HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Res 3937 1990-06-25
I
S.ction 3. 'J'be city Council bereby finds:
1. 'J'be proposed Map and development agreement are
inconsistent with applicable General and Specific Plan6 and
the proposed specific Plan Amendment is inconsistent with
the General Plan. Ordinance No. 1258, the ordinance
adopting the currently existing Hellman Specific Plan in
1987, provides for the following land uses:
. Multiple - Family Residential, 24.0 acres, 660
units.
. Single - Family Residential, 18.0 acres, 113
units.
I
. Golf Course, 105.0 acres.
. Community Park, 17.7 acres.
. Flood Control, 35.3 acres.
. Oil Production I FUture Development, 25.0 acres.
unlike the exiniJJg Specific Plan..governing the area, the
present application proposes no golf course, no aultiple -
family units, and a greater number of single - family units
than are shown on the Hellman specific Plan. Furtber, the
acr.age for wetlands restoration and open apace also
differs from that shown on the Specific Plan. Accordingly,
the map may not be approved by virtue of Government Code
Section 66473.5 and Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 21-43.
Moreover, the property is zoned SPR (Specific Plan
Regulations). Such zoning designation requires the adoption
of a Specific Plan whiCh shall establish the appliCable
.aoning for the subj~ct property. In accordance with the
Code, the existing Hellman Rancb Specific Plan esta!3lisbes
the existinq zoning to permit the uses set fortb above.
. _ __ ~ ..,:J"",;., _ ~. ~_.. ...... ~ ....AI' ~--
Resolution Number P 931
.,
!'IIu, tII. proposed V_UDg up is inccmaistent witll tile
aw1icab1e aoning OZ'dinance as 1:bat tena is used in
Governaent COde Section 66498.3.
2. 'ftle proposed proj ect is cqptruy to tile public beal th,
_fe1:y and velfare, uong otber reasolUJ, in tbat it
an"a to couUuct 32. individul b..s on a .ite with
idenUfied geologic baaude d_cribed bereinafter.
IIoraover, nch bG1188 are proposed to cover acre area of
t.bair respective lots tban applicable aoning would
'pemit but for tile Specific Plan. 'J'bis proposal would
contribute to tile ClmUlative alteration of tile Seal
"ach ccmaunity froa a 1av-intaneity beach coaunity
to tile aore urban setting typical of inland areas.
Coupled with the City's .afety concems, this pruature
urbanization would be detrimental to the public bealth,
safety and welfare. Additionally, new evidence bas
been presented indicating that significant
archaeologial resources exist on tile site that bav. not
been adequately studied and that farther study and
review is required to ensure that all archaeological
resources are properly identified end tbat no
archaeological resources are inadvertently destroyed or
damaged.
3. The site is not physically suitable for the type and
density of the proposed development and the design of the
proposed subdivision is likely to cause serious public
bealth problems as demonstrated by the following facts of
record :
(a) Significant adverse noise impacts tbat would
adversely affect occupants of the proposed bomes were
identified but not adequately mitigated in the
followinq areas:
(1) The noise level from dogs kept outdoors at
the adjacent animal shelter would result in a peak
Doise level of approximately 82 dBA to .2 dBA at
50 feet, resultinq in a siqnificant noise impact
to the proposed residential uses adjacent to the
shelter.
I
I
(2) Proposed home sites are indicated to be
located within noise impact areas due to the
followinq existinq conditions on the subject
property:
[a] The inability to achieve 45 dBA CNEL for
interior areas of proposed homes located closest
to Seal Beach Boulevard~
[b] '1'be inability to acbieve 65 dBA CNEL for I
exterior areas and 45 dBA CNEL for interior areas
of proposed homes closest to tbe oil pumping
facility havinq seven (7) wells alonq Seal Beach
Boulevard and of proposed homes closest to the
three (3) oil wells in tbe nortbern portion of the
site.
Due to local characteristics, the proposed
aeasures of mechanical ventilation systems for the
impacted residences and keeping windows closed
Resolution Number 39:1,;1
I
w1ll not ad.liUat.ly aitigate such nois., giv.n the
c11aatic condl tiolUl of thia ar.a and th. dedre of
laalleowners to capture the -s.a br....- through
open wiftdows.
(b) ~ sita 1s traveraed by 'tile lfewport-%lIlJlavood
.ault and evideJ'lce lJ1I9CJests 1t 1s also uavenad by the
Bellaan UJdt: .ault and proposed a1tigatiOft ....ur.s
will not avoid or substantially lessen the significant
env1rolllll8fttal effects for the following reasons:
(1) Geologic inv.stigations have not adeliUately
d_onstrated that the project site and the
proposed r.sidential development and public park
facilities are not substantially threat.ned by
surface displacement from future faultinq.
(2) An evaluation of risk ba.ard, relative to the
proposed development, has not been prepared to
provide full disclosure of the risk of property
d...qe, personal injury and loss of life in
camparison vith other normal livinq functions and
catastrophic events.
(3) The risk of property dUlaqe, personal
injury, and loss of life bas not been SUfficiently
defined to allow for an informed decision
reqardinq the relative danqer of livinq within the
proposed bousinq development.
(4) The potential Burface effects of
differential subsidence is a geolO9ic ha.ard,
which has not been adequately addressed. A
reduction in elevation of the land surface can
cause problems most easily seen in areas that are
at or sliqhtly above sea level. This horizontal
differential subsidence can also cause damaqe to
structures throuqh .isalignment of foundations,
supports or piles, and the rupturinq or kinkinq
of utility pipelines, storm drains and sewer
syst..s.
(5) The impact of water injection wells from the
Rellman Remainder property on future seismic
activity on the faults has not been liUantified.
There is the increased possibility of surface
displacement alonq the pre-existinq faults vhere
increased pore pressure from injection wells has
reduced the shear strength alonq fault planes.
(6) An anticipated maqn)tude 7 earthquake on the
Newport-Inqlewood Fault could generate the
followinq impacts Wbich require further study
before residential development of the type and
configuration proposed .ay be approved:
tal Subsurface faultinq on the subject property.
tbl Surface displacements averaqinq three (3)
feet on the discontinuous se9ll1ents of active
faults in the fault .one.
I
I
"
Resolution Number ~9J,7
~
(cl Considerable damage and partial collapse of I
buildings ..y occur in t:he alluvial arus on the
Subject property.
[dl Ground breaJcage_ (surface rupture) GOUld
....~ bten8ities greater 1:.ban D. .s defined
1Ial.... in tbe fault acmes. and in anaa of
potM.U.al liquefaction. 'lbe subjact property b
within t:he fault aone and certain portions of t:he
subj.ct property are identifi.d as -high
liquefaction potential" aones.
(el The subject property could experience ground
shaking intensities of VIII or IX, in addition to
ground failure occurring on t:hos. portions of t:he
site identified as -high liquefaction potential."
Ground shaking intensities of VIII end IX bave
been described as follows:
( 1 ) IJr1'ERSIT'l VIII -- -!'right general - alarm
approaches panic1 disturbs persons driving aotor
cars1 trees shaken strongly - branches, trunks,
broken off, especially palm trees, ejected sand
and IlUd in small amounts1 temporary and permanent
changes in flow of springs and wells, dry wells
renewed flow, change in temperature of springs I
and water wells1 damage slight in structures
(briCk) built especially to withstand earthquakes1
considerable damage in ordinary substantial
buildings' partial collapse, racked, tumbled down
of wooden houses in some caseS1 threw off panel
walls in frame structures1 broke off decayed
pilings 1 fall of walls1 cracked, broke, solid
stone walls, wet ground to some extent1 twisting,
fall of chimneys, columns, monuments, towers and
factory stacks1 moved conspicuously, overturned,
very heavy furniture."
(2) INTENSITY IX -- -Panic general' cracked
ground conspicuouslY1 damage considerable in
(..sonry) structures built especially to wit:hstand
earthquakes 1 threw out of plumb some wood-frame
bouses built especially to withstand earthquakes:
damage great in substantial (masonry) buildings,
some collapse in larqe part1 wholly shifted frame
buildings off foundations, racked frames1 damage
serious to reservoirs, underqround pipes sometimes
broken."
(c) oil field wastes may be ;present on t:he active oil
extraction site. Additional study b required to I
determine if this adjacent site ..y pose a risk to the
residents of t:he proposed subdivision.
Accordingly, the llap may not be approved by virtue of
Government Code Section 66474(c), (d), and (f) as well
as Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 21-4.
4. That t:he design of t:he proposed subdivision will cause
substantial environmental damage as set forth in
Finding Number 3 immediately above. Accordingly, the
up _y not be !Approved by virtue of Government Code
Resolution Number ~~=,,;1
'",
1.
I
hcUcm "474(e) aneS Seal Beach lI1micipal COde aecUon
21-4.
5. An EIR aneS Suppl..ental EIR bave been certified by the
City in connection with ..arlier develoFa.wt ~opo.als
ror the -=ject property. Since the CU1:if1aation of
auch EIRs, significant new evidence bas been pnaentec1
which WOIll.d r.quire addiUcmal environaental nview
pursuant 1:0 Public a.sourees Code Section 21111.
IncleeeS, since the t1ae the City approved certain
general plan ..enclllents and a parcel up in connection
wit:ll the subject property on Nay 14, lito, new evieSence
bas been pre.enteeS to the City which would require
aeSditional environmental analysis aneS review. This
evieSence is set forth in paragraph 6 !.aeeSiately
below.
6. Evidence not fully analyzeeS or considereeS in the prior
ElRa includes, inter Al1a, the october 1989 San
Francisco earthquake and the information compileeS from
the results of that earthquake regarding the
reasibility of safely constructing resieSential
structures on alluvial soils in active fault zones,
other very recent seismic activity, the testimony
presented by geologist Dr. Stanley Finney, the
dOCUlDents submitted by Dr. Finney and by geolO9ist Dr.
Paul Winchell, inclueSing the material prepared by the
California Department of Conservation aneS Division of
lIines and Geology, and the analysis provided by the
City'S geotechnical consultant, Dr. KaneSiah
AzulananeSon. This new evieSence indicates the
following:
(a) While the applicant presenteeS evidence that
geologic hazards and instability couleS be mitigated by
.state of the art" engineering techniques, even
applicant's consultant couleS not ensure the City that
the proposed bOlDes wouleS wi thstaneS an earthquake. Due
to the limiteeS funeS of experience with the proposed
angineering techniques there is inadequate assurance of
successful mitigation of these hazards. A confluence
of factors, some of which are set forth in subsections
(b), (c), (d) and (e) below, contribute to and cOlDpound
the geologic instability of the site, and place into
question the reliability of the proposed mitigation
_asures. Thus, further stueSy of the proposed
aitigation aeasures is required.
(b) The Rewport-Inglewood Fault traverses the subject
property and there is evieSence that the Bellman Unit
Pault traverses it as well. 'lIoreover, there is
evieSence that three other ieSentifled faults are in the
!.aediate vicinity, inclueSlnq the Los Alaaitos and
Bellman Estate faults. 'lbe project proposes houses
within 50-100 feet of the trace line of the fault.
~ile applicant's consultant has presented evieSence
that a 50-foot geologic setback is adequate, other
evieSence challenges such a conclusion and indicates
that houses should not be any closer than a minimum of
100 feet frOlD the trace line. Surface ruptures are
usually restricted to the relatively narrow area
immediately adjacent -- that is, within 500 feet -- of
the rault line. SOIDe faults do not follow a linear
I
I
Resolution Number .J9.j 7
.
.,
.'
patgrn. ft81' tend to rracture the vround surface over I
a broad area aoaat1ae. exteftdiDtJ ror hundreds or
, 1:howIands of feet. 1I0reover, evidence has been
.._entad that the Jrawport-Invlavood Fault uy not
follow 8 11near pattan. _ Further study 1. z.rpaired to
IIDr8 accurately deriDe the locaUon of the ~aul U.
(c) lJue, in part, to the historical vaur oourae. of
1:IIe San Gabriel lliver, thrae-quartar. of 1:IIe property
are caapri&ed of relatively soft alluvial so11s. The
site aJ.ao lDclude. peat, which .ettle. wen saturated.
fte lIUcmlJe.t Aaking in the destructive Long "ach
earthquake in 1933 occurred on the coast adjacant to
the Santa Ana River. Buildings located on old river
bads, e.tuaries, and other fomer water courses are
..ong the worst locations for construction. Such sites
possess soils wbich are u.ually very unstable with
nWllerous weak .e..s and chaMels. In addition, the
landfill that accampanies development of such areas
enhances the potential for liquefaction. Thus,
substanUal portions of the alte pose hilJh and
aoderately high potential. for liquefaction in the
event of an earthquake. The recent earthquake in
northern California provided vraphic illustration of
the de.tructive consequences of liquefaction in a
re.idential area. Liquefaction potential is high wen I
the water table is le.s than 10 feet. 'l'be
liquefaction potential i. aediWII when the depth to the
water table is between 10 and 30 feet. Groundwater
depth on the subject property varies from as little as
2 feet to 13 feet below surface level. Further, due to
oil extraction from the site and the adjacent parcel
and the concomitant steam-injection, the predicted
stability of the property is further reduced.
(d) The proposal contemplates considerable earth
aovement, coapaction, landfill and oth~r forms of
disruption of the natural tOPOCJraphy, which suggest an
additional adverse environmental impact.
(e) Dr. Arulanandon's report suggests that certain
portions of the site are so likely to liquify in the
event of an earthquake that construction thereon should
not be pemitted without further study. Further,
adjacent areas of moderate liquefaction risk may fail
8S a result of a loss of lateral support from the
liquified areas. Even the areas of the .ite which
available data suggest are of relatively low
liquefaction risk bear further analysis bafore a
project of this type can be epproved, in Dr.
Arulanandon's view.
All of these factors suggest it is inadvisable to
place residences on certain portions of the subject
property, especially on low-lying areas within high
llquefaction zones, until further studies are made and
applicant's proposed mitigation measures are more fully
evaluated.
I
7. Based upon the foregoing, approving the project as
proposed without additional study would be prejUdicial
to the public health, .afety, and general welfare. '!'he
development of bOlles and public parks UPO" acilll~.ttedly
I
I
I
Resolution Number ~~~;1
f
geologically unstable ar... could inflict injUl'Y, not
cmly upon the tutUl'e nsidenta of the pl'Oject, but upon
the CGmIunity a. well. '!'he applicant concedes that the
8ib auffers from factors which contribute to geologic
1D8tability. lNe to the _conflicting' evidence as to
whether nch dska can be alUgated., and .. to which
portiona of t:he sita can be _de ..fe, tbe council
cannot, without ful'ther study, detenaine vheUael' the
proposed pl'Oject would safely withstand an earthquake.
'!'he live. the council seeka to save and the injuries it
strives to prevent involve not only the existing'
raaidents of Seal "ach but the pro.pective pUl'chasers
of homes on applicant's property as well.
Section 4. Based upon the foregoing and all of the
evidence pre.ented to and/or considered by the Council, as a
..tter of public policy, and pursuant to Chapter 21 and Articles
17, 27.5 and 29.5 of Chapter 28 of the Code of the City of Seal
"ach, california, and Government Code Sections 66498.3, 66474,
15451, 65454, and 65867.5, the City Council hereby denies Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 13198, the requested amendment to the
Specific Plan; and the proposed development agreement.
Section 5. Pursuant to Section 28-2951 of the Code of
the City, the City Council hereby directs staff to prepare and
evaluate City-initiated amendments to the Hellman specific Plan
and the City'S General Plan, to provide for appropriate
development, including residential u.es, on the portions of the
subject property suitable for development, considering the
factors set forth above. The City Council directs staff to seek
the participation in the evaluation of alternative concepts for
the subject property from the owner and the applicant.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City.. council~~ ,City of
Seal Beach at a meeting held on the cX!.6'1(!. day of , 1990,
by the following vote: ~
AlES' Council.....r. "~'d~:r~ff.
IIOES: Council.embers!....----. j~_
ABSENT: Councilmembers ~ ~
~~ ,. J t fZAhL, "'t,.)
Mayor
City of Seal Beach
.:P:- 511EI~J.'''~
_ t ..
,;::~ 0 000000 8~ to
~~~ofO\l'OI1::;;'f~<<
tI ,+ '''o\''So
lloQ~\~
0: Q<(
"'~o 0.''''
~~'l.').O ....:~
~t~Q;"'o:'. 27. ,q'''J.<c.O
C': OOQOOO.;.;.o;.~
~OtJNrf "
cfty, Clerk
city of Seal Beach
Resolution Number ~~ .7
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF ORANGE )SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH )
I
I, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach,
California, do hereby certify that the foregoing w-
resolution is an original copy of Resolution Number
on ~ in the office.l'of the City Clerk, passed, appr ve
and adqpted by the City Council of the City o~al Beach,
at ~ ~ular meeting thereof held on the ~ day of
~ _I _ , 1990
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
County of Orange
I am a citizen of the United States
and a resident of the County afore-
said; I am over the age of eighteen
years, and not a party to or inter-
ested in the above-entitled matter.
I am the principal clerk of the pri-
nter of the SEAL BEACH JOURNAL a
newspaper of general circulation,
printed and published weekly in the
City of Seal Beach, County of Orange
and which newspaper has been adjudg-
ed a newspaper of general circula-
tion by the Superior Court of the
County of Orange, State of Califor-
nia, under the date of 2/24/75.
Case Number A82583; that the notice
of which the annexed is a printed
copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpareil), has been published in
each regular and entire issue of
said newspaper and not in any sup-
plement thereof on the following
dates, to-wit:
l'Ii)"," i
-(.,
,
all in the year 1990.
I certify (or declare) under penalty
of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Dated at Seal Beach, California,
this 1'1 day of /-1- 1990.
1\ ~,
. _.._.J}vlJ:". .1,.._ '\:2) f\ .r>,}\.0N...V.r:
Signature .
PUBLICATION PROCESSED BY:
THE JOURNAL NEWSPAPERS
216 Main Street
P.O. Box 755
Seal Beach, CA 90740
(213) 430-7555
Resolution Number ,;J..~ 1
This space is for the County
Clerk's Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
P,Q.~~r.~ .t{q~r.~E.I.~1.1qJ.i,~ .I!~a.~i,n.s. . . .
n l' . J' \ ~ f' -.
r,t.ft~.Vl('l\\.~'(\~.\ 1~\lr(\i!\t\11 '-=?e~"''''',' Vt'\V1
. . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . .~ . . . . .
NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING Environmental Review: Theil
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN "'811118: aclI~dos ore _ lhe IIODpll ~I "'"
City CounCil of the City 01 Seal" EnvfronmentaJ Impacr Report lor the
Beach will hold B PublIC Hearing al t AmAndAd Hallman Raneh sHi:lfle
the" regular adjourned meeting, 01 ~ fIiQ which was C8fIIfted by Iho CIty
Monday. A,or130. 'GGO. 817:00 p.m. CounCIl by "'. adapdon of Rooolu1lcr.
.n "'o'City-COunafCtiiinliiri:2,; -.- No. 3734 011 _ber lB. '9117lO1d
8th Street. Seal Belch. cA 10 con. the SunohtmBntal FnvtronmentRl
sider Ihe fOnowing I~' Im~ RRNVl' for f1e .....Iman R:IInr.h
Amlndmenl to the H.n.,.'h -!1M. ~ Plan which WBI cerdIIed by
~ . "'e City Council by Ih. adopdon 01
Oana.... PI." Amendmenll....go R..o~utlon No. 8824"0" July 17,
Land U.. E1emeni ' 1969. Tho previous Envlronmonlal
o.r.... Plan Arnendll'llrll: 1.b-IO Impact R'pOrt and Supplemental
Open SpecitlconoervsllonlAoo... ,1i~,vfrO.~~~,~P'!!i\;~ f!d.
IIII011EI8II1'" .9u.,.\O/Y,,~~~cr.'!'_'!'~ ~vlll!';'''''
T_lhre Pucel Map No. _ PG!"'I1ot 111. purpcl80II of CECA iIld
VInIIlng Tentative Tmct: MIIp No. no rurther environmental review II
13196 . requuod. Cop/os of 1he __r.
PrecI. P!ln 1-10 enced 8ftylronmBntef documents are
Do'....pmont Agnomenl _ Hel~ ....I.bI. for ........t CIty HaD, 21'
man Ranch Eighth Street and the Mary Wilson
1Iequeel: To omond Iho.JdsIIng Hd: lIbrary. 707 Electric Awnu.. Seal
man Sruu~nlc Plan to r,rlect the Beach, CA.
ISSUIS or wetland ....tID'"ndIon ..atilt Applicant: ~a Development Cor.
01 41.4 lICIOI OS a rosut '" modifica- poradon
tionl Impoled by the California Owner: Hellman Family TNst
Coaslal CommIsoion. An ~l Allho above - OIId pIaco .. Intol'-
to the Open Space and Land Use IIted person, may be heard if so
Elements of Ihe Gll!Inll!lral Plan to dealred. If you challenge th. pro-
reflect the proposed change. i1 the pa~ed actions In court. you may be
!;rNIldfie Plan To request a ...bdivi-- Kmned to rafslng anty those Issues
lion or the paroit b' canveyance pur. you or someone else rmsed at the
poses. To subdvide1he ptDpIfty lIDr public hearing delcrlbed In this
the construction of three hundred notIC&. or In wrlnen CiQr'fUpondence
twenty-nine (329) lingle f.mlly doIl~recllo "'" City of SeaI_ a~
homes. 14.74 acre. of publiC parle, orpnartID. f1e publiC hearing.
"'e preYloully menlloned 41.4 ocro DATED"" 'B1hdayolAprll,lll1lO
woIIand ore. end '0.43 Gum GnMI Joanne Yea, CIIy CI....
Pork. Tho appllMll of a PnlcI.. Plan CIy 01 Soal_
for CllI1IlIUClion of '" propoaod ia; ApnI19. Ill1lO
aIIll..I!Jao. The appllMll of a Ilovol- ~ in Iho Seal Boach.lolMal.
opmenl Agreement for the Hellman
Ranch SnMfie Plan In c:onfonnance
with the Hellman SDAClfic Plan as
ornondod.
Cod. Soctlons: 211-1700; 211-275' -
moo 211-2950 - 2956; 21-7; lOId 21-
42 - 2'-53
Resolution Number 49,5?
PROOF :,.OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
County of Orange
I am a citizen of the United States
and a resident of the County afore-
said' I am over the age of eighteen
, .
years, and not a pa~ty to or ~nter-
ested in the above-entitled matter:
I am the principal clerk of the pr~-
nter of the SEAL BEACH JOURNAL a
newspaper of general circulation,
printed and published weekly in the
City of Seal Beach, County of Orange
and which newspaper has been adjudg-
ed a newspaper of general circula-
tion by the Superior Court of the
County of Orange, State of Califor-
nia, under the date of 2/24/75. .
Case Number A82583; that the not~ce
of which the annexed is a printed
copy (set in type not sma~ler t~an
nonpareil), has been publ~shed ~n
each regular and entire issue of
said newspaper and not in any sup-
plement thereof on the following
dates, to-wit:
A'P2.\I... 7.6
all in the year 1990.
I certify (or declare) under penalty
of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Dated at Seal Beach, California,
this -z(. day of 'f
~ture
192Q.
----
PUBLICATION PROCESSED BY:
THE JOURNAL NEWSPAPERS
216 Main Street
P.O. Box 755
Seal Beach, CA 90740
(213) 430-7555
This space is for the County
Clerk's Filing Stamp
I
Proof of Publication of
~qEl~:r.~ .~q~:r.~EiI.~qqJ.i,c; .~EtC\z:i,I\'l . . .
AMENl'I'W!.ttr"11l \-ta~ "i'fE;c.\,,"'c.. ~
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ranch Specific Plan In conlor-
NOnCE OF PUBUC mance wI!h !he Hellman Speclf_
HEARING L ic Plen u emended. .
NOTICE IS HER~8Y GIV~ ,I Code Section..
Ihat Ihe City Council 01 Ihe CIIy ~ 28-1700; 28-2751; 28-2751-
01 Seal Beach wUI hold a Pubic 2nO' 28-2950- _ 2956' 21-7;
Hearing at !heir l8lIulal1y scheel- 2' -42 _ 21 _ 53. '
uled meeling 01 Monday,.May.7, .
1990, at 7:00 p.m. In Il!e City environmental review:. These
Council Chambers, 2ft ,Eighlh aclivitieo are wllhin !he ocops-ol
Slr8e1, Seal Beach,:C;; 10 con- the Environmental .Impacll
sider !he following illlmi: Repon lor !he Amended Hell-
~~E' .
, t . man Ranch Specifi~ Plan which
Amendment 10 Hellman Spa- wu certified by !he Cily Council
cific Plan. -,. :' by the adoption of Rasolution
. J' , No. 3734 on November 16,
Genara(PIan Am_ant 1.. 1987 and the Supplemental
90 Land .I.!se EIe'1l8nt: r:,. Environmental Impact Report
lor Ihe Hellmen Ranch Specific
GanerafPIan Amencimiini 1. b- Plan which was certified by Ihe
90 OpsQ SpacelConseryationl City Council by the adoption 01
~l!On E1em..t, , , .; Resolution No. 3824 on July 17,
",j, . - .~d.' h 1989. the pravious Environ-
Tentative Parcel Map N.o. 8~- mental Impecl Rapon and Sup-
349. ,:' .. p1emental Environmentallmpecl
, , Repon adequal8ly desaibe Ihe
~1Inir.r.;iilMt T~~~~. activities proposed tor Ihe pur-
13_1~. .fill... ,.~, ,., _ _'. ~...,"."~, .: ._':~.,. poses 01 CECA end n~ fu~r
3: c.~ environmental revIew IS
~ Pf8ci".I'I~,,' 1~. ,~~, ~i~"'" I8q!llred. CoI'!!!J oIlhe.~
.. ...a:..... ....~... '.. -'--need .~menlal doaJ.
..t. .1"..:..' ''7':. - r"I~I~ _....~.
-. Oev!llop.:!!~nt 69~ilJ1.!,' Ij~ meiitinllil aV"'aI!~li.tor iiVleW
inan RaIj'ch,. .. '. '.11"".. at: City Hall, 211 Sghl!1.S1raaI
. :~: "._;::':'. and the Mary Wilson L~~rB!Y,
Requeat:. To amend Ihe ",,1st. 707 Eiectric Avenue, Seal
ing .!i~lIman !!p_l!.cjfi~_ f'.la~ JJl BelIch, CA.
reflect the issues 01 weiland
reslorallon on-oll8 01 41.4 acras
as a result ol-modiflcallons
Imposed by the California
Coaatal Commission. An
amendmentllllhe Open Space
end Land Use .E1emenll of the
General Plan 10 I8nect Ihe pro-
posed chenges ,In the Specific
Plan. To I8que~t a subdivision
01 the parcel lor conveyance
purposes: To i~bdlvlda the
proper1y_loi.the;eonllrUcllon 01
1hr8e hlindlll!!-~....Ine (329)'
single family:' h.oni~s,: !~:?~
acres olrpubllc!jliik; the' pntYI-
ously ni8ntioned 41.4 8CI8 _-
land area and 10.43 acre Gum
Grove Park.. , The applllY8l 01 a
Precise Plan for consllUClion 01
the proposed Specific Plan.
The eppn;;;.r 01 a DevaIopment
Agreement lor the Hellman
Applicant: Mala Development
CotporatIon.
Own..: HeRmBn Family TNII.
AI. the above lime and place alii
Interested 'persons may be
heard, If you r;haUenge !he pro-
posed acIIons in coun, you may
be limited 10 raising only lhasa
Issues you ~r. som!on!,. e)se
ralseil.f.the'public'hearmg
dascnbed in this notice, or.in
writlan conesPOfldence dabv-
erad 10 the Cily 'of Seal Beach
a~ or prior 10, !he public hear.
Ing.
DATED this 24th day 01 April
1990.
Joanna Yea. CIty Cieri<
City 01 Sea! Beach