Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Res 81-11 1981-08-24 ~ I r I I ' I I RESOLUTION NUMBER 8 i -- / / A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING PROPOSED AMENDMENT NUMBER 3 TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RIVERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Pursuant to notice duly given, the City Council of the City of Seal Beach and The Agency have duly noticed and held a full and fair joint public hearing pursuant to law on proposed Amendment Number 3 to the Redevelopment Plan for the Riverfront Redevelopment Project. Section 2. In connection with such proposed Amendment Number 3 and to the extent warranted thereby, the Planning Department of the City of Seal Beach has prepared the reports and information required by Health and Safety Code Section 33352 and such reports and information have been made available to the public prior to such jOint public hearing. Section 3. The Agency hereby certifies that the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Hellman Specific Plan (the "Final EIR") is applicable in all respects to such proposed Amendment Number 3 and was completed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and State and City of Seal Beach guidelines with respect thereto and that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the contents of the Final EIR prior to deciding whether to approve such proposed Amendment Number 3. With respect to the potential significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR, the Agency finds as follows: A. The Final EIR identifies as a potential significant environmental effect the possible loss of archaeological sites. This potentially significant environmental effect will be mitigated or avoided by requiring additional investi- gation which will determine if such activities as preservation, salvage excavation, and grading monitoring are required. B. The Final EIR identifies as a potential significant environmental effect the possible impact of odors on residents of the area from all oil drilling and operations. This potentially significant environmental effect will be mitigated or avoided by requirin~ sufficient distance between residential units and all oil drl11ing and operations. C. The Final EIR identifies as a potential significant environmental effect an increase in seismic safety hazards. This potentially significant environmental effect will be mitigated or avoided by requiring all human occupancy structures to be placed a minimum of fifty feet from the fault zone. Further, additional soils, geology, and seismicity studies will be reviewed by the soils and foundation engineering consultant to the City to determine if there is a need for additional miti9ation measures. ' D. The Final EIR identifies as a potential significant environmental effect a moderate to high potential for liquefaction within portions of the area. This potentially significant environmental effect will be mitigated or avoided by requirin9 the implementation of the liquefaction mitigation measures specified in Section 3.10.3 of the Final EIR or an acceptable method approved by a licensed geologist and the City of Seal Beach. " -' I r I I Resolu~ion N~mber 1f/-11 E. The Final EIR identifies as a potential significant environmental effect the possible increase in water run-off and flood hazard. This potentially significant environmental effect will be mitigated or avoided by requiring on-site storm drains, a pump station, grading improvements and green- belt areas. Further, additional hydrologic studies will be performed to determine specific drainage mitigation measures p~ior to development of the area. F. The Final EIR identifies as a potential significant environmental effect the possible increase in safety hazards to residents in the area from oil drilling and transportation operations. This potentially significant environmental effect will be mitigated or avoided by compliance with State Division of Oil and Gas re9u1ations and the erection of fencing around oil operations. G. The Final EIR identifies as a potential significant enviornmental effect the loss of vacant land as open space. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives identified in the Final EIR which would in some respects mitigate this potentially significant environmental effect. The alternative of no development would leave the site in its existing condition as privately-owned open space with oil production facilities. Although this alternative will presently avoid the loss of additional open space, the present condition of the site is not aesthetically attractive. Further, since the area is privately-owned, it is likely to be developed with urban uses as development pressures from the surroundin9 areas increase. The alternative of recreation or open space is not economically feasible due to the high land values and service expenses. Further, the area is privately-owned and there has been no commitment by a public agency to purchase the site for recreation purposes. The third alternative of reduced intensity residential development would require the price of the proposed residential units to be significantly increased. Since the proposed development consists of affordable housing units, to be economically feasible, these units must be high density. In addition, the proposed development will have a positive fiscal impact on the Redevelopment Agency. The above statements constitute a statement of overridin9 consi- derations pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and the State and City of Seal Beach guidelines thereto. The Agency hereby approves the reports and information reqUired by Health and Safety Code Section 33352 prepared to the extent warranted by such proposed Amendment Number 3. Section 5. The Agency hereby approves proposed Amendment Number 3 to the Redevelopment Plan for the Riverfront Redevelopment Project, attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Agency hereby recommends that the City Council amend by ordinance such Redevelopment Plan in accordance with such proposed Amendment Number 3. The Secretary of the Agency is hereby authorized and directed to submit such proposed Amendment Number 3 to the City Council accompanied by such reports and information. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by. ~al Beach Re~pment A meeting thereof held on the - day of ~ 1981, by the following v Section 4. AYES: NOES: Agency Members ABSENT: Agency Members -2- August 19, '1981 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Redevelopment Agency Nicholas Romaniello, Director of Plannin9 Proposed Amendment #3 - Redevelopment Plan I BACKGROUND i I As you are aware, the development of the Hellman property as proposed requires an amendment to the existing Riverbeach Redevelopment Plan. In accordance with State law, Section 33352 of the California Health and Safety Code, a proposed amendment to a redevelopment plan must be sub- mitted by the "agency" to the "legislative" body in the form of a report that is in compliance with the requirements of Section 33352. This report should also contain the recommendations, if any, of the Planning Commission. REQUIRED PROCEDURES The "agency" and the "Counci 1" must each adopt the appropriate resolutions (attached) consenting to a joint hearing. This agency must then review the following report and forward the report to the Council for their review. PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT #3 REPORT I The Redevelopment Plan is proposed to be amended in two areas (see attached Exhibit A). The area on Exhibit A marked "2", is a 4.9 acre site that is currently undeveloped. This site has a current zoning designation of "e" commercial which is inconsistent with our General Plan and the recently adopted Specific Plan. The area on Exhibit A marked "3'i, is an 11.1 acre park site (Gum Grove). This amendment will only effect some minor boundary changes to the park. The existing park which is zoned Public Land Use (PLU) will retain this zoning designation, will not be significantly altered in total area, will remain in a park setting and is only proposed for amendment in order to, remain consistent with our General Plan and the Hellman Specific Plan as required by State law. AREA DESCRIPTION Area 2 is an undeveloped parcel, relatively level, which currently provides no social benefits to the City or owner and produces no economic return to the owner and limited taxes to the City. . Area 3 is an improved park area currently leased to the City by its owner. There are no revenues derived by this site, but its value is derived by the social amenities it provides in an urban setting. I PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS I At their July 1, 1981 meeting, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1234 (attached). This resolution determined that the proposed Redevelop- ment Plan Amendment #3 was in full compliance with our General Plan, that the environmental issues raised were fully and adequately addressed, and that the Environmental Impact Report was prepared in full compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and all City regulations. COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW The proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment #3 is bein9 requested in full compliance with all known State laws; the Planning Commission Resolution No. 1234 addresses and meets all requirements of Section 21151 of the Govern- ment Code, and the Environmental Impact Report and Hellman Specific Plan addresses all issues and meets all requirements of Section 21151 of the Public Resources Code. . . . _. _. .._..... ._'R__ -.. ..:-- - ..... . . ;:.'..e_:"" t:-~:.' Proposed Amendment #3 - Redevelopment Plan August 19, 1981 Page 2 IMPACTS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT I 1) Neither areas 2 or 3 on Exhibit A contain low or moderate income housing, consequently, no impacts on these areas are expected by virtue of the adoption of the proposed amendment. There will be no impacts upon the residents in the project area or surrounding area in terms of relocations, traffic circulation, community facilities, services, availability or school population. 2) There will be no housing units of any type to be destroyed or relocated by virtue of this proposed amendment. 3) There shall be no displacement of low or moderate income persons by virtue of this proposed amendment. 4) Area 2 on Exhibit A may be developed in the future with 100 dwelling units for senior citizens of low and moderate income. 5) The potential future development of Area 2 of Exhibit A will be the economic responsibility of the private developer. The General Plan and the Hellman Specific Plan reflect the type of development designated for any future development of this site. 6) At this time, there is no projected time table for any future development on Area 2 of Exhibit A. When a development is approved for this site, it will reflect the General Plan and the Hellman Specific Plan in that it will provide 100 dwelling units for low and moderate income senior citizens. I At that time, the surrounding areas will be capable of absorbing the proposed 100 units in t~rms of providing the site with all necessary and required services to insure the health and safety of the new residents. This type of future development is expected to provide housing for a total of 180 senior individuals in 100 units. All required building and zoning standards applicable by City, State and Federal laws will be reflected in any future deve10-ment of this area as will all the requirements of our City General Plan and the adopted Hellman Specific Plan and all future Planning Commission, City Council and Redevelopment Agency "conditions of approval" for the specific development of this site. I 7) Area 3 on Exhibit A is currently a neighborhood park. This area will be unaffected in all aspects relative to this proposed amendment or future land use. In accordance with our General Plan and the Hellman Specific Plan, this 11.1 acre site will be designated a neighborhood park and dedicated in fee to the City. This area is included in this proposed amendment solely to adjust its boundaries in a minor way, to accommodate the 11.1 acres of park as shown on the adopted Hellman Specific Plan. The park is proposed to remain intact; no trees will be touched in the boundary adjustment. The final stages of any future i.e., cleaned, trees trimmed, pathways, restoration of existing facilities (firep1aces/barbeques), I PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTIONS 1) The Redevelopment Agency selected a Project Area Committee in conformance with the City Manager's recommendations and directed this committee to review the proposed Amendment #3 to the Redevelopment Plan. . .. -- - .-...- _. .-. Proposed Amendmenet #3 - Redevelopment Plan August 19, '1981 Page 3 II 2) The City Council and the Redevelopment Agency adopted the attached and respective resolutions consentin9 to a joint public hearing on August 24, 1981. 3) The City Clerk published and mailed notices of this joint hearing and of the reports and information available for this meeting. 4) The Project Area Commitee was directed to meet, review and comment in accordance with the City attorney's direction upon the proposed Amendment #3 prior to or on August 3, 1981. I PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC) -' The Project Area Committee met on July 21,1981 to review and comment on the amendment. The PCA's findings and recommendations are contained in the attached minutes, CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY JOINT HEARING At the conclusions of the joint public hearing, the following actions are recommended: 1) That the Redevelopment Agency adopt the attached agency resolution. 2) That the City Council adopt the attached Council resolution. 3) That the City Council act on the attached ordinance. I c ~z.-, Nicholas Romaniello NR/gkb Attachments NOTED AND APPROVED: A 11 en I I .. ~ .. . ~-.~"1.::7Jt:ij..::t.~~)~r;t .;.~::~.._" ,-". -"'='7': ~"_ ."~ - ""..~. . ---- -".-.".. _ _ u ~ . ~. .-. . . "- ..." -~ ~' "t ", . "._._.-.,-.~_._.._-.... -'.. .~.:"'." ". ...... . ... "'- . . /, rn ~ ..... ." - => -i ~=- (, ~ I v.l N ..... . . . . :0 > CJJ 0 ;;;0 rn .- 0 ~ ... t:J .- C < m E3 z rn < 0 Gl :0 m -n ~ 111 "l'I .- ~ 0, ~ -< O. "'0 -n !i :0: ~' .- rn - ." Z en :z: ;0 ::0 -f m 0 {!J > ..... '"0 0 0 ~ , Gl > "11 l/I . rn l3 ~ m t :z ::0 G . , 0 rn -< N < ~ ." , .- :J: , ." ~ en Ei I'll 5: 0 m :z I I ~ ~ . :z tI1. c: . I'll "'0 '(f) l; , .... ::0 I'll 't:J 0 I'll . I'll ." -n z ,,, (f) 0 ;0 0 . , . , - en ,0 ;-c I .' Gl {!J 3. I Z n"'~ " :1:0 J "-f Gl ~ ~ . m ~ . ., . rn 1; , 10> Gl ;0 , en :;0 0 -< t , . ~' - :0' j':: !: . , :1'11 ' m . en ,2 , .- ~ ~ 1'11', . ~ 0' rn ::0 ' '::0 , 2 X ,:0' I'll . , -'~ m E - (f) ,.. - .- ~ - I rn < v.l ~' :z I'll ~ ~ .... a 10> c:: .- '. .J . ~ en rn ~ , 0 I 2 :z 10> ;l: ?:; m z I'll t:J 10> {!J . ';'" . '(~~ \' .~ ." ...~.. . . --: ,: '. ..... .