan described the 30 percent area of the project with two sentences that contradicted each other.
As to the original Specific Plan requirement that only allowed a hotel to be built on the site, Deaton said that residents in her district had asked for residential development instead. The residents in the area didn’t want a hotel.
Shanks said there were few people in the room who were present during the 1979 discussions about the former power plant site. Shanks said that at that time, the consensus was 6 acres of park and 3 acres of development to fund the park.
Shanks said he didn’t feel that accepting the Bay City Project, with 6.4 acres for park and 4.5 acres for housing, was a sellout.
However, he said he couldn’t vote for the project unless Bay City released the city from paying $1.1 million for the open space.
Deaton also said she wanted the green fence that surrounds the property to come down.
Selich said that could be arranged.
However, Mayor Michael Levitt was not sure the fence should come down before the property is developed. The fence currently keeps dust on the site.
Levitt said that opponents of the project had referred to the land as a legacy. “There is no legacy land,” Levitt said.
He said the land had always been privately owned. It was never public land even when owned by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Levitt said it had to be developed or it would remain as it was.
Councilman Miller, who used to work for Southern California Edison, was concerned about asbestos on the site. He asked if the city could require disclosure of asbestos risk to potential buyers.
Barrow said that any disclosure requirements would have to be based on what experts said. Environmental experts have said the asbestos risk on the property is within limits imposed by regulators.
Miller accused Bay City Partners of holding Seal Beach “hostage” over several issues, including the driveway and the portion of Bay City property traversed by the San Gabriel River Bike Trail.
Miller said he saw no attempt by Bay City Partners to develop a visitor serving use on the property.
Residents and council appointees were also divided on the project. Interim Community Development Director Greg Hastings said that as of 5 p.m., Monday, June 25, the city had received 54 e-mails or letters in favor of the project, 33 against and five that did not take a position. He said staff had received a petition with more than 400 signatures supporting the 70 percent/30 percent formula for the land use on the property.
Levitt said 400 signatures was not significant compared to the population of Seal Beach.
Jim Klisanin of Baytown Realty said the land was never public, even when it was owned by a public entity (apparently referring to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.)
Planning Commission Chair Sandra Massa-Lavitt said the planners had not seen the newest version of the project and suggested it be sent back to the Planning Commission. Several residents who opposed the project made the same suggestion.
Eldon Alexander, who fought on the losing side of the three story issue a few years ago, urged the council to approve the project. “I don’t want to see any more litigation on this.”
Wendi Rothman, a project opponent who once tried to buy the property, said she was troubled by the Planning Commission’s decision to recommend the project be approved. She said she strongly supported 70 percent open space. “This is developer serving,” she said of t application.
Robert Goldberg said words had been redefined to suit political expediency. He said the proposal was 60 percent/40 percent and the lawsuit settlement agreement between Bay City and Seal Beach said Bay City would “convey” 70 percent open space.
Nancy Kredell, a member of the DWP Advisory Committee and frequent critic of the project, said the city was giving away everything. “I’m saddened by what you people are doing,” she said.
