Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSchedule - Southeast Coastal Redevelopment Plan Adoption Pro Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: Ap roved ❑ Conditional) Approved ❑ Denie W.J Cit CI 's Signature C cil Meeting Date: January 16, 2001 Department ID Number: ED 01-01 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator o,,tl PREPARED BY: DAVID C. BIGGS, Director of Economic Development SUBJECT: Approve the Schedule for the Southeast Coastal Redevelopment- Plan Adoption Process Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Statusj A'Itacliment(s) Statement of Issue: The Southeast Area Committee has recommended that the City Council consider approving the Schedule for the Southeast Coast Redevelopment Plan Adoption Process. Approving the schedule will provide a timetable for accomplishing the redevelopment plan adoption. Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: Motion to: 1. Approve the Schedule for the Southeast Coastal Redevelopment Plan Adoption Process (Attachment 1). Alternative Action(s): 1. Modify the schedule. 2. Do not approve the schedule. Analysis: In August 1999, the Redevelopment Agency commissioned a redevelopment feasibility study, which generally concluded that the Southeast area, encompassing 266 acres, with the exception of the Huntington-by-the-Sea Mobilehome Park and two commercial parcels, would qualify and benefit from a potential redevelopment project. According to California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et. Seq., several legislative actions must occur before a new Redevelopment Area is created. The plan adoption process usually takes between nine to eighteen months, during which time the legislative body can decide not to continue with the process of plan adoption. AQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTI09 MEETING DATE: January 16, 2001 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: ED 01-01 In the fall of 2000, several activities commenced that included (1) conducting a public workshop, (2) drafting the Preliminary Plan, and (3) preparing the Initial Study (an environmental survey). On November 15, 2000, approximately 200 persons attended the first public workshop that was intended to provide citizen input into the Preliminary Plan Southeast Area Workshop Summary (Attachment 2). Additionally, meetings with representatives from the Southeast Huntington Beach Neighborhood Association (SEHBNA) and the California Coastal Communities Association provided additional citizen input. Property owners, businesses, and residents in the area will be continually notified of meetings and review periods throughout the process. One of the first actions to be considered by the City Council is the approval of a resolution to define the survey area. This action was first scheduled for the November 20, 2000 meeting, but was continued until the Southeast Area Committee was established and had an opportunity to review issues and to allow for additional community input. At its first meeting of December 20, 2000, the committee unanimously recommended that the entire City Council consider the expanded schedule (Attachment 1) that included rescheduling the community meeting to January 18, 2001. The Southeast Area Committee will lead this meeting. The main purpose of the second public workshop will be to present more public information on the principles of redevelopment. Besides allowing for more community input, the expanded schedule moved the date of the Joint Public hearing to adopt the Southeast Redevelopment Project Area from June to November 2001. Further, this modified the year, to December 2003, as to when the Agency would receive its first tax increment revenue. Having City Council adopt the schedule will provide direction to move forward in the process. Staff recommends that Council adopt the schedule (Attachment 1). Environmental Status: Not applicable. Attachment(s): NumberCity Clerk's Page • Description 1 Schedule for the Southeast Coastal Redevelopment Plan Adoption Process. 2. Summary of Southeast Area Public Workshop. 3. Southeast Area Committee Notes of December 20, 2000. RCA Author: Runzel ED0101 -2- 01/03/01 9:02 AM Schedule of Southeast Coastal Redevelopment Plan Adoption Process s 011 Schedule Southeast Coastal Area Redevelopment Plan Adoption Process • SEHBNA Board Presentation 11/14/00 • 1st Community Workshop 11/15/00 • Planning Commission Study Session 11/28/00 • City Council approves Plan Adoption Schedule *1/16/00 • Council Committee/2nd Community Workshop 1/18/01 • Planning Commission Study Session 1/23/01 • City Council Establishes Survey Area 2/05/01 • PC Approves Preliminary Plan 2/13/01 • Agency Approves Preliminary Plan *2/20/01 • Council Committee/3rd Community Workshop 4/12/01 • Prel. Report, Draft Plan & Draft EIR Circulated 5/28/01 • PC Considers Draft EIR 8/14/01 • Joint Public Hearing Notices Mailed/Published 9/21/01 • PC Submits Report on Red. Plan 9/25/01 • Council Committee/4th Community Workshop 10/11/01 • Joint Public Hearing 11/05/01 • Responses to Written Objections/1st Reading 11/19/01 • Council Conducts Second Reading 12/3/01 • 1st Tax Increment Received December 2003 Note: *Holiday Schedule Summary of Southeast Area Public Workshop / The City of Huntington Beach Southeast Coastal Area Public Workshop SUMMARY REPORT ow r Prepared by: MOOR IACOFANO GLOTSMAN (NIIG), Inc. 169 North Marengo Ave Pasadena,CA 91101 November 2000 City of Huntington Beach Southeast Coastal Area Redevelopment Plan Public Workshop Summary November 15,2000 Edison Community Center The Issues The City of Huntington Beach is considering the creation of a 305-acre redevelopment zone within the borders of Beach Boulevard (west), Pacific Coast Highway (south), Magnolia Street (east), and Hamilton Avenue (north). The area currently is home to a power plant, two mobile home communities, wetlands, a small light industrial area, inactive industrial open space, and a boat sales yard The purpose of the Public Workshop was to gather input regarding appropriate land uses, ideas on how to reinvestment the potential incremental tax increases, and key issues for the redevelopment process. The goal, as stated by the Mayor, is to recycle the site into something that the community could be proud of. Even more fundamental was the question of redevelopment as a tool. Potential Uses The variety of uses, as defined by the City staff,include residential,wetlands, a business park,visitor related businesses,utilities,and open space. Other ideas, such as a golf course,were also mentioned. What is Important? In response to the question, "What is important to remember throughout the redevelopment process?' the participants offered a wide variety of issues. These issues fell into the following categories;Design,Land Use,Financing,and Process. Design • The desire for quality development was the primary Design concern. Quality design of the area would solve many of the issues that concern the neighbors. These concerns include the improvement of Magnolia, Newland, and PCH with regards to pedestrian flow, landscaping,sidewalks,and safety. • Another suggestion included proper screening of unsightly areas to get rid of the "uglies" and concern over the height of any new structures and their impact on resident views. • Restoration of the wetlands was also considered important. Since the area contains many former industrial uses, clean up was paramount, and must be done at the highest standards. City of Huntington Beach Southeast Coastal Area Redevelopment Plan Public Workshop November 15,2000 Page 1 of 1 Land Use Beyond the question for any need to redevelop the area, many suggestions were made for potential reuses of the land. • They include maintaining the two mobile home communities. This includes the large mobile home development that is not included in the proposed redevelopment zone, and the smaller complex to the south. • Restoration of the existing wetlands was mentioned along with expansion of Edison Park south along the vacant industrial property. • Another use might be a veteran's cemetery if the site is so toxic as to preclude other public uses. • The participants were split on the need to retain the power plants. However, everyone agreed that if the power plants were to remain, they might consider upgrading and modernizing their equipment. • Connection to the County river parks program was also mentioned. • Taking advantage of the location at Beach and PCH suggested a desire for tourist related uses such as a golf course, hotels, retail shops, and retention of the existing boatyard. The coastal strip was the key to the entire redevelopment process. • Some areas identified by the City staff could be rezoned from industrial use to residential or open space use. • Whatever land use choices are made, the impacts to traffic must be considered. Financing and Process • Any monies generated within the redevelopment zone must stay within the redevelopment zone. There should be no cross collateralization between this district and others in Huntington Beach. • The City staff should take advantage of any and all available Federal and State funds that might be available for environmental clean up. • There was great concern over the addition of debt to the community. • The process should be a public as possible. Public participation should be encouraged at all stages of the process. In fact, some participants suggested the final plan be brought forth to voters for their approval. City of Huntington Beach Southeast Coastal Area Redevelopment Plan Public Workshop November 15,2000 Page 2 of 2 Y- �i `� �.-•.-_-- /���D7�S Il+�p�11 � 4�Ol.l.- o � � =F-=--� s�-9 .ate �_RODS�?�'�N`C"�?i IT/ � f 1401 3r� _ SrD i� � FUGtJ� ns OF O �i = - . w �� .. br�T To�Ea1a.,.� U � �';�S/ ^�r��FF tC� t -a CY",.' i�Y .111i\R��4C-fit'll�r' 1..' ��p'rEN'ML�USCS✓ v ���.� S `te v- =SFSeuu'lsa� SM�LL�� proi.mtt !r E !Jz=_ SF�2 td�4T/ P=*� �( hIC77 '�L i CJ I F D9 RCS76. 9C�b' // a� _ G C WE �L i620 QJalJC=6T/ unu?tES,�lssa,p,g Mc, qS/ si�a.io \_ 1\`T �Z ,�? AO, cv=GIs coMMILC+e , � '4s�i e MIG,Inc. City of Huntington Beach Southeast Coastal Area Redevelopment Plan Public Workshop November 15,2000 i i • i � ?�s / �{ A1'.D► - - � � �� �— i"'� t� ITS w rff�7I1, '/�. Li�/� �r . 11e1"[(7 Td�rl N�.Gr �S►t� � I��L�� 5T,' � ,/r . ,� '`��,_;' �b' -�,: �� �.� � � � � Lj & w b ran-ro -�, ,, --C a,Tt. b► r t4 iC, IT ilL UIIL1nS, sad 5j ;AID q= � F i / EM GD'�-rya, er �Y-VIS►TOR Ct MILC ,ems S// 4�/ MIG, Inc. City of Huntington Beach Southeast Coastal Area Redevelopment Plan Public Workshop November 15, 2000 Meeting Notes Southeast Area Committee 12/20/00 ',/,/ y 01 g K I Southeast Area Committee j December 20, 2000 3:00 PM Lower Level Meeting Room M In Attendance: Mayor Pro Tern Debbie Cook, Council Members Ralph Bauer and Connie Boardman City Staff: Ray Silver, City Administrator; Bill Workman,Assistant City Administrator; Mike Dolder, Fire Chief, Gus Duran, Housing& Redevelopment Manager;Scott Hess, Principal Planner; Dave Webb, City Engineer; Mary Beth Broeren, Senior Planner; Duane Olson, Fire Marshall; Matt Lamb, Real Estate Services Manager; Carol Runzel,Assistant Project Manager; Dave Dominguez, Recreation Supervisor Sr./Development; Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner;Tom Brohard, Interim Transportation Manager;and Linda Surad, Administrative Assistant Guests: Frank Spevacek and Jim Simon of Rosenow Spevacek Group(RSG); Dave Guido, George&Charlotte Mason,Alan Ashimine, Richard Rozzelle,Victor Leipzig, Virginia Grebbien, Ed Blackford, Christine Chiu, Derrick Alatorre, Marina Robertson, Dina Yocom,Jerry Buchanan, Randy Wheeler,Ted Brusselu ✓ ✓ ✓ Roll Call: Cook, Boardman, Bauer(all present). To address formation issues of the new Council subcommittee, a motion was made by Cook, seconded by Bauer to nominate Connie Boardman as Committee Chair. The vote was unanimous—Boardman was elected Chair. I. Dave Guido, President of Coastal Commission Association, Community Association reported on recent preliminary survey results performed at previous meeting. The survey consisted of five questions and the results were 3-1 in favor of redevelopment in the proposed area. He stated that there still exists a misconception about redevelopment and the need to further educate the affected community at large. Concerns expressed included: height restrictions, beautification and cleanup, open spaces, low density residential, no heavy industrial, and no extension of Hamilton to Beach Blvd. Councilmember Bauer asked Guido to formalize his comments and submit to Committee Members. 2. Silver distributed a letter to Committee Members from John Scott, Chairperson of the Southeast Huntington Beach Neighborhood Association, who was unable to be present at the beginning of meeting. Topics below were taken out of agenda sequence by Ray Silver to best accommodate staffs schedules to return to their respective departments. 2 Status cxf Y rwcu .�e1 :and Activitres kin Area�»�� � ,< _. _, . ..... AES Plant(PCH & Newland) Bill Workman Workman reported that AES filed an application with the California Energy Commission (CEC) to start up plant, Units 3 & 4 at this site. There is a deadline of December 21, 2000, for the City to respond to the initial application. The application will be reviewed on January 10, 2001, and Workman will represent the City at the CEC meeting. Council did a basic review last Monday evening regarding Units 3 & 4 and opposed the expansion of the AES plan unless AES in working with the City staff will (1) mitigate the ugliness, (2) mitigate the potential beach contamination, (3) improve safety of ammonia use, and (4) no i 0 increase in noxious effluent or purchase of pollution discharge credits. Further, staff should work with all agencies including Southern California Air Quality Management District, Coastal Commission, and all cities and agencies in developing strategies to deal with the expansion problem. A formal CEC hearing will be scheduled in February of 2001, with various subsequent hearings to occur in Sacramento and Huntington Beach. The Energy Commission will be responsible for notification of all hearings. It was noted that the project is exempt from CEQA as provided by the California State Law. Desalination Plant—Mary Beth Broeren On December 1 1', an Environmental Assessment application was received by the Planning Department for construction of a 50 million gallon per day seawater desalination plant. The proposed location is on the AES property, northeast of Units I and 2. The applicant, Poseidon Resources Corporation (PRC), is aware that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be required. In the next several weeks, Planning staff will issue a Request for Proposals to retain an EIR consultant for the project. The EIR costs will be fully reimbursed by PRC. It is expected that the contract and reimbursement agreement will be scheduled for City Council approval in February; preparation of the EIR would begin shortly thereafter. AES is currently proposing a similar project in Long Beach and staff will monitor that and keep the Council apprised of its status. Vic Leipzig, representing Poseidon,was present and available for any questions. Watershed, Beach Closure Postings—Dave Webb Webb indicated that AB 411 raised the standards for testing of bacteria in the ocean water that possibly triggered the excessive closures in 1999. As a result, the City of Huntington Beach, the Orange County Sanitation District and the County of Orange conducted a comprehensive study. The findings indicated that urban runoff is possibly a contributor, possibly the Talbert marsh and birds are a contributor, but the greatest contributor seems to stem from some kind of link between the Orange County Sanitation District outfall and the interaction between the water intake/outtake of the AES power plant. Further studies are proceeding and Council will be kept apprised of this matter. Reservoir Water Master Plan—Dave Webb Webb presented a plan for future modification plans for a 10-12 million gallon reservoir, to be designed much like the one at the city's new Edwards Fire Station. The reservoir will have the lowest profile as possible. Landscaping will be required and lowering the tank will be considered. This area is not highly visible and the tank could be buried 15-20 feet. Beach Maintenance Facility—Dave Dominguez Dominguez informed Committee Members that city staff looked at various locations to permanently relocate the city's Beach Maintenance Facility. Although many sites were considered, none were large enough to accommodate the facility's needs. The most ideal site selected is the city-owned land at Edison Way and Newland. This site is the closest location to where all the work takes place. The facility houses the equipment to maintain the beaches, parking meters, and lifeguard emergency vehicles. The contract was out to bid, and should be awarded in January. An additional benefit as part of the project is that Edison Way will be paved. Ascon/NESI Site—Mike Dolder and Mary Beth Broeren Dolder affirmed that the State Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is currently working on the Feasibility Study and the Remedial Action Plan for the Ascon/NESI property. Both will be available for review by the public. DTSC is also preparing the environmental documentation for the project. The Fire Department is involved with weekly inspections of the property. Development on the Ascon/NESI site is covered by SP 10 (Magnolia Pacific Specific Plan) which allows up to 502 dwelling units and a Development Agreement (DA). The DA expires in 2007. Staff has had preliminary conversations with the property owner regarding entitlement processing for development of the site. Cenco Oil Tanks—Duane Olson Olson referred to area on wall map at 21471 Newland Street, in the area at Newland, Hamilton and Pacific Coast Highway. He indicated that The Regional Water Quality Control is the lead agency;they control the process. The city has an agreement with CENCO to remove the tanks. Dolder mentioned key dates from October 2000 through December 2000 as the timeline for which staff has met its obligations to expeditiously complete this process. The targeted date for demolition by Quality Control is May I, 2001; however with only scheduling and funding issues left to resolve and all other concerns and obstacles • e eliminated, city staff wants the demolition to occur sooner. Olson has a meeting scheduled for January 3rd to discuss the demolition timeline and to represent the city's position. Santa Ana River Bridges—Tom Brohard Brohard stated that The Santa Ana River Crossings Cooperative Study began two years ago and is now nearing completion. The study has been managed by OCTA with active participation by the Cities of Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach and Fountain Valley. The study evaluates two bridge crossings of the Santa Ana River: (1) the connection of Garfield Avenue to Gisler Avenue and (2) the connection of Banning Avenue to 19`h Street. The question is, should the bridges be built or erased from OCTA's arterial highways? Brohard described all alternatives of connection options for bridges being studied, as well as the process/mitigation elimination of bridges. The environmental document is scheduled to be complete in mid- February 2001, with a mandatory 45-day comment period to follow. Each City Council from the four mentioned cities will make its recommendation and hopefully, the bridges will be eliminated from the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Traffic studies show neither bridge is needed. The estimated cost of each bridge is estimated at $20-$25 million. A final decision to eliminate the bridges should be made in May or June of 2001. 3� Methane Gas** en Christine Urir� I+�liiC Dolder addressed the methane gas concerns that exist on Christine Drive (between Surfride and Islander), at Banning Drive and Bushard, as an unpleasant hydrogen sulfuric acid-type odor. The issues of decaying material underground have been determined since 1986 with a French drain installed to temporarily alleviate the problem. The City of Huntington Beach has retained contractor/agent to review, research documentation and data from the site area, make recommendation to City staff regarding mitigation methods and work with the surrounding neighborhood providing information on the City progress in resolving the methane issue. The contractor/agent will be the lead with funding request to Council in future. The City will continue its efforts to educate the residents of affected areas. A contract is expected to be presented to Council for its consideration in February 2001. This action will define work tasks and a permanent fix in calendar year 2001. Committee Members supported this action plan. The City's Real Estate Services division received a Notice& Order from the County of Orange Health Care Agency regarding the conditions that exist at Edison Community Park. The County ran tests and the results revealed potentially hazardous levels of landfill decomposition gas in four of the probes located along the site boundaries adjacent to the nearby homes to the west and the school to the north. It was reported that the Law is clear; the city is not responsible for this situation. The School District has notified the students, teachers and parents via a press release. Council Member Bauer advised all that he is a Board Member to this Health Care Agency and he requested staff to make certain that this item gets agendized for the next Board meeting in January. General Platt,Zoning&Spec{fig Plan far AScWNSI Site k Broeren distributed two handouts for the j ro proposed ro p p project: (I) General Plan Designations and (2) Zoning Designations. The General Plan land use designations consist of: Residential Medium Density, Commercial Visitor, Industrial, Public and Open Space Conservation. The Redevelopment Plan is required to be consistent with the General Plan for the area. The Zoning designations are: Specific Plan 10 (for the Ascon/Nesi) site, Manufactured Home Park, Visitor Commercial, Limited Industrial, General Industrial and Coastal Conservation. There are some portions of the area where the General Plan and zoning designations are not consistent; the City's General Plan Coastal Element is currently under review by the Coastal Commission and it is expected that these inconsistencies would be rectified within the next two years. In response to issues raised at the first community meeting, the maximum height allowed by current zoning is 50 ft. In addition, questions were raised about the land use designation for the Cabrillo Mobile Home Park. Staff believes that this is due to the difference between the zoning and General Plan for this property. S _ Saiutia east o , .... Silver introduced Frank Spevacek and Jim Simon of RSG, the City's redevelopment consultants since 1976. RSG has studied the physical and economic feasibility of the redevelopment proposal designed for this 266- acre area. Three handouts were distributed and discussed by Spevacek: (1) the Draft Preliminary Plan for the Southeast Coastal Redevelopment Project, (2) a table of the Tentative Plan Adoption Schedule, and (3)a matrix showing the 45-year property tax revenue comparison. Pro Tern Cook asked to see the cost of implementing the redevelopment included in the matrix (the one-time cost to set up the Project Area). Council Committee Member Bauer indicated that he would not support eminent domain in this 0 • redevelopment area; Boardman would like to move forward to solicit more public education and input. Silver discussed the importance of the timeline dates depicted in the handout to capture revenue generated in 2001. It was determined that several Council Members would not be available to meet on January I It' for the next community workshop. Council Member Bauer made a motion, followed by a unanimous vote to (1) formally present this item to the entire Council at its next meeting on Tuesday,January 16, 2001, and (2)to extend the date of the second community workshop from January 11, 2001 to January 18, 2001. The meeting adjourned at 5:30 PM xc: Mayor and City Council Members Departments Heads g:\hnda\agendas\searea.doc 0 • RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Economic Development SUBJECT: the Southeast,Coastal p `i � velo merit' # A& i �. COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 16, 2001 RCA ATTAHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attomey) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. Approved as to form by City Attome ) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report If applicable) Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable EXPLANATIaN F 3R MISM G ATTACHMENTS REI WED • �ORJ1fAl ©EQ Administrative Staff I ( ( ) Assistant City Administrator Initial ( ( ) City Administrator Initial ) City Clerk ( ) LAU, TU, ,j,; EM: Only)(Below Space For City Clerk's Use RCA Author: Runzel Redevelopment Plan Adoption W Schedule January 16, 2001 Item F-2 Southeasta Part = , Coastal Area October 1999 266 acres ,, 6a 0 700 1400 2100 Feel �A c Acres • AES Power Plant 105 • Undeveloped wetlands 60 • Accon landfill 36 • Golden West Refinery 20 " County Flood Control property 18 Cabrillo Mobilehome Park 6 Action Boat sales yard 2 �/ Southeast Coasta Such NlahAS Fatuity k U� 3 F & �UZAtf�h 6- 2 • Residential single family • Industrial • Visitor serving commercial • Study area surrounds the Huntington By The Sea mobile home park • Minimize future impacts from the AES Plant • Cleanup and develop the Ascon Landfill • Encourage recycling of other properties • Protect environmentally sensitive wetlands in connection with redevelopment • Undertake capital improvements to enhance and support the area • Provide financial resources 3 • Six months to a maximum of one year to prepare a proposed Redevelopment Plan • Involving 14 steps • Environmental Impact Report • Preparing a survey area • Formulating a project schedule • Establishing the legal boundaries Preparing a preliminary plan Preparing a detailed "Blight Study" 4 • Preparing "Owner Participation Rules"and "Relocation Guidelines" • Notifying taxing agencies • Preparing "Final Report" for the City Council Community Outreach, Property Owners/Residents • Potential future land uses based on the General Plan and existing zoning • Environmental concerns No eminent domain authority of fee simple interests 5 • Four Community Meetings • Planning Commission • City Council & Redevelopment Agency • Reports: Preliminary Plan, EIR November, 15, 2000 January 18, 2001 April 12, 2001 October 11 , 2001 6 Study Session 1/23/01 Approve Preliminary Plan 2/13/01 Considers Draft EIR 5/28/01 Submits Report on Redevelopment Plan 9/25/01 Council adopts the Survey Area 2/5/01 Redevelopment Agency approves Preliminary Plan 2/13/01 Joint Public Hearing (Ordinance - first reading) 11/5/01 Council (Ordinance - second reading) 12/3/01 DrE003 ARM" Redevelopment Plan Adopflon, Schedule Offlo, The End 9