Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Res 6111 2011-02-14RESOLUTION NUMBER 6111 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPENDIX IN CONNECTION WITH THE RIVERS END STAGING AREA AND SAN GABRIEL RIVER BIKEWAY ENHANCEMENT PLAN PROJECT AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, APPROVING THE PROJECT AND INSTRUCTING STAFF TO FILE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, FIND, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 . On April 26, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5995 thereby adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Rivers End Staging Area ( "RESA ") and the San Gabriel River Bikeway Trail Enhancement Plan ( "Project "). Thereafter, Bay City Partners ( "BCP ") filed a challenge under the California Environmental Quality Act and represented in court that it may not continue to provide permission to the public to use portions of the Project located on its property. Based upon such representations, the Orange County Superior Court vacated the City's approval of the Project and directed the City to disclose that a portion of the existing San Gabriel River Bikeway Trail ( "Trail ") crosses over property owned by BCP, and to study whether there are any impacts on the environment if BCP prevents the public's continuing use of the Trail on its property. Section 2 . The RESA presently includes: a paved surface parking lot, a restaurant facility, and a City -owned maintenance structure. The City proposes to: add landscaping and associated irrigation facilities; repave the existing parking lot in some areas with asphalt; restripe the lot to create five ADA- compliant parking spaces and add one parking space; install two new stone informational kiosks at the two southern corners of the parking lot; install a stone entry monument sign and entry gate at the First Street entrance; renovate and add sidewalks; add signs and lighting; and add a series of seat walls to block wind -blown sand from reaching the RESA. Windsurf Park, located along the eastern boundary of the site, would be expanded to include additional turf, picnic tables, benches, trash receptacles, and signage improvements. This area would also include windsurfer board racks and rinse facilities. The Project also includes native landscaping improvements along the southern and western boundaries of this area, in addition to a block wall along the eastern boundary. A new tubular steel fence and gate would be installed along the southern portion of the facility. In total, the Project would add 0.61 -acre to the existing RESA, for a proposed total of 3.31 acres. Section 3 . The Trail is a paved regional recreational trail along the eastern boundary of the San Gabriel River between the cities of Azusa and Seal Beach and is used by pedestrians and cyclists. The City proposes to improve approximately 3.4 miles of the Trail, from 1 -405 to the northern boundary of the Rivers End parking lot. Proposed improvements to the Trail are: resurfacing and restriping of the existing trail; planting of native landscaping; installation of signage; installation of a decorative concrete area with a cobblestone kiosk featuring a trail map and interpretive sign, a drinking fountain, a concrete seat wall, and bicycle racks at the southern terminus; installation of a viewing node containing concrete benches, trash receptacles and native landscaping; and replacement of exotic landscaping with native plantings. A portion of the Trail is south of Marina Drive. That portion is approximately 1125 linear feet (less than 1/4 mile) until it reaches the City - owned property that includes the RESA. Within this 1125 linear feet portion of the Trail, approximately 800 linear feet crosses BCP property. Although a majority of the 800 feet is within public easements, two small portions are outside the boundaries of the easements. The proposed improvements outside the easements are limited to the addition of two inches of asphalt over the existing Resolution Number 6111 asphalt and painting of a centerline stripe. Proposed improvements within the easement areas are new asphalt, striping, concrete benches, signage and a viewing area. Section 4. The Project has been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. ( "CEQA ")), and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000, et seq.). The City engaged the services of the independent environmental consulting firm of RBF Consulting ( "RBF "). RBF prepared an initial study pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines § 15025(a). Based on the information contained in the initial study, RBF concluded that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, but that mitigation measures could be implemented to reduce such impacts to a less than significant level. Based upon this determination, RBF prepared a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration ( "MND ") in accordance with CEQA Section 21080(c) and Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Notice of the preparation of the MND was posted and circulated for public review and comment from February 5, 2010 through March 5, 2010. Copies of the MND were delivered to members of the City Council, Planning Commission, Environmental Quality Control Board ( "EQCB "), affected agencies and interested parties. EQCB held a hearing on February 24, 2010 and recommended adoption of the MND. On March 18, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the MND and four comment letters received by the City during the circulation period from: Southern California Gas Company (February 10, 2010), California Department of Transportation (March 1, 2010), Bay City Partners (March 5, 2010) and California Department of Transportation (March 9, 2010). Although CEQA does not require a lead agency to prepare written responses to comments received (see CEQA Section 21091(d) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088), the City elected to prepare written responses to the four comment letters timely submitted. On March 18, 2010, after the conclusion of the circulation period, Bay City Partners submitted a second comment during the Planning Commission hearing. Once again, although under no legal obligation to respond to the tardy submittal, Staff responded to the second comment letter at the hearing, and the staff report for the Council public hearing likewise addresses the letter. BCP argued that the City engaged in improper piecemealing by conducting two separate environmental reviews for the development project on its property and for the City's Project. BCP also contended that the City's Project would have potential adverse impacts, and therefore the City should prepare an environmental impact report. Specifically, BCP argued that by repaving the parking lot and bike trail, more people will visit the site thus creating more traffic. In the subsequent CEQA lawsuit, the court rejected all of BCP's contentions except the narrow argument relating to site control issues pertaining to portions of the Trail on property owned by BCP. Section 5. Pursuant to the court's ruling, RBF prepared an Appendix to the MND disclosing that a portion of the existing Trail crosses over property owned by BCP, and analyzing whether there are any impacts on the environment if BCP prevents the public's continuing use of the Trail on its property. The Appendix concludes that if BCP were to obtain permission from the California Coastal Commission to close the Trail on its property, Trail users seeing access to the beach /RESA via the Trail would proceed east on Marina Drive, turn right onto 1 st Street, and continue on 1 st Street to the access road to the 1 st Street Parking lot, instead of proceeding further south on the Trail to reach BCP's property and retracing their steps to return to Marina Drive. No improvements to Marina Drive, 1st Street, or the access road are required to accommodate additional pedestrians or cyclists. If BCP does not allow the City to install any improvements on its property, any corresponding impacts on the environment are reduced because there will be less construction on the Trail. Likewise, if BCP prevents the public's continued use of the Trail on its property, no changes are necessary because users seeking to reach the beach /RESA would utilize existing public roadways. Resolution Number 6111 Section 6 . On January 13, 2011, the City issued a Notice of Availability for the MND and the Appendix, and circulated the Appendix from January 14, 2011 through February 14, 2011 for review and comment to more than 30 persons and entities, plus each member of the EQCB, Planning Commission, and City Council. In addition, the City provided the public three additional opportunities to present comments on the Project: January 26, 2011, before the EQCB; February 2, 2011, before the Planning Commission; and February 14, 2011 before the City Council. No comments were received during the EQCB or Planning Commission meetings. Section 7 . On February 14, 2011, the City Council considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing. At 5:00 p.m. on February 14, 2011, BCP submitted a letter. The City Council entered into the record the Initial Study, the MND as revised by the Appendix, the comments on the MND, the responses to the comments on the MND, written and oral staff reports, correspondence, public testimony, and all exhibits attached to the staff report. In addition, the Council entered into the record the February 14, 2011 letter from BCP. Section 8 . Pursuant to Section 15074(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council independently reviewed and considered the contents of the Initial Study, the MND as revised by the Appendix, the comments on the MND, the responses to the comments on the MND, written and oral staff reports, correspondence, and public testimony (collectively, the "Environmental Documentation ") prior to deciding whether to approve the Project. Based on the Environmental Documentation, and the whole record before the City Council, the City Council hereby finds that the MND and the Appendix prepared for the Project reflect the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council and that there is no substantial evidence that the approval of the Project, as mitigated, will have any significant environmental impact. The City has addressed each of the identified concerns within the Environmental Documentation. Moreover, although CEQA does not require responses to comments concerning a mitigated negative declaration, the City responded in writing to comments received. Section 9 . Based upon the foregoing, and based upon substantial evidence in the record before the City Council, the Council exercising its independent judgment and analysis hereby finds: 1. Approval of the Project, with mitigation, will not result in a significant effect on the environment. 2. This Project involves no potential for adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources and will not have an adverse impact on fish and wildlife. 3. There is not substantial evidence to suggest that the Project will result in inadequate parking capacity or adverse traffic impacts. Because the number of parking spaces will increase by one with Project implementation, and because the improvements to the facilities are not expected to substantially change the number of persons coming to the area for recreational purposes, the Project will not have significant traffic or parking impacts. In the event that BCP prevents the public's continued use of the Trail on its property, there is no potential for adverse traffic impacts because Marina Drive, 1st Street and the access road to the 1 St Street parking lot can fully accommodate additional pedestrians or cyclists that may be created by such action by BCP. 4. The proposed Project will not necessitate any physical changes to the City's maintenance structure and storage yard or the adjacent privately -owned oil facility, and as such does not have the potential Resolution Number 6111 to cause any adverse impacts to the environment from any release of hazardous materials associated with these existing facilities. 5. There is no evidence that climate change will cause short-term flooding impacts on any component of the Project, and unsubstantiated and speculative opinions or narratives in the record do not constitute evidence that such impacts could occur. The evidence in the record supports a conclusion that no impacts in this regard will occur in the foreseeable future. 6. If BCP prevents the public's continued use of the Trail on its property, no changes to the Project or its implementation are necessary because users seeking to reach the beach /RESA would utilize existing public roadways. 7. As noted above, BCP submitted a letter dated February 14, 2011. BCP's contentions in the letter are: (a) arguments relating to the City's project that the court already considered and rejected, and (b) speculation and conclusory statements entirely lacking in support. BCP has not identified any potential adverse environmental impact relating to the alternate option to reach the RESA, or any of the supported conclusions in the Appendix. BCP is impermissibly attempting to re- litigate the issues (e.g., the purported need for a traffic study) raised in its lawsuit and rejected by the court. Furthermore, the statements that BCP makes regarding the public easements on its property are not germane given that (a) the Project has not changed, and (b) as discussed in the Appendix, there is an existing alternate option to reach the RESA that does not implicate BCP's property or any easements thereon. Section 10 . The foregoing findings are based on substantial evidence in the record, including, without limitation, the Initial Study, the draft MND as revised by the Appendix, staff reports and exhibits, and both oral and written testimony. The documents that comprise the record of the proceedings are on file with the Department of Development Services, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach. The custodian of said records is the Director of Development Services. Section 11 . The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration, as revised by the Appendix, and approves the Project. Section 12 . The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference, and imposes each mitigation measure as a condition of the Project's approval. City staff shall be responsible for implementation and monitoring the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit A. Section 13 . The Council hereby instructs the Director of Development Services to file a notice of determination with the County of Orange. The Council further authorizes staff to proceed with all steps necessary to implement the Project after the City has demonstrated to the court its compliance with the mandates of CEQA and the writ issued by the court. (Intentionally Left Blank) Resolution Number 6111 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 14th day of February , 2011 by the following vote: J ' AYES: Council Members r NOES: Council Members \ `' ABSENT: Council Members STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } 1 I, Linda Devine, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number 6111 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 14th day of February , 2011. M NOW_ Me �l M 1