The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRDA Res 82-15 1982-11-22 I I I I I ~ ~ / ti~ . " , . . . RESOLUTION r~UMBER tIJ.:l, - /S"' A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING CERTAHl REPORTS AND INFORMATION. THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The reports and information prepared pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 33352 in connection with the approval and adoption of a Redevelopment Plan for the Surfside Redevelopment Project are hereby approved. Section 2. The Secretary of the Agency is hereby authorized -and directed to cause such reports and information to be made available to the public. ( VED and ADOr1 day of (/, e: the eof held on the 1982 by the AYES: NOES: Agency Memb Agency Members ABSENT: Agency Member ATTEST: t . "r~~. ",.1 ~ ". : LJ '.: l.(. 'i'.. f.:.;: . t J' . .,. '\., ,," ~';,. t'.. ..... .0. ..:.. ':. ifi. -, ,. .1 ,'0: ',"; .. .atr; _: 'r) ,,~ tI"~ ~..~. '. ).... ..:0.;....... \' -:-0 ..~. :..:~ ..- ,"" \~ . I KatzHliDis' I I I REPORT TO SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL on the PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN for the SURFSIDE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Prepared by KATZ, HOLLIS, COREN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for the SEAL BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY NOVEMBER, 1982 111682CR . I Katz Hollis . I. II. III. I TABLE OF CONTENTS INTR.ODUCTION ................................................................ REASONS FOR SELECTION OF PROJECT AREA ....... DESCRIPTION OF PHYSICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS EXISTING IN PROJECT AREA ......... A. Existing Physical Conditions ............ 1. Project Location .................... 2. Land Uses and Acreages .............. 3. Buildings and Structures ............ 4. Properties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. Inadequate Public Improvements, Facilities and Utilities ........ b. Lots (Parcels) Subject to Being Submerged by Water .............. B. Existing Social Conditions .............. C. Existing Economic Conditions ............ IV. PROPOSED METHOD OF FINANCING REDEVELOPMENT PAGE I-I II-1 III-1 III-I III-I III-1 III-1 III-2 III-2 III-2 III-3 1II-3 OF PROJECT AREA ............................. IV-l A. General Financing Methods Available to Agency.................................. IV-l B. Proposed Financing Method ............... IV-1 V. PLAN AND METHOD OF RELOCATION ............... V-1 VI. ANALYSIS OF PRELIMINARY PLAN ................ VI-1 I I VII. VIII. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND REPORT REQUIRED BY SECTION 65402 OF GOVERNMENT CODE .................... VlI-1 PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE RECORD ............... VllI-1 A. No Project Area Committee Formed for Project ................................. VIII-l B. Consultations with Residents, Community Organizations and Others ................ VllI-1 IX. PROJECT AREA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.... XI-1 X. REPORT OF COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER ............. X-1 XI. REPORT OF FISCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE ........... XI-I XII. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT REPORT .................. XlI-1 (i) . I KatzHol1is. XIII. ANALYSIS OF REPORT OF COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER AND SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS WITH AFFECTED TAXING AGENCIES ........................... A. Analysis of Report of County Fiscal Officer ............................... B. Summary of Consultations with Affected Taxing Agencies ....................... 1. Orange County and County-Governed Affected Taxing Agencies .......... 2. Other Affected Taxing Agencies .... I I I (11) PAGE XIII-1 XIII-1 XIII-1 XIII-1 XIII-2 . I KatzHolIis REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL ON THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SURFS IDE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT I. INTRODUCTION I This Report to the City Council ("City Council") of the Cit,!: of Seal Beach ("City") on the proposed Redevelopment Plan (' Redevelopment Plan") for the Surfside Redevelopment Project ("Project") has been prepared by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Seal Beach ("Agency-") ~ursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law ("CRL '; Health and Safety Code, Section 33000, et seq.), specifically Section 33352 thereof to: I 1. Advise the City Council on the reasons for the selection of the geographical area encompassed by the boundaries of the proposed Project (the "Project Area"); 2. Describe the physical, social and economic conditions existing in the Project Area; 3. Discuss the proposed method of financing the redevelopment of the Project Area; 4. Note that no property acquisition is contemplated under the proposed Redevelopment Plan, and therefore no persons, families, owners, tenants or businesses, will be temporarily or permanently displaced from the Project Area. Accordingly, no plan and method of relocation is required. 5. Analyze the project preliminary plan ("Preliminary Plan") formulated for the Project Area by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach ("Planning Commission") ; I 6. Include the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission on the proposed Redevelopment Plan, and the report required by Section 65402 of the Government Code; 7. Provide a record of meetings with residents and community organizations to consult with and obtain the advice of such persons and organizations concerning Project matters; 8. Note that the limited scope and emergency nature of the redevelopment activities proposed within the (I-1) . I KatzHollis. I Project Area preclude the necessity of preparing an environmental impact report on the effects of adopting and implementing the proposed Redevelopment Plan; 9. Include the report of the Orange County Auditor-Controller (fiscal officer) on the proposed Project; 10. Note that neither Orange County nor any affected taxing agency called for the creation of a fiscal review committee to report to the Agency on the fiscal impact of the proposed Redevelopment Plan; 11. Note that the nature of the proposed Project precludes the necessity of preparing a neighborhood impact report describing the effects of the proposed Project upon residents and the surrounding areas; and 12. Analyze the report of the Orange County Auditor-Controller (fiscal officer) on the proposed Project, and to summarize the Agency's consultantions with affected taxing agencies. I I (I-2) . I Katz Hollis . II. REASONS FOR SELECTION OF PROJECT AREA I The Project Area of the proposed Surfs ide Redevelopment Project, as approved by the Planning Commission, generally encompasses the Surfside Colony portion of the City, and is more particularly described in Section III of this Report to City Council. The selection of the Project Area was based upon and ftuided by a report prepared br Agency staff entitled, Surfside Colony Blight Report', which showed that the proposed Project Area suffers from certain physical liabilities including the existence of inadequate public improvements, facilities and utilities, and the existence of lots or other areas subject to being submerged by water, and that these characteristics of blight cause a reduction of, and in some cases, a lack of proper utilization of the proposed Project Area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical, social and economic burden on the City which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone. The report concluded that redevelopment of the proposed Project Area would: I 1- Stab1ize and restore the beach; 2. Protect adjacent homes from wave damage; 3. Improve the sewer system; 4. Improve the water system; 5. Underground utilities; 6. Provide curbs/ gutters/ sidewalks along Pacific Coast Highway; and I 7. Install a traffic signal at Pacific Coast Highway and Phillips Street. The proposed Redevelopment Plan contemplates activities related to only items I and 2 above. (II-I) . I Katz Hollis . I DESCRIPTION OF PHYSICALp SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS EXISTING IN ROJECT AREA A. Existing Physical' Conditions 1. ~ect Location The Surfs ide Project Area is located within the Surfs ide Planning District, as identified in the General Plan, and includes all property east of the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Depot, south of Pacific Coast Highway, west of Anderson Avenue, and north of the ordinary high water mark of the Pacific Ocean. The boundaries of the Project Area are shown on Map III-1, "Surfside Redevelopment Project". III. 2. Land Uses and Acreages The bulk of the property within the Project Area is owned by or leased to Surfside Colony, Ltd., or the members thereof. Surfside Colony, Ltd. is private (limited access) residential community incorporated in 1931. Individual residential lots are privately owned by members of the corporation, while the beach, roads and maintenance areas are owned in c01lllll0n by all members through the corporation. Surfside Colony residential property is zoned R-1, ''Low Dens ity Res identia1", and the beach property is zoned PLU, "Public Land Use". I The remainder of the Project Area consists of approximately 6 acres of undeveloped Na~ property on the west end zoned PLU, "Public Land Use'; one acre (approximately) of c01lllllerica1 use property on the east end along Pacific Coast Highway at Anderson Avenue, zoned C-2, "General C01lllllercia1"; and 8.4 acres of public rights-of-way (Pacific Coast Highway and Anderson Avenue.) Total acreages within the Project Area, by land use category, are shown on Table III-1. A review of Orange County property assessment rolls shows a total of 271 parcels of property in the Project Area, including 252 residential parcels within the Surfs ide Colony portion, most of which are 25 feet in width by 40 to 50 in length. I 3. Buildings and Structures Surfside Colony, Ltd. was incorporated in 1931 (as a corporation, not a municipality), after initial development (III-1) 1--111 dVJ{ ~\ ~, . II a. .~ l l ~~ 't' ~~ \\ . \\ \ , ~ \ , ~ I' eft t G \. rn t ~ ~ ~ \ J ~ \ ~ . ~ \ ~ . ~ - , ~ ""0 I i3 , , I ~ , l ~ 1\ , ~~l " \ a ( ~'\ . ~\i J - ,\\ .' ~~\ . \\'5 ttb . \ h '~1 . \ ~~ \\ -.. ' II" CITY UP 8\ .... ~ i.t ~_.- \ " ,"- ~ ,\1 , \. , 1. ;I . I Katz Hollis . TABLE III-1 EXISTING LAND USES AND ACREAGES Surfside Redevelopment Proj~ Land Use Acres Percent Surfside Colony, Inc. Residential (inc1 streets) 17.6 51.8 Beach 7.0 20.6 I Commercial 1.0 2.9 Public Rights-of-Way 8.4 24.7 Total 34.0 100.0 I I . I I I I Katz Hollis ' had begun in 1929 when the first group of 15 residences were sold. These original residences were small single story, wood frame construction. Recent trends have seen substantial reconstruction of original buildings, including demolition and construction of new residences. However, a member of the Surfside Colony board estimates that as many one-quarter of the original structures still remain. This is consistent with the conclusions of a recent field survey conducted by the Seal Beach Building Department in which 92 dwellings were determined to be substandard in terms of mode~n construction, housing, plumbing and/or electrical codes. According to 1980 U. S. Census figures, the Surfs ide Colony census tract (995.06) contains a total of 233 residential structures, of which 229 are single family and four are multi-family. If 92 of these structures are substandard, this amounts to almost two out of every five, or nearly 40 percent. 4. Properties Properties within the Project Area suffer from the factors described below. a. Inadeiuate Public Improvements Faci1 ties and Utilities Sewer lines serving the Project Area are substandard and in need of upgrading or replacement. Water lines are also substandard in relation to the Area's needs. Pacific Coast Highway, the northern boundary of the Project Area, is in need of curbs, gutters and sidewalks. A traffic signal at the western Surfs ide Colony entrance/ exit at Pacific Coast Highway and Phillips Street is needed because of the high speed of east-bound PCH traffic and the limited visabi1ity to the west. Finally, there is a potential danger to homes within the area because of overhead power lines in close proximity to them. Such lines need to be relocated or undergrounded. b. Lots (Parcels) Subject to Being Submerged by Water The most urgent problem within the Project Area, and the principal reason for undertaking a redevelopment project, is the persistent erosion of beach sand due to the altering of normal wave action caused by the Anaheim Bay entrance jetties on the west end of the Project Area. This erosion has eliminated nearly 500 feet of beach depth within a relatively short period of time, and 20 or more developed lots having a combined taxable value of $4.4 million are in (III-2) . I KatzHollls. I immediate danger of being submerged by water should an intense storm causing high waves strike. Due to the inhibiting effect of Proposition 13 on taxable values, the $4.4 million figure is probably very low. Actual market value of these threatened homes is estimated at $10+ million. In a January, 1982, report entitled "Feasibility of Shore Projection Measures for Surfside Colony, City of Seal Beach", Moffatt and Nichol, Engineers, described the extent, nature, and reasons for the erosion problem; gave the history of the Corps of Engineers' sand replenishment efforts; projected the likely effect if the problem is not treated; and explored the feasibility and cost of alternative permanent protection measures. The Moffatt and Nichol report is incorporated into this Report to City Council by this reference. I Ever since the Navy constructed the Anaheim Bay jetties, the Surfside Colony Beach has experienced a beach erosion problem which the Corps of Engineers periodically treats through sand replenishment. Three aerial photographs included as Figures 4, 5 and 6 in the Moffatt and Nichol report dramatically illustrate the rapidity with which beach erosion occurs. More recent photographs, taken in August, 1982, show the then current extent of the erosion problem. These photographs (Plates 1 though 5 of this Report) clearly indicate that residences at the western end of the Project Area were in imminent danger. The aerial photograph shown in Plate 6, the same photograph as Figure 4 from the Moffatt and Nichol report, shows the beach as it existed on July 7, 1980. The dashed line shows the approximate berm line at the time the August, 1982 photographs were taken. The Moffatt and Nichol report included a figure showing projections of the beach berm locations by Summer, 1982, and October, 1983. This figure, included in this Report as Figure 1, reveals that Moffatt and Nichol accurately projected the current situation (as shown in Plates 1 through 5), and given this accuracy there is no reason not to believe that, in the absence of protective measures, the severe erosion would have continued in the manner projected in the Moffatt and Nichol report. Because of the clear and immediate threat to existing homes, the City in early November, 1982, as an emergency project installed a temporary 16-foot rock revetment along the western 600 feet of beach within the Project Area. While this action temporarily mitigated the primary blight I (III-3) . I Katz Hollis ' I condition within the Project Area, the underlying threat remains and will continue to remain until a permanent revetment is installed or other solution to the cyclical erosion/replenishment problem is implemented. B. Existing Social Conditions Statistics from the 1980 census show that the Project Area contains a resident population of 415 people, 21 percent of which are 18 years of age or younger; 76 percent between the age of 18 and 65; and three percent over 65 years of age. Household income data is not currently available from the 1980 Census. The 1976 State Department of Finace Special Census for the Surfside area found that of the households which reported their income, 78 percent had incomes of $12,000 per year or more, and 91 percent reported annual income of $8,000 or more. Over 35 percent of reporting households had incomes of $25,000 or more per year. C. Existing Economic Conditions The Project Area contains only one acre of commercial land uses, which uses include a gasoline service station and a seafood restaurant. Both businesses appear to be viable. I I (III-4) II ~ ~ - ~?~~-~:;.r ... I ~ -~ Plate 1 velopment Project Surfside R~de f August, 1982 h ErOSion as 0 Beac r ~ - r .... _f .....ioo.. . ..if ~_ :;.c- -:S - .; ~:~~ - ~ ...- >r~ .~. -... II~- .. .. ~~' . l~' - ~ _ '_ ~.; . ~~- .:. '~---.-' f.... _~... .' .. - - < _*'t_:,.,- C ... -- ,,::~ r- Plate 2 Surfside Redevelopment Project Beach Erosion as of August, 1982 ~~ r-= f i:. I 1 \. ~...; e-r.' - - --- =::--...... ~ I r- -. .. ........_ D t- ... ... , (!,. , .......~' - ~ -~- ~ c~ ~ .; - ~ .- ~.~ ~. .~.~ '-~ ~ "" , ~ ~ - -."'*-~~~-- ~ ...... "'-~ ~.~..-:.,~ ~ '- .. ~"-'" "1'"-- ::t.~:.~ ~'_~l... ,," ;:~~V'.;. . .i"~.~lt'. ~.~.. _ , ":',.. _....4-.;: . .. '_;'00: ...."t.__ _~___~ I ... - ~ , ,-' ,..:.... ' . '..~III....;.. -.-: ........ .... -.- , - . - --- ----- ~ . '- t=-:==.. ~.- ~..~~~ - ~-, . -:I!? . =- --:- , .. - ~.- r , "'-.' . '. .... .' . ~-- -. .., 'I) '" ;.~ . . L -" ~ --.... ~- . ~ II _ _ ... '. - - 8. ........ .., "'"~~ -. :> I :/. t'....... - ..:.. . ,".' "; - ~ . ... ._ '- I . ;;~ .~.~'-~,--~ ~ ~ .' - ~ .. .... / -... .--. Plate 3 Surfside Redevelopment Project Beach Erosion as of August, 1982 ~,~.- '. .~ -, -~ .' " ~ _. .,,:~~r....1'r'-"'" " . II! ~ ._..~, - - : .- . -... .~- -~~- ~- ....... ._~ ~ ,.......~ ~. . r. ~ ,~ - - - J .- M~~~""...~ . Plate 4 , Surfside Redevelopment Project Beach Erosion as of August, 19B2 ~-"'O .J.-" 0 1:1 Q) C ()"'C UI CCCJ"':::r C ~. 0 CD tnOXa. ...r-+:J _'_ ~ -. 3 S' C,O:Je:.CD ex> "'~ '" (]'::r . '" 0 ~ :; 3 ~ <-Q))>~ C :J :J Q) -0.0)'-+ < ::r'" .........cn(t)(J) c: _. '"- =+. 3 CD~. OJ ex>"-", 0"'< r I .....~ ~ ",.'. .--. -- -- -- ~ '-"'- - ~=-- -~ , -- ~- r Plate 5 Surfs ide Redevelopment Project Beach Erosion as of August, 1982 4 , OJ tn 'po o ~ OJ ><1 tn~ i~ (1) '0.... o ~ - o ~ ctl , , o " '" o '" ~ \i '" o a> rn ". ('I '" '" '" 10 i: . . o o. o ~ \ \ I \ \ \ I I \ \ Lo1~ ~. I~ \~ I~ \! \;11 \~ \~ Ill: \~ \~ Ii: '" ~ '" '" ~ x '" '" 10 ;r; , . . 1\ I I ~ l'i~ o. <i I i1\e '. 0.,. I ~~ ~'m --C), '" o j\; 1> '" ~ ~ ~ ~ '" ~o !.Il" l"b <4.'0 ~ " "1>'." ....lC! 1~ 0", .,.~ ;...... "I> ... 'i. l" "b ... .n - .... - n " o ... .. ""l t . . -, '3: C> :t ~ .". -( '( - I IV. PROPOSED METHOD OF FINANCING REDEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT AREA A. General Financing Methods Available to Agency The proposed Redevelopment Plan authorizes the Agency to finance redevelopment of the Project Area by the issuance of tax increment bonds or by any otner legally available means. Project debts may not be established or incurred beyond two years after the plan has been adopted. (Repayment of Project debts, however, may extend beyond two years.) I The proposed Redevelopment Plan limits the amount of tax increment dollars which may be allocated to the Agency to a cumulative total of $1,000,000. The proposed plan limits the amount of Agency bonded indebtedness which is to be repaid in whole or in part from tax increment funds to a total of $400,000 outstanding at anyone time. I B. Proposed Financing Method The sole redevelopment activity contemplated under the proposed Redevelopment Plan is the installation of a temporary 16-foot rock revetment along the western 600 feet of beach to protect the residences from imminent erosion danger. Due to the extreme emergency, the Agency in early November, 19~2. proceeded with the necessary work, financed through a loan from the City's Plant and Equipment Fund. The total cost of the revetment was $217,000. When staff and other overhead costs are added, it is estimated that total Project costs will not exceed $300,000. Allor a portion of these costs may be repaid by the County of Orange from future funds received from the State for special district assistance. It is also anticipated that Surfside Colony, Ltd. will pay a portion of the Project costs. To the extent that County and tax increment funds are insufficien~ to cover total project costs the City and Surfside Colony, Ltd. will share the costs equally. I An analysis of recent property assessment value trends within the Project Area by Agency staff revealed that valuation totals have been increasing by approximately $3.0 million per year. If this trend continues following Project adoption, the Agency would have approximately $30,000 per year in tax increment revenues available for debt. An analysis of assessment value trends within the Project Area by Agency staff and the ability of the Agency to repay its indebtedness from tax increment is reflected on the following table IV-1-A: (IV-1) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .po ',"" "\~ '" ... .... I I I I I . ' ~ 0-'1 ~ $ ~ ~ ~ f. 0 U' ... III t ~ ~ 0 III ... 'A .... <It Fr ~ ~ ~ ~ <:\J" ~ .po ~ 'd. ~ ." .po ~~ (1) . . . . . II> ~ (1) .... '" .... .po 0 ... " ~U1' ... ... ~ 'ti~ II> P- ~ . ~ 2: " . " . .... ~ " . ... ~ ~ .... ... \ g ... II> ~ <It .... (1) ~ ~ ..,. ';0 .... '0 r S 0 i .po a- '" E~ ~ . . . . . ." \} .... '" .... .po 0 III b ... . . Ii! \J" .... , P- ... '-'l ~ ~ H \ r; . " " " ~ . ... ~ ... ~ t r> i (1) ~ . i ..,. '-'l ~ .... .... .... '" r ~ >D e; $ a- '& .... .p- O r~ e- o 0 . 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (1) ~ '3 !2!\ .... U1 >D I ..... >D ~ t ..,. ~~ ~ ..,. .... \\ ~ ~ ~ '& ..... '" U' .p- ~~ ~ , .... . 0 0 0 " .... g ~ ~~ ~ g p.'-'l "<l P- ~ ... .... " % \\ \ , .... ..,. ~~ ~ .... ... '<!5 '<!5 a- U' 0 0 . 0 ~\ ... '8 8 ~ ~ 0 ~ mo-'l . '-'l '" ..,. ~~ ~ 0 0 ~~ .p- o 0 l~ 0 ~ o-'I~ tl'l.1.f>.) '. I KatzHoIlis. , , V. PLAN AND METHOD OF RELOCATION The proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area does not provide for the power of eminent domain. Property acquisition by any other means is also not contemplated to implement the limited purposes of the Plan. As a result there will be no displacement of persons, families, owners, tenants or businesses from the Project Area. Accordingly, a plan and method of relocation is not required. I I I (V-1) . I Katz Hollis . " VI. ANALYSIS OF PRELIMINARY PLAN The Preliminary Plan for the Surfside Redevelopment Project was formulated and approved by the Seal Beach Planning Commission by Resolution No. 1271, adopted September 15, 1982. I In accord with the requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL), the Preliminary Plan: a) describes the b,oundaries of the Project Area; b) contains general statements of the land uses, street layout, population desities, building intensities, and proposed redevelopment standards; c) shows how the purposes of the CRL would be attained through redevelopment; d) shows that the proposed redevelopment conforms to the General Plan; and e) generally describes the impact of the proposed Project upon the residents. The proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area conforms to the standards and provisions of the Preliminary Plan, except for the following: 1. The boundaries of the Project Area have been reduced to exclude the 880 acres of Pacific Ocean area and 18 acres of public beach which were within the Preliminary Plan Project Area boundaries. I 2. Because of the reduction of Project Area acreage, total population density will increase accordingly. Such density will confirm to City General Plan and zoning standards, however. 3. Impacts of the Project, as now proposed, would not include water system, sewer system, traffic signal, utility and curb/gutter improvements. I (VI-1) . I Katz Hollis . " VII . REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING ~~:~S~~0~6v~:0~6D~QUlRED BY SECTION When the Report and Recommendations of the Planning Commission has been issued, it will be submitted to the City Council to be added to this Report to City Council. The report of the Planning Commission required by Section 65402 of the Government Code will be included in the Report and Recommendations of the Planning Commission. I I I (VII-1) . I Katz Hollis VIII. PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE RECORD I A. No Project Area Committee Formed for Project The Community Redevelopment Law provides for the formation of a Project Area Committee (PAC) if a proposed redevelopment project will displace a substantial number of low and moderate income families. Implementation of the Surfs ide Redevelopment Project will be limited to the installation of a temporary revetment to protect threatened residences from being destroyed by beach erosion. No Project Area property will be acquired by eminent domain or otherwise, thus no low or moderate income families, if any exist within the Project Area, will be displaced. Accordingly, no PAC was called for or formed in connection with the Project. B. Consultations with Residents, Community Organizations and Others City/Agency staff attended the annual meeting of shareholders of Surfside Colony, Ltd. on July 11, 1982, to discuss establishment of a redevelopment project as a method of treating the Surfs ide area's severe beach erosion problems. Following this meeting, the members voted 134 to 47 in favor of studying the feasibility of proceeding with a project. Other meetings have also been held between City/Agency staff and officers and members of the Surfside Colony, Ltd. board. When the City Council adopted Resolution No. 3188 designating the Surfside area as a redevelopment Survey Area, officers and members of the Surfside Colony, Ltd. board appeared in support of the action. I I (VIII-1) . I KatzHollis' " IX. PROJECT AREA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I The sole proposed redevelopment activity to be undertaken pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan is the installation of a temporary rock revetment urgently needed to protect Project Area residences from destruction due to beach erosion. Because of the extreme emergency which existed, the City in early November, 1982, proceeded with the installation of the revetment. In connection with this action the City prepared an initial study and determined that the project was emergency in nature and therefore exempt from the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) or a negative declaration. A Notice of Exemption was prepared and filed with the Secretary for Resources and the Orange County Clerk. Copies of the inita1 study and Notice of Exemption are included in this Section IX of the Report to City Council. I I (IX-1) - :.1 I I I Cf_;\,""- , NOnCE OF EXEMPTION TO: Secretary for Resources 1416 Ninth Street, Rm. 1311 Sacramento, California 95814 County Clerk Coun~ of Orange 700 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, California 92701 FRlJol: Ci~ of Seal Beach 211 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 , PROJECT TITLE: SURFS I DE EMERG~ICY ROCK REVETMENT SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT LOCATION (SPECIFIC): WEST BEACH AT SURFSIDE CDLONY PROJECT LOCATION (CITY): (COUNTY) : ORANGE SEAL BEACH DESCRIPTION OF NATURE, PURPOSE, AND BENEFICIARIES OF PROJECT: TO ARREST SHORELINE EROSION AND PROTECT ADJACENT HOMES. NAME OF PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVING PROJECT: CITY OF SEAL BEACH NAME OF PERSON OR AGENCY CARRYING OUT PROJECT: CITY OF SEAL BEACH EXEMPT STATUS: (Check One) Ministerial (Sec. 15073) Declared Emergency (Sec. 15071 (a)) Emergency Project (Sec. 15071 (b) and (c) Categorical Exemption. State type and section number. RECEII/ED NOV ~ 6 198. ~Il:... 2 . ..Ot .. 1"'~~~ReIt X REASONS WHY PROJECT IS EXEMPT: DECLARED B1ERGENCY CONTACT PERSON ! LARRY STIC~IEY If filed by applicant: 1. Attach certified document of exemption finding. 2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes X No AREA CODE TELEPHONE 213/431-2527 or 714/828-8550 EXTENSION 220 ~4~0 DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: Signature As~ciAte Planner it.1,. - I ( I I ( I -----.- ..' IILW9-16A* (rev'd 1980) APPEIIJ)IX B DVIRClllMElITAL INFORMA'l.'ION AR1l CBECltLIS'l.' lOR!!' (Initial Study) Date Submitted: 1-81 917182 RO. GE1IllRAL IRFORMA'l.'ION 1. Rame and addre.s of developer or project sponsor: City of Seal Beach. 211 8th Street. Seal Beach. California 90740 . 2. Addrese of project: Surfsi de Colony, Ci ty of Seal Beach Aasessor's Block and Lot Number N/A 3. Nue, addres., and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project. LarrY Stickney. Assistant City Engr. 211 8th Street. Seal Beach, CA 90740 (213) 431-2527, Ext 220 (714) 828-8550, [xt 220 4. List and describe any other releted permi ts end other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regionsl, state end federal ~encies: Coastal COIIIIIisslon Emergency Pennit , AI1IIl' Corps of Engineers Pennlt 5. Existing soning district. N/A Beach 6. Proposed use of site (project for which this form is filed): Construction of an emergency rock revetment PROJECT DESCRIPTION 7. Site sise. N/A 8. Square footsge: N/A t. Number of floors of construction: N/A - 'I I 1 I ". '- ( f . . . . , IILW9-17A* 10. AIlount of off-atreet parking providel!. II/A 11. (Attach plans.) 12. Proposed acheduling. 13. Asaociated projects. lIovemer 1982 lIone le. Anticipated incremental development. lIone 15. If residential, indicate tbe number of units, acbedul~ of "unit aises, range of aale prices or renta, and type of household aize expected. II/A 16. If commercial, indicate tbe type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of aalea area, and loading facilities. II/A 17. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading faCilities. iliA 18. If inatitutional, indicate the ..jor function, estimated employment per sbift, estimated Occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. II/A -2- . 'I I 1 I ", ( , " t . , . . MLW9-1U 19. If the project involve. . verience, conditional use or rezoning epplicetlon, stete this an~ indicste clear1y'why the eppllcaUon ia reql1ire.S; None ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 20. On a separate page, ~e.crihe the project site as it exists before the project, inc1u~ing information on topography, soil stability, plants an~ animals, an~ any cultural, historical Dr acenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, an~ the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. 21. On a separate page, describe the surrounding properties. including information on plants and eni.als and any cultural, historical Dr scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land UBe. and scale of development (height, frontage, set-back, rear yard. etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) In !1m! !Q. 22. Earth. will the proposal result in. a. Unstah1e earth conditions or in changes in geologic sl1bstructures? b. Disruptions, displacements. com- paction Dr overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or ~dification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind Dr water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? ..L .L ..!. .!. .Jr.- -]- . 1 ,-. .. 1tLW9-19l.* ( Changes in deposition or erosion YES HAYllE !2 f. of beach aands, or chaftlJea in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or atreUl or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? ...L g. Exposure of people or property to geologic ha.ards such as earth- quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X .- 23. All. Will the proposal result in. I a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of Ulbient.air quality? X b. The creation of objectionable odors? .L c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionslly? ..!. 24. !!!ttt . will the proposal result in. a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? ..!. b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and Ulount of surface water runoff? X c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? ..!. 1 d. Change in the Ulount of surface water in any water body? ..!.. e. Discharge into surface watars, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved I oxygen or turbidity? X f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? ..!.. g. Chenge in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or througb interception of an aquifer hy cuts or excavations? L ( -4- . I --_:~ ~ -..... . MLW9-20A* ( h. Substantial eeduction in the US ~ !2 amount of vatee otherwise available for public vater supplies? X i. Bxposure .of people or propeety to vater-related haxaeds such as flooding or tidal vaves? X j. significant changes in the temperature, flow, or chemical X content of surface thermal springs? 25. Plant Life. will tbe propossl result in, I a. Change in the diveraity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and of plants? X b. A reduction of the numbers of any unique, care or endangered species of plants? X c. Introduction of nev species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish- X ment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? .A. 26. Animal Lib. Will the proposal eesult in, a. Change in the diversity of 1 species, or numbera of any species I , of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? --L- b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of anlaals? ..!. I c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? --L- d. Deterioration to existing fish or vildlife habitat? ..1. 27. !!2.ill. . will the proposal result in: f a. Increases in existing noise levels? ..!. -5- . I { I I 1 I . MLW9-21A* . . b. Ixposure of ,",ople to severe noise levels? 28. Will tile new Ugh t or Liqht and Glare. proposal produce glare? 29. Land Ose. Will the proposal result in a substsntial alter- ation of the present or planned land use of an araa? 30. Natural Resources. will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rata of use of any natural resources~ b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 31. Risk of Onset. involve: Will the proposal 32. a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or up- set conditions? b. 'ossible interference with an emergency response plan or an emer- gency evacuation 91an? 'oDuletion. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or qrowtb rate of tile human population of an aree? Sousinq. Will the proposal af- fect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 33. 34. Will t a. Generation of substantial addi- tional vehicular movement? b. Iffects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? -6- , m IIAYBI '- !Q. L .L .L -L L .L .!.. L .!.. .L ..L 1- . I . , 1ILW9-22A* ( d. Alteretions to present m !!m! m vat terns of circulation or move- ment of people and/or goods? - ...L .. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? .!. f. Increase in traffic hazard. to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? - .l. 35. Public Services. Will the I proposal have an effect u.pon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? - .l. b. Police protection? - .l. c. Schools? X - d. parkS or other recreational facUities? X - e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X - f. Other governmentsl services? .l. 36. Bnerqv. Will tbe proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? - ...! I 1 b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new X sources of energy? 37. Utilities. Will tbe proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the I following utilities: a. power or natural gas? X b. Communications systems? X c. Water? -! d. Sewer or septic tanks? -! e. Storm .ater drdnage? X ( f. Solid waste and disposal? -! -7- -8- - I ( I I f " I ( , . .. IILW9-24A* DS !1m!! the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or aliminata impor- tant examples of the .ajor periodS of California history or prehistory? b. Does tbe project bave tbe potential to acbieve sbort-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environ- .ental goals? la sbort term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively hrief, defin- itive period of time wbile long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts whicb are individually limited, hut cumulatively considerable? (A 9roject .ay impact on two or more separate re- sources wbere the impact on .acb resource is relatively small, but where the .f- feet of the total of tbose impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project bave environ- mental effects which will cause sub- stantial adverse effect on human be- ings, either directly or indirectly? CERTIFICATION. I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the ettached exhibits present the data and infor- mation required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to tbe best of ay knowledge and belief. ~~ Date JJOVa O. \qe~ ___ , (S n u ~ Por ~.al RDarh ~~in"Pfna nfu;efnn IApp cant) -9- !Q ...x... . ..!.. .!.. x . I I I I ( , ( . . . . MLW9-25A* DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONME!lTllL EVALUATION AIlD 1)1!,'rEMINATION ITO be completed by the Lead Agency - aay be attached) This project fs emergency fn nature and therefore exempt from preparation of an EIR or a Negatfve Declaration. . On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD ROT have a significant effect on the envirolllll8nt, and a IlEGATIVE DECLAllATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could,have a significant effect on the environment, there will Rot be a significant effect in this case becsuse the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A REGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE rRErARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an EHVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date I j-:I -g'z.. ~a.9 (Signature) Charles Antos 'or Seal Beach Plannfng Dfvisfon (Lead Agency) -10- .. I I I I ~2f The pr.oposed project will stabilize a beach which is currently eroding at an accelerated rate. By installing a rock revetment. the feeder beach function will be lessened. 25a & c Installing a rock revetment will provide an opportunity 26a & c For additional plant and fish species associated with rocks and jetties to be migrated from the Federal jetties to west of this structure. This will result in more fish in the immediate ar~a. 40 The project will preserve a public beach. . I KatzHolUs' X. REPORT OF COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER When the Orange County Auditor-Controller, as the fiscal officer charged with the responsibility of allocating tax increments under Section 33670 of the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) , has issued the report required by Section 33328 of the CRL, it will be submitted to the City Council to be added to this Report to City Council. I I I (X-1) . I KatzHolUs ' XI. REPORT OF FISCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Section 33353 of the Community Redevelopment Law provides that a county or any affected taxing agency may call for the creation of a fiscal review committee within 15 days after receipt from a redevelopment agency a description and map of the boundaries of a proposed redevelopment project area and a statement that a plan for the redevelopment of the area is being prepared. To be composed of one representative from each of the affected taxing agencies (including the county), the committee's purpose would be to report to the redevelopment agency on the fiscal impact of the proposed redevelopment plan on each of the committee's members. I In accord with Section 33327 of the Community Redevelopment Law, on October 12, 1982, the Redevelopment Agency for the City of Seal Beach transmitted a boundary description, Project Area Map, and statement for the Surfs ide Redevelopment Project to the governing bodies of each affected taxing agency, to the Orange County Auditor- Controller, Assessor and Tax Collector, and to the State Board of Equalization. By these filings the County and other affected taxing agencies were properly advised of the Agency's intent to prepare and adopt a redevelopment plan for the Project Area. Neither the County nor any other affected taxing agency called for the creation of a fiscal review committee to report on the fiscal impact of the proposed Redevelopment Plan. Accordingly, there is no fiscal review committee report included with this Report to City Council. I I (XI-1) . I Katz Hollis . XII. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT REPORT I Section 33352(1) of the Community Redevelopment Law requires the preparation of a neighborhood impact report if a proposed redevelopment project contains low or moderate income housing. The purpose of the report is to describe the impact of the project upon the residents of the project area and surrounding areas in terms of relocation, traffic circulation and other specified areas. The report is also to address various aspects of displacement to result from the project, including the number of low and moderate income dwelling units to be destroyed or removed from the market, the number of low and moderate income persons and families to be displaced, and information on the location, number, financing and scheduling of dwelling units to be rehabilitated, developed or constructed as low and moderate income replacement or other housing. It is apparent that the requirements imposed by Section 33352(1) were designed to apply to those projects which contain low or moderate income housing, and where implementation of redevelopment activities will involve displacement of persons and families occupying such housing. The Surfs ide Redevelopment Project will not involve land acquisition of any sort. Therefore, no low or moderate income persons or families, if any exist within the Project Area, will be displaced. Accordingly, a neighborhood impact report has not been prepared as part of this Report to City Council. I I (XII-l) . I Katz Hollis , . . XIII. ANALYSIS OF REPORT OF COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER AND SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS WITH AFFECTED TAXING AGENCIES I A. Analysis of Report of County Fiscal Officer When the Orange County Auditor-Controller, as the fiscal officer changed with the responsibility of a110cationg tax increments under Section 33670 of the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) , has issued the report required by Section 33328 of the CRL, it will be submitted to the City Council to be added to this Report to City Council. In addition, an an1ysis of the Auditor-Contro11er's report will be prepared and submitted to the City Council for addition to this Report. B. summa~ of Consultations with Affected Taxin AJlencies Orange County and County-Governed Affected TaxIng Agencies On October 12, 1982, the Seal Beach Redevelopment Agency, in accord with the Section 33327 of the Community Redevelopment Law, transmitted a boundary description, Project Area Map, and a statement for the Surfside Redevelopment Project to the governing bodies of the County, County-governed, and all other affected taxing agencies; to the Orange County Auditor-Controller, Assessor and Tax Collector; and to the State Board of Equalization. L I On October 15, 1982, the Agency's Executive Director and a member of the Agency board met with a senior analyst from the County Administrative Officer's staff and the executive assistant to the supervisor from the Second Supervisorial District, which district includes the City of Seal Beach and the Surfs ide Redevelopment Project. The County representatives acknowledged the extreme emergency affecting the Surfs ide Project Area, and stated that State special district assistance monies may be available to fund the needed rock revetment, but such funds could not be appropriated until the 1983-84 budget cycle. In the meantime, the County would have no objection to establishment of the Surfs ide Project and funding of the revetment through the redevelopment process. It was agreed that if State special district funds were appropriated in 1983-84 to reimburse the Agency for the cost of the Project, the Project would be closed out. I (XIII-l) . I Katz Hollis . . . I 2. Other Affected Taxing Agencies As noted above, all affected taxing agencies were transmitted on October 12, 1982, the boundary description, map and statement required by CRL Section 33327. On October 27, 1982, the Redevelopment Agency received a letter from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) advising that the MWD has no facilities within the Project Area and requesting that it be kept informed of the Project's redevelopment activities. The MWD also adopted and transmitted Resolution 7937 to the Agency under which the MWD elected, as provided for in Section 33676 of the CRL, to be allocated in addition to the portion of taxes allocated to the MWD pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 33670 of the CRL all of the tax revenues allocated to the Surfs ide Redevelopment Project pursuant to subdivision (b) of said Section 33670 attributable to any increases in the MWD's tax rates which occur after the tax year in which the ordinance adopting the Redevelopment Plan for the Surfs ide Redevelopment Project becomes effective. No other affected taxing agencies responded to the Redevelopment Agency's October 12, 1982 transmittals. I I (XIII-2) l