Loading...
91-161 RESOLUTION NO. 91R-161 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM MAKING CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE BROOKHOLLOW AFFORDABLE APARTMENT PROJECT; ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION REPORTING AND MONITORING PLAN WHEREAS, in or about December 1988, the City of Anaheim (the "City") received an application for Zone Reclassification No. 88- 89-33, Variance No. 3894 and General Plan Amendment No. 250 (the "Land Use Entitlements") in order to allow for development of a 3-story, 176 unit, "affordable" apartment complex (the "Project") to be sponsored by the Anaheim Housing Authority (the "Housing Authority") on property owned by the City of Anaheim and occupied by the Facilities Maintenance Department at 625 N. Valley Street, Anaheim, California (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, as part of its ongoing process of consultation with affected public agencies, by letter dated December 22, 1988, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A," the City notified the Anaheim City School District of the Project (the "School District"); and WHEREAS, the School District responded by advising the City that "elementary school age children who may end up living in this apartment complex cannot attend Gauer School (school nearest the project) due to space limitations;" and WHEREAS, on February 7, 1989, the City approved the Land Use Entitlements but, in response to the concern of the School District, made such approval subject to, among others, the following condition: (a) that a covenant shall be recorded agreeing to provide the renter of each dwelling unit with written information obtained from the School District(s) pertaining to possible overcrowded conditions and busing status of the school(s) serving the dwelling unit;" and WHEREAS, in conjunction with approval of the Land Use Entitlements and pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), on February 7, 1989, the City also adopted a Negative Declaration for the Project, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B;" and 91R-3B.res 3503-10328 05/13/91:1:57 [eg:Lj --1-- WHEREAS, on February 8, 1989, the City sent to the County Clerk for posting a Notice of Determination for the Project, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "C;" and WHEREAS, on August 15, 1989, the Housing Authority entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement (the "DDA") with Brookhollow Apartments (Anaheim) Associates (the "Developer"), a partnership controlled by the William Lyon Company and of which Anaheim Interfaith Shelter, California Lutheran Homes and the Orangewood Children's Foundation, all California non-profit corporations (the "Non-Profits") are limited partners; and WHEREAS, the DDA requires, among other things, that the Developer rent twenty percent (20%) of the units in the Project to persons and families of very low-income at rents affordable to such persons and families; and WHEREAS, the DDA allowed for an increase in the number of units in the Project from 176 to 228 in the event that a certain additional parcel adjacent to the Property became available and were incorporated into the Project (the "Additional Parcel"); and WHEREAS, on August 25, 1989, the Housing Authority delivered to the County Clerk for posting a Notice of Determination for the Project, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "D," describing the Project as a "Three or Four Story 'Affordable' Apartment Complex Containing Between 176 and 228 Units;" and WHEREAS, as a precautionary measure in August and September 1989, the Housing Authority and the Developer conducted a thorough environmental assessment of the Project site, including extensive soil sampling, in order to determine if there were any hazardous materials on the site; and WHEREAS, the environmental assessment determined that there were petroleum hydrocarbon and lead surface contaminants in one portion of the site that would require remediation; and WHEREAS, the Housing Authority prepared and submitted to the Orange County Health Care Agency (the "OCHCA") a Remedial Action Plan dated September 22, 1989 (the "RAP") for the hazardous materials found on the site, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "E," and WHEREAS, by letter dated October 12, 1989, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "F," the Orange County Health Care Agency confirmed its approval of the RAP; and WHEREAS, by letter to the Developer dated January 3, 1990, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "G," the Housing Authority committed to implement the RAP; and 91R-~8.res 3503-10328 05/13/91:1:57 [eg:[j -2- WHEREAS, on October 25, 1989, the Housing Authority issued $24,500,000 of Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds on behalf of the Developer for the Project; and WHEREAS, in or about November, 1989, the City received an application from the Developer for General Plan Amendment No. 281, Zone Reclassification No. 89-90-34, and Variance No. 4013 (the "Revised Land Use Entitlements") in order to permit the number of units in the Project to be increased from 176 to 228; and WHEREAS, again as part of its ongoing process of consultation with, among others, the School District, by letter dated November 17, 1989, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "H," the City notified the School District that the Project would now include 228 units instead of 176; and WHEREAS, in response to the letter from the City, the School District responded again by advising the city that if "school children were to live in these units, they may have to be bused away from the neighborhood school due to space limitations at the school nearest these units;" and WHEREAS, on January 9, 1990, the city approved the Revised Land Use Entitlements and adopted another Negative Declaration therefor, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "I;" and WHEREAS, the Developer has now elected to reduce the size of the Project by nearly fifty percent (50%) from 228 to 124 units; and WHEREAS, for the 124 unit Project, the Developer submitted an application for Variance No. 4115 from certain parking, elevator and height requirements of the City Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, again, by letter dated February 5, 1991, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "J," the city notified the ~ School District that the Project would now include only 124 units; and WHEREAS, in response to the letter from the City, the School District responded that all of its schools were operating to capacity and the School District would not be able to house students generated by this Project; and WHEREAS, on March 11, 1991, the City Planning Commission considered both the application for Variance No. 4115 in connection with a reduced size Project of only 124 units, and a third Negative Declaration for the Project, a copy of which is ~ attached hereto as Exhibit "K;" and 91R-38.res 3503-10328 05/13/91:1:57 teg:Lj --3-- WHEREAS, apparently unaware that the Housing Authority had more than a year earlier committed to implement the RAP, the City Planning Commission approved Variance No. 4115 and the third Negative Declaration subject to the condition that the hazardous materials on a portion of the site be cleaned-up before issuance of a building permit for that portion of the Site; and WHEREAS, by letter dated April 2, 1991, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "L," the School District filed an appeal to the City Council regarding the third Negative Declaration and Variance No. 4115 alleging, among other things: (a) a Negative Declaration may not be appropriate for the Project because there is evidence that the project as described may have significant adverse environmental effects which have not been mitigated; and (b) the hazardous waste found on the site had not been discussed in the initial environmental documents; and (c) the addition of a condition by the city Planning Commission that the hazardous waste be remediated requires that the mitigated negative declaration be revised and recirculated for public review and comment prior to approval; and WHEREAS, in the interest of full, complete and open hearing and debate on matters of concern to the people, and despite the fact that the City does not believe it was obligated to do so for the School District's appeal, the City has revised and recirculated the Negative Declaration, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "M." NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FOUND AND RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AS FOLLOWS: 1. On January 9, 1990, the city Council approved the Revised Land Use Entitlements and a Negative Declaration for a 228 unit project. Neither the School District nor any other interested person timely objected to those Revised Land Use Entitlements or that Negative Declaration. 2. The Developer has elected to reduce the size of the Project by nearly fifty percent (50%) from 228 units to 124 units (the "124 Unit Project"). 3. Pursuant to CEQA, the City is now to consider the environmental impacts of Variance No. 4115 and whether: (a) Subsequent changes are proposed in the Project which will require important revisions of the previous Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant 91R-38.res 3503-10328 05/13/91:2:08 [eg:[j --4-- environmental impacts not considered in the previous Negative Declaration on the Project; (b) Substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is to be undertaken which will require important revisions in the previous Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not covered in the previous Negative Declaration; or (c) New information of substantial importance to the Project has become available, and (i) The information was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous Negative Declaration was adopted, and the new information shows any of the following: (1) The Project will have one or more effects not discussed previously in the Negative Declaration; (2) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Negative Declaration; (3) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project; or (4) Mitigation measures or alternatives which were not previously considered in the Negative Declaration would substantially lessen one or more significant effects on the environment. 4. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that the proposed change in the Project, i.e., the reduction in the size of the Project by nearly fifty percent (50%), will result in new significant environmental impacts not considered in the previous Negative Declaration. To the contrary, the proposed 124 Unit Project will mean even lesser environmental impacts than would have the 228 Unit Project, including a substantially lesser number of new students for the School District. 5. The city Council is sympathetic to the problems of the School District and concerned about the overcrowded conditions of the School District's schools. The city Council is also mindful of the obligation of the city to work for decent, safe and sanitary housing, especially affordable housing, for all of the residents of the City. Furthermore, the City Council is guided by the intent of the Legislature expressed in CEQA that it is the policy of the state to "ensure that the long-term protection of 91R-38.re$ 3503-10328 05/13/91:1:57 leg:[j --5-- the environment, consistent with the provision of a decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian, shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions." The City Council is further guided by the fact that CEQA instructs it never to reduce the proposed number of housing units in a project as a mitigation measure or project alternative whenever another feasible specific measure or alternative could provide a comparable level of mitigation. Accordingly, the City Council supports the election of the Developer to reduce the size of the Project because of the lesser burden it will impose on the School District, but accepts such decision because of the reduced number of housing units that will be provided, especially those units that would be affordable to persons and families of very low-income. 6. Although the City Council is not here required or permitted to consider anew the impacts of the 124 or the 228 Unit Project on the School District, it finds that the Developer will be required to pay a school development fee for the Project of $1.58 per square foot, approximately $214,000, which the Legislature has provided as the means by which to assist the financing of additional school facilities. This is all the Developer is, or can be, required to do. 7. The hazardous waste identified pursuant to the environmental assessment of the site, a copy of which is on file with the Housing Authority, is of a relatively minor nature. Additionally, the area of the site from which hazardous waste will be removed will be the location of paved parking for the Project, not housing. The City Council hereby confirms that the Housing Authority will implement the RAP. The remediation will be presided over by OCHCA, the agency with appropriate jurisdiction. Already, by letter dated April 16, 1991, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "N," OCHCA confirmed completion of site investigation and remedial action with respect to the more significant lead contamination. Accordingly, the identification and remediation of the hazardous waste will be an enhancement to and not a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, it is not new information of substantial importance to the Project that requires revisions to the Negative Declaration. 8. In order to ensure compliance with the condition that the RAP be implemented before construction on the subject portion of the Property, the City Council hereby instructs the city Building Department not to issue a building permit for that portion of the Property unless and until it has received notice from the Orange County Health Care Agency that the RAP has been fully implemented. The City Clerk is hereby instructed to send a copy of this Resolution forthwith to the City Building Department. To the extent a reporting and mitigation monitoring program is required for the Project, it is the intent of the City Council that this Resolution act as such. 91R-3B.res 3503-10328 05/13/91:1:57 leg:l] --6-- 9. Although it does not believe it is required to do so, the city Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program for Variance~ No. 4115 and the proposed changes to the Project. 10. The City Clerk is instructed to file with the County Clerk a Notice of Determination for Variance No. 4115 and the proposed changes to the Project. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim this &th day of June , 1991. ATTEST: CITY CLERK CITY OF ANAHEIM 91R-3B.res 3503-10328 05/13/91:1:57 [eg:[j --7-- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, LEONORA N. SOHL, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 91R-161 was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting provided by law, of the Anaheim City Council held on the 4th day of June, 1991, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Daly, Pickler, Ehrle and Hunter NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS~ None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None AND I FURTHER certify that the Mayor of the City of Anaheim signed said Resolution No. 91R-161 on the 5th day of June, 1991. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Anaheim this 5th day of June, 1991. CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (SEAL) I, LEONORA N. SOHL, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 91R-161, duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim on June 4, 1991. CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM