Title
Appeal of an Approval from the Decision of the City Planning Commission Granting of a Local coastal Development Permit, Standards Variances and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for Construction of a Two-unit, Four-Story Condominium at 1720 Bluff Place. (Case No. 0312-22) (District 2)
DISCUSSION
This application involves the construction of a new four-story residential building on a vacant ocean-front lot. The subject site has a relativel~ small area of 2,130 square feet and is located on the south side of Bluff Place between 11 and 12th Places. The purpose of the condominium subdivision is to allow the units to be sold individually.
On February 19, 2004, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the application (Attachment 1). Five letters were received in opposition to the project and four individuals spoke in opposition to the project at the hearing. The letters and speakers in opposition to the proposed project expressed concerns regarding the loss of views, that the building height that does not reflect the natural slope of the bluff or the height of adjoining buildings and that the structure is too large for the property.
After considering the information provided, Commissioner Winn moved to approve the project. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Moyer and the motion passed 3-0 (Commissioner Stuhlbarg abstained, and Commissioner Sramek and Jenkins were absent).
In approving the applications, the Planning Commission found that the project is consistent with the intent of the Ocean Boulevard Planned Development District (PD-5) and that the structure is below the maximum height limit of forty-five feet or four stories above Ocean Boulevard grade (the proposed building is approximately 15.5 feet above Ocean Boulevard grade). Additionally, the standards variance requests submitted for the setback to the garage, reduced front yard setback for the building and an oversized curb cut width were found to be reasonable due to the shallow lot depth, small lot size and the fact that similar variances have been granted to the other three lots on Bluff Place.
An appeal was subsequently filed March 1, 2004 (Attachment 2) by two nearby residents, Jenny Choi and Ernie Kou. The appellants request that 'City Council deny the variance requests and further limit the height of the buiJqing below that permitted by the Planned Development Ordinance in order to maintain views across•the site and reduce the size of the building.
The Local Coastal Plan protects public views in this area by stating that the small streets extending south from Ocean Boulevard (such as 11th and 12th Places) be maintained as view corridors. However, the Plan does not protect views across private property. The subject site is one lot west of 12th Place and does not conflict with the view corridor. Therefore, the project was determined to be in compliance with the Local Coastal Plan.
In accordance with the Guidelines for Implementation of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act, a Categorical Exemption (CE 03-247) was issued on February 3,2004, under a Class 3 exemption (CEQA Guideline Section 15303).
Assistant City Attorney Mike Mais reviewed this report on April 9, 2004.
TIMING CONSIDERATIONS
The Long Beach Municipal Code requires that the Planning Commission's decision be heard within Sixty (60) days of the date of filing of the appeal or no later than May 1, 2004.
A 14-day public notice of the hearing is required.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL:
Receive the supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing, overrule the appeal, sustain the decision of the City Planning Commission and approve the Local Coastal Development Permit, Standards Variance, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map.
Respectfully Submitted,
CHARLES GREENBERG
CHAIR, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
FADY MATTAR
ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND BUILDING