HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 99-59 RESOLUTION NO. 99-59
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CERTIFYING NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-4 FOR THE
1999 AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach ("City Council") approved
a merged Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project on December
16, 1996 by Ordinance No. 3343 (the "Redevelopment Plan"); and
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach ("Agency") has prepared
an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project
("1999 Amendment"), in the form attached herewith as Exhibit"A," in accordance with the
provisions of Article 12 of the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety
Code Section 3300, et seq. ("CRI:); and
Pursuant to Section 21151 of the Public Resources Code, the City prepared Negative
Declaration No. 99-4 for the 1999 Amendment in the form attached hereto as Exhibit`B," and
published notice of the Negative Declaration on April 22, 1999.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby finds and
resolves as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council hereby finds that Negative Declaration No. 99-4 has
been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines. The Negative Declaration was advertised and available for a public comment period
of twenty days from April 22, 1999 through May 12, 1999. No comments were received during
the comment period; and
SECTION 2: The City Council finds that, based on Negative Declaration No- 99-4, there
will be no significant adverse environmental effect attributed to the proposed 1999 Amendment;
and
SECTION 3: There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the
City Council that the 1999 Amendment will have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 4: The City Council hereby certifies Negative Declaration No. 99-4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach at a regular meeting thereof on the 16th day of August , 1999.
1
SF-99Resolutionc'99Negdc
KC.s 99-531
08/05/99-#3
RES. NO 99-59
Mayor
ATTEST- APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk n City Attorney f rP , 1
pf
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: IT��TEDJA APPROVED:
1, 1 d De
czp, �"P-24q - -.* -.0 YA� /-
City Ad mistrator D ecto of Econornie Develop ent
2
SF-99Reso1ution:'99Negdc
RLS 99-531
08/05/99-#3
RES . NO. 99-59
EXHIBIT"A"
1999 AMENDMENT TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
SF-99Resolution:'99Negdc
RlS 99-531
08/05/99-42
RES. NO. . 99-59
1999 AMENDIVMNT TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
HUNX'INGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
The merged Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project, adopted on
December 16, 1996 by Ordinance 3343 (the"Plan"), is hereby amended as follows:
Table of Contents (second page) of the Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Exhibit A: Project Area Maps
Exhibit B: Legal Descriptions
Exhibit C: Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements Projects
Exhibit D: Oakview Public Acquisition Map
Exhibit E: Main-Pier Residential Eminent Domain Overlay Map"
Section 101 (page 1) of the Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:
"SECTION 1. (100) INTRODUCTION
A. (101) General
This is the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project
("Plan"), located in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California.
It consists of the text (Sections 100 through 1200), the Project Area Map of Huntington
Beach Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area') (Exhibit A), the legal description of
the Project Area boundaries (Exhibit B), a listing of the proposed public facilities and
infrastructure improvement projects (Exhibit Q, a map of the properties potentially
subject to acquisition by eminent domain within the Oakview Area (Exhibit D), and a
map_of the properties on which any persons legally reside which are potentially subject to
ac uisition by eminent domain within the Original and Added Main-Pier Areas (Exhibit
[No further revisions to this section.]
Section 603 (page S) of the Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:
"B. (602) Property Acquisition
1. (603) Acquisition of Real Property
Without limitation, the Agency may acquire real property, any interest in
property, and any improvements on such property by any means authorized by
law including, without limitation, by gift, grant, exchange, purchase, cooperative
negotiations, lease, option,bequest, or devise.
In addition, the Agency may acquire real property, any interest in property, and
any .improvements on such property by eminent domain, with the following
exceptions:
IMLE 1199.MrvJn+cn+Lz,����Scext 1 04/01/99
RES.NO- 99-59
a. Within the Yorktown-Lake Area and Talbert-Beach Area, the Agency shall
not have the authority to acquire property by eminent domain,
b. Within the Original Main-Pier Area and Added Main-Pier Area, the Agency
shall not have the authority to acquire, by eminent domain, property on
which any persons legally reside unless such property is located within the
Main-Pier Residential Eminent Domain OverIay Area as shown on Exhibit E;
and this new Iimitation shall supersede any and all previous limitations on the
Agency's powers of eminent domain within the Original and Added Main-
Pier Areas including, but not limited to, Resolution No. 48, and
C. Within the Oakview Area, the Agency shall not have the authority to acquire,
by eminent domain, property which is excluded from the Oakview Public
Acquisition Map, incorporated herein as Exhibit D.
"u—e t_ f y the Oakview A fea and as etM ira ---,,.A rT _T,t...,i", vi v64, F •'c
5
b
en' ..},:hit D i e ........ient ............ .� cnfld_is,n_t r�tura arr,r tl f 1 T�
.wua.... w_+,
Area-sh241 be eemmenGed-aAer--twelve- (12) yfus fel=BwYng,emire Ate, !999
adoption of Ordiiianse-Ale:-3002, ameBdmg the Redei, er Plante—the
Oakview RedeN�ele--- 13--teet. This Plan does fiet afnend, ep-eflies*j-s-e
G [uigo, tihi_-T Al-PvH.n j'n dn . ni ,theiities established by the adoption f
The time limitations on the commencement of eminent domain shall be as
follows:
1) Properties subject to eminent domain within the Oakview Area - no eminent
domain action shall commence after July 5, 2001.
2) Properties within the Main-Pier Residential Eminent Domain Overlay Area
Exhibit E) :'no eminent dornain action shall commence after
2011.
3) All other areas subject to eminent domain by this Plan - no eminent domain
action shall commence after December 16,2008.
Such time limitations may be extended only by amendment of this Plan.
To the extent required by law, the Agency shall not acquire real property on
which an existing building is to be continued on its present site and in its present
form and use without the consent of the owner, unless: (1) such building requires
structural alteration, improvement, modernization or rehabilitation; or (2) the site
or lot on which the building is situated requires modification in size, shape or use;
or (3) it is necessary to impose upon such property any of the standards,
restrictions and controls of this Plan and the owner fails or refuses to participate in
the Plan pursuant to Sections 605 to 609, inclusive of this Plan and applicable
provisions of the Redevelopment Law."
I wn tFxi 594 m i x w1 i t><:tL,i m MJt c x i
2 „.,,r
RES. No. 99-59
EXHIBIT E 40 l
MAIN-PIER RESIDENTIAL EMINENT DOMAIN
OVERLAYAGQUISI'n�UN MAT—
y
(� Amended Residential
Eminent Domain
O*CO 0
5 Overlay Area
0
Cie AlqbL
.
'.- .i0
PALM AVE,
Pt�P w"A Oc` �
O
O
ACACIA AVE.
�O
� :.
PECAN AVE. '
ORANGE '
AVE.
era:.•. a.`� - -_-
.sr:-
OtlVE AVE, fs::
#�x
F �
•r; -
2x Z
x
WALNUT AVE. } • 'W^
Q .� ... •`': z 8:i {> 3C: s; x:. =;Ain C� v#
:f"2:c>Y.:wry�'Ei.•:NrcTi:"FS`r`'':.:...::,Ar. :;jai-..
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
ce
w
4
Yv tLw
W�gf-„ PACIFIC OCEAN
RES. NO. 99-59
EXHIBIT "B"
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ON THE
1999 AMENDMENT
TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
SF-99Reso[ution:'99Ncgdc
RLS 99-531
08/05/99-#2
RES . NO. 99-59
ENrrRON IV�INTAL�CHECrST _ � a ,nt �
1!I
a?�_x:, � _ t ti_ r -� x tea. .,__,Ey s•y err l- � Sst-'��
u�_ __ CITY oFUNTiNGTONB °AC 1 ; 4t
PLANNING DEPARTMENT'
. ENVIRQNNfENTAI. AS Z.
SIVIENT`j lTOL99`4
s
�f�-�•. - r �+c gin-x{`c .-1, - � .�. .:r,x, b_� f•r�u :.. .x.�..:'t'•`.r'...`+.,5-. .w�fi� Jf:�.,r.
1. PROJECT TITLE: Amendment to the City of Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Plan
Concurrent Entitlements: None
2. LEAD AGENCY: City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Contact: Herb Fauland, Senior Planner
Phone: (714) 536-5271
3. PROJECT LOCATION: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Plan/Main-Pier
Redevelopment Sub-Area (north of Pacific Coast Highway,
south of Pecan Avenue, east of Sixth Street, west of First
Street)
4. PROJECT PR0PONE 'T: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Contact Person: David C. Biggs, Economic Development Director
Phone: (714) 536-5582
5. GEN-ERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Various
6. ZONING: Downtown Specific Plan
7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1999 Amendment to the City of Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Plan to Extend the Power of Eminent Domain for Residential Properties in A Portion
of The Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Sub-Area.
S. OTHER PREVIOUS RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: Environmental
Impact Report No. 96-2 for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project
9. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED): None
Page I
RES . NO. 99--59
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact
that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"or is"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated,"as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
❑ Land Use I Planning ❑ Transportation I Traffic ❑ Public Services
❑ Population I Housing ❑ Biological Resources II Utilities I Service Systems
❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics
❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Cultural Resources
❑ Air Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation
❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE ❑
DECLAI�ATION«ill be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. []
I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant effect(s) on the environment,
but at least one effect(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and (2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARAMN pursuant to applicable standards, and(b)have been avoided or
mitigated pursu t to that earlier EIR or NEGAT VE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitig non eas that a imp sed upon the proposed project, nothing farther is required. ❑
-A I c ga
Signature Date
Herb Fauland Senior Planner
Printed Name Title
yPage 2
RES. NO. 99-59
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact" ansti,;ers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses folIowsing each question. A"No Impact" answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the
project. A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as
general standards.
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level,indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate, if an effect is significant or potentially significant,or if the lead
agency lacks information to make a finding of insignificance_ If there are one or more"Potentially Significant
Impact"entries when the determination is made, preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is warranted.
4. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated"applies where the incorporation o£mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact"to a"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency
must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant
Ievel (mitigation measures from Section XVEI,"Earlier Analyses,"may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used-where, pursuant to the tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EiR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are
discussed in Section XVIH at the end of the checklist.
6. References to information sources for potential impacts (e.g.,general plans, zoning ordinances)have been
incorporated into the checklist. A source list has been provided in Section XVIII. Other sources used or
individuals contacted have been cited in the respective discussions.
7. The following checklist has been formatted after Appendix G of Chapter 3,Title 14, California Code of
Regulations, but has been augmented to reflect the City of Huntington Beach's requirements.
(Note: Standard Conditions of Approval -The City imposes standard conditions of approval on projects which are
considered to be components of or modifications to the project, some of these standard conditions also result in
reducing or nwnirruzing en,,ironmental impacts to a Ievel of insignificance. However,because they are considered
part of the project, they have not beenn identified as mitigation measures. For the readers' information, a list of
applicable standard conditions identified'in the discussions has been provided as Attachment No. 3.
SAMPLE 4 UEST70N.-
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts
involving:
Landslides? (Sources: 1, 6) El ❑ Q
Discussion: The attached source list explains that I is the Huntington
Beach General Plan and 6 is a topographical map of the area which
show that the area is located in a flat area. (Note: This response.
probably would not require furlher explanation).
Page 3
RES. NO. 99--59
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
T. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Conflict v iffi any applicable land use plan,policy,or ❑ Q
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
(Sources: 1-8)
b) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ❑ ❑
natural community conservation plan?(Sources: 1, 6)
c) Physically divide an established community? (Sources: 1, 3, ❑ El Q
4)
Discussion: There is no impact on or conflict with the General Plan or other policy documents adopted for the purpose
of mitigating an environmental effect. The amendment is not changing any land use,zoning,or conservation plans and
will not physically divide an established community.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (e.g.,by proposing new homes and businesses)or
indirectly(e.g.,through extensions of roads or other
infrastructure)? (Sources: 1,8)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, 0
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (Sources: 8)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the 0El
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources:8)
Discussion: Twelve or fewer housing units will be potentially affected by eminent domain_ Due to the nature and
location of the subject units,it is assumed that there is one person per unit,and 12 persons would potentially be
displaced. If the average household size of 2.65 for the City of Huntington Beach is used to calculate a potential
mwdmum number of persons that may be displaced,the resulting figure is 32. Thus,it is reasonable to expect that the
Potential number of persons that may be displaced will be between 12 and 32. In the event that units are acquired using
eminent domain, displacees are eligible for relocation benefits as defined in Redevelopment Law. Further,
Redevelopment Law requires that units removed be replaced. Replacement units can be located anywhere in the City
and do not have to be newly constructed. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach would be
responsible for assisting andloverseeing displacees and replacement of units. Because relocation assistance is available
and twits must be replaced,potential impacts resulting from the use of eminent domain are considered less than
significant.
Page 4
RES . NO. 99-59
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Imp;
M.GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated an the ❑ 0 E
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?(Sources: 8)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?(Sources: 8) ❑ ❑
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Sources:$) El
iv) Landslides? (Sources: 8) 11
b) Result in substantial soil erosion, loss of topsoil,or changes in Q El 0
topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading, or fill? (Sources: 8)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that El ❑ Q
«vould become unstable as a result of the project,and
potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Sources: 8)
d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-I E of the
Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to
life or property? (Sources: 8)
Discussion: The proposed project would expand the powers of the Redevelopment Agency,however, no development is
proposed in conjunction with the request_ Replacement of any units will be evaluated from an environmental perspective
at the time of that action,as appropriate. No geology or soils impacts will result from the proposed project.
IV.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ 1 Q
requirements? (Sources: 1, 8)
Page 5
RES . NO. 99-59
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting information Soirees): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ ❑ ❑
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level(e.g_, the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted? (Sources: 8)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ ❑ ❑
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on or off-site? (Sources: 8)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ ❑ El
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount or surface
nsnaff in a manner NvEch would result in flooding on or off-
site? (Sources: 8)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ❑ ❑ ❑
capacity of existing or planned storm«ater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
(Sources: 8)
f) Other«ise substantially degrade water quality? (Sources: 8) ❑ ❑ ❑
g) Place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area as mapped ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
on g federal-Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
]clap or other flood hazard delineation map? (Sources: 8)
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which ❑ ❑ ❑
would impede or redirect flood flows? (Sources: 8)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury ❑ Q
or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or darn? (Sources: 8)
j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflaw? (Sources:8) ❑ ❑ ❑ [�C]
Discussion: The proposed project would expand the powers of the Redevelopment Agency, however,no development is
proposed in conjunction with the request. Replacement of any units will be evaluated from an environmental perspective
at the time of that action,as appropriate. No hydrology impacts will result from the proposed project.
Page 6� .
RES . NO. 99-59
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impac
V. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the follo«ing
determinations. Would the project:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation? (Sources: 1, 8)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant El ❑ ❑
concentrations? (Sources:8)
c) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of Q
people? (Sources: 8)
d) Conflict Nvzth or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ❑ El El 191
quality plan? (Sources: 1, 8)
e} Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any ❑ El El Q
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state arnbient 2.ir
quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Sources: 8)
Discussion: The proposed project would expand the powers of the Redevelopment Agency,however, no development is
proposed in conjunction with the request. Demolition or replacement of any units will be evaluated from an
environmental perspective at the time of that action,as appropriate. No air quality impacts will result from the proposed
project.
VI.TRANSPORTATIONfrRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to El E 0
the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(e.g.,
result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle
trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at
intersections? (Sources: ],$)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,a level of service 0
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources: 1,8)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an El ❑ Q
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? (Sources:8)
Page 7
RES . NO. 99-59
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., El ❑
sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses?
(Sources: 8)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Sources: 8)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Sources: 8) El
g) Conflict ,vith adopted policies supporting alternative ❑ Q El
transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? (Sources: 8)
Discussion:The proposed project would expand the powers of the Redevelopment Agency,however, no development is
proposed in conjunction with the request. Replacement of any units Neill be evaluated from an environmenW perspective
at the time of that action,as appropriate. No transportation or traffic impacts will result from the proposed project.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through Q ❑ Q
habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S,Fishand Wildlife Service? (Sources:
S)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or El ❑
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans,policies,regulations,or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Sources: 8)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected ❑ Q
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including,but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,coastal,
etc.)through direct removal,filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means? (Sources: 8)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native El Q 0
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources:8)
Page 8
RES . NO. 99-59
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impac
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ❑ Q
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? (Sources: 1,8)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat 1:1 El El
Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or
other approved local, regional,or state habitat conservation
plan? (Sources: 1, 8)
Discussion:The proposed project would not conflict with any adopted habitat conservation plans or affect biological
resources. The proposed project area is already developed with urban uses, and no development is proposed in
conjunction with the request. No biological impacts will result from the proposed project.
VIII. MENERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource Q
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state? (Sources: 1, 8)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral ❑
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan, or other land use plan? (Sources: 1,8)
Discussion: The proposed project would not result in the loss of mineral resources or mineral resource sites.
IX.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment Q
through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous
materials? (Sources:8)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment Q Q ElQ
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Sources:8)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely El 11
hazardous material,substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school? (Sources:8)
Page�9j _
RES. NO. 99-59
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
d) Be Iocated on a site %vMch is included on a list of hazardous Q
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result,would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment? (Sources: 1)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where Q
such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public
airport or pubic use airport,would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
(Sources:3,4, 8)
f) For a project uithin the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the Q
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area? (Sources: 3,4)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an a ❑
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (Sources: 8)
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, El ❑ ❑ Q
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands? (Sources: 3, 4, 8)
Discussion. The proposed project would not conflict with any adopted or proposed acthities that would expose persons to
hazards or hazardous materfals.
X. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess El El El 1K
of standards established in the Iocal general plan or noise
ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies?
(Sources: 8)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne ❑ ❑ ❑
Vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Sources: 8)'
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in ElQ Q
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
(Sources: 8)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise 0
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (Sources: 8)
J�Page 10
RES. NO. 99-59
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Signif-icant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact Nfo Impac
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where El
such a plan has not been adopted, %within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport,would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels? (Sources: 3, 4, 8)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the El
project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels? (Sources: 3, 4, 8)
Discussion: No development is proposed in conjunction with the request. Noise impacts that may result from future
replacement of units will be evaluated at the time of that action. No noise impacts will result from the proposed project_
XI.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated Nvilh the proN ision of new or
physically altered govenunental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? (Sources: 8) El
b) Police Protection? (Sources: 8) El ❑ 0
c) Schools? (Sources: 8) ❑ Q
d) Parks? (Sources. 8) ❑ El ❑ 0
e) '-Other public facilities or governmental services? (Sources: 8) ❑ ❑ El 0
Discussion: The project will not result in the need for additional or create impacts to public services.
XH. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ z
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Sources: 8)
Page II
RES. NO. 99-59
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or El 11 ❑ Efl
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? (Sources: 8)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water ❑ El ❑
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects? (Sources: 8)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? (Sources: 8)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ❑ El Q Q
proN ider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments? (Sources: 8)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to El ❑ Q
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
(Sources: 8)
g) Comply pith federal, state, and local statutes and regulations ❑x
related to solid waste? (Sources: 8)
Discussion: The project does not include any development and will not impact utilities or service systems_
XM._AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Sources: 0 XQ
S)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not Q ❑ Q
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Sources: 8)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality ❑ Q
of the site and its surroundings? (Sources:8)
Page 12
RES . NO. 99-59
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact NO Impact
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which mould El
adversely affect day or nighttime vievvs in the area? (Sources:
8) -
Discussion-. The proposed project would expand the poivers of the Redevelopment Agency, however, no development is
proposed in conjunction with the request. Replacement of any units ty711 be evaluated from an environmental perspective
at the time of that action,as.appropriate.
XI%T. CULTURAL :RESOURCES. Would the project.-
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of aEl El
historical resource as defined in 515064.5? (Sources: 8)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to 615064.5? (Sources: 1, 3,
4, 8)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ ❑
resource or site unique geologic feature? (Sources: 1,3,4,8)
d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries? (Souryces-. 1, 3,4,8)
Discussion: The proposed project area is already developed with urban uses,and no development is proposed in
conjunction with the request. No cultural impacts mill result from the proposed project.
XV. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood, ❑ ❑ Q
community and regional parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated? (Sources: 8)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the El ❑ 11 Q
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Sources: 8)
c) Affect existing recreational opportunities?(Sources:8) ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
Discussion:The project does not include any development and will not impact recreationaI facilities or services.
�jPage 13
RES.NO. 99--59
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
X'VI.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
enN irorunental effects, Iead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Dept_of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance(Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (Sources: 1, 3, 4, 8)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? (Sources: 2)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due Q Q
to their location or nature,could result in conversion of
Farniland, to non-agricultural use? (Sources: 8)
Discussion: The project does not include any development and N}ill not impact any agricultural resources.
XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF 5IGWICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of ❑ 0 Q z
the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rase or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory? (Sources: 8)
Discussion:The project does not include any development and will not affect the quality of the environment ro reduce
habitat areas or plant or animals.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, ❑ El [�
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the
effects of probable future projects.) (Sources: 8)
Discussion:The 1996 Redevelopment Plan contains provisions that may have the effect of encouraging growth in the
Project Area through redevelopment of underutilized properties, development of vacant properties and through
improvements to infrastructure. These improvements may make areas more desirable and-or feasible for development.
The proposed project would assist in implementing the 1996 Redevelopment Plan. Any development that may occur
mould be consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code,
�Paage 14
• r- `��,
RES. NO. 99-59
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impac;
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause Q ❑
substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or
indirectly? (Sources:8)
Discussion: See discussion of Section I-XVl above.
Page 15
RES. NO. 99-59
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS.
Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects
have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration_ Section 15063 (c)(3)(D).
Earlier Documents Prepared and Utilized-M*t s Analysis.-
Reference n Document Title Available for Review at:
1 City of Huntington Beach General Plan City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept.,
PlanninglZoring Information Counter,
3rd Floor
2000 Main St.
Huntinb on Beach
2 City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance "
3 Project Vicinity Map See Attachment 91
4 Reduced Site Plan See Attachment 42
5 1996 Redevelopment Plan Amendment EIR No.96-2 City of Huntington Beach
(State Clearinghouse No. 96041075) Economic Development Dept.,
5th Floor
2000 Main St.
Huntington Beach
6 California Health & Safety Code (Redevelopment La��) '
Section 33000 et. Seq.
7 1999 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Plan
Amendment
8 _ —Project Narrative See Attachment#3
Page 16
RES. NO. 99-59
Project Vicinity Map
r:�v w[%h'-.. f-:•',p:'i: <ak%�wr" '}4."'rya• .fi.'AS.:..ft,. .. :�^�:%i-itGita:<^s:;:w�co:.rx:' .x:.. xi ;�v-- -y¢?M iL'?'�:;"r.Ka;;:a
.}RO }„ -�j.9 wf�:..: sox;a:a:.?a. •�'.. . �:v.:�..p.. r�,'r �` � {yam +� u
r� fixv-� .aR-� ''d:-r s� � w a+.�r�i}""2 Gti+. Rr } ry.Yt•) }::o- ,x '^`{:
c""f,��.:?s�`o 'rx-w.�� .v .t h• '�•^y,'pa�.�^Y�.�y:.:`Y;�:a.,F.��•tp- .c' - :••r}f f.-.+:` ."++:r.•a :}"}"ScY'. �r:_. '-%!fi}Y -Y r. r< i .yr,,,,: 2 x x :i :r a.� ::'.'':.�S'q r.�it;:S+�! y:hr.:- .•-'�G 1.11M.
x er, +�vypy '4y. �C. :y:. :;�wa 2Yx�-i2'y'/atA. :ri'•%•v.
�
. �:-¢�idca�,r�+: .-d�„ir. �;„h ::r. :� 4;yx rx i �{. .� :�,Y�l .ry�,� :G :Y:cir�a �- ',.eca�.^.:}-•.�,:
%: }r' :.f:'3:�: -'::�;�-.'tom, _�^�+r�� -$� '.6 `,�y'.'.-�4�' C: '$ �R4. :Y� :i. �Y•"+� v�: »`}:h: kit:j'M+�.-�y���v:q
. ,�'{{ � .vc :`G",-' � YM• 4 -� �;h .C' �� 't` f � u'�%'. .r A^+. �xi��::,:}k=x''''}'
Y v;+c'`'-i�''�:' �;:N ,X L: =4. .:vµ... -.as. .�4�., �,H. .d�� �fk ?4 :'�,}. .. sti; �:•-v
.;Gy:�;..;2. .r!.;;,� ;;ti: '.�,�;x:;.;.;:} iGr?' n :„G:. `��:�' :c-"} - iDC � '':` .:, - >:g�:�n"�:.''�.� y�i�i.`'ia��vi:• -c>'�'-'..Y'°r,�::t�'::e�x
;x. .:n:;,}- ' :-: '..; �: :.n.:' -2•.:,o-:. ��y.-..;iv.. +?��:� :p,�,l :^i �y :.J�:"�k.-} kr-F ;�4:�-�-...' .:r--w .�:�;>.
I.4::�xr::.•:::5.:�.�'-.i!'�:: :{t?.,i"{f?r:r�aY,7G{f`-i}$.'M.rl:?;i;:t�::?:¢•ix...:.:4-....i:F,:k''!.'.^'t[-':•:'S'2'.'e'LQQ4r.: 'FGY:c' °i:-.'xi'xi'�1:�:- Jn� '�:y'�.v'%.{ :.'bF :%ixG}: .+G�v;-:;.A� tr:x:�.:
i,r-¢;:ta.-.....:./' � :i.;pxr.x4.fi...-'::: :-:,:...-r .r^:i�.a'r?-):r:�}R}o- ^���.wy}:4)'.'�. :r•0iy.,k.:,�,:...•;,r-x'v:;;:s•^:£.��:':�.i:..::r:fio-: :::'f- .x:;.:.-�;Y.».n.:':G�}+:S
o.:<,:k:i r-..'.tw-:.:.�.:�:: Y�.n.;,:nx<M1%r•?...,sic!rd.:-m.;',-".-$::o:-:,:_oi':-:f',�:;x- :..G xa.fr.-. ,�Y^ Y... .k .-�.,sia:�.,:i. �..�:.. ..:. .wk.r5w�...� ..-.: .. ';�ti xrr::4v;;....r'an:.^.r/ {�.-.'-ro-'.�-:},. 4�:��'A^ •r-rs:,.,.:.:...er,�lr. ';:5.?!:�, :-a:._..
I
y 1
0 WM' 1 f k' •� j I
liriWQM: Y
z •
r -
pinnr�
�rov7.w
4
•irrnal -- "�i•. ��Z� ��L � ��J
4
1 �4
rna*ra S d '
w�ormr+
1
RES. NO. 99-59
PROJECT NARRATIVE
1999 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AMENDMENT
BACKGROUND
The Redevelopment Agency has been active since 1976, and has processed various
Redevelopment Plan Adoptions and Amendments since its inception. These actions have
resulted in today's single redevelopment project area composed of five non-contiguous
subareas- Main-Pier, Yorktown-Lake, Talbert-Beach, Oakview and Huntington Center. These
subareas total 661 acres in size and represent about three percent of the city's land area. A
Project Area Map is attached.
Land uses within the area include single- and multi-family residential, commercial and industrial
uses and a small amount of vacant land. Factors contributing to the area's designation as
"blighted" include: the age and configuration of existing structures, inadequate transportation
and other infrastructure, building and safety code violations, the presence .of soils
contamination, a lack of public services and facilities and inadequate housing available at
affordable cost to love- and moderate-income households.
THE AMENDMENT
To further the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan, it is being proposed to extend and
modify the Agency's authority to use eminent domain on residential properties. The attached
map shows the portion of the Main-Pier subarea to be affected if the Redevelopment Plan
Amendment is approved.
Because the Amendment could result in the displacement of 'low- and moderate-income
households, state law requires that the City Council provide for the formation of a Project Area
Committee to act in an advisory capacity to the Council and to make a recommendation on the
Amendment. This requirement was fulfilled on January 19, 1999, when the City Council
adopted Procedures for the Formation of a Project Area Committee (PAC).
Twelve or fewer residential units are expected to be removed due to redevelopment activities.
Lower income households displaced due to the removal of housing units are entitled to
relocation benefits. These benefits include actual moving costs, including transportation, and a
rent differential payment (the product of the difference in current rent and the rent at a new
location. This obligation is required for up to five years); Or, the displaced tenant may elect to
take a lump sum cash payment that is roughly equivalent to the benefits described.
Property owners subject to eminent domain are entitled to receive, at a minimum, fair market
value for any property acquired by the Redevelopment Agency through the eminent domain
process. Also, owners of properties that conform with the redevelopment plan may request a
certificate of compliance", which will exempt the property from eminent domain.
The 1999 Redevelopment Plan Amendment is an administrative action and will not, of itself,
make physical changes to the environment. Further, any physical changes that do occur,
subsequent to the adoption of the Plan Amendment, will be subject to independent
environmental review. & `e
Attachment No. 3-Page I -
RES. NO. 99-59
Reduced Site Plan
H.�::«rr- '�} +::.vv -,3:- :_{f.Yr:i'%:ric,.;��.� �:,�'.+s}r};,•,J-:y:rr{:r.^}rh-rr: �i.: -ram:.-.}-{. .;n:ivsxv,
-.w ss:,ar.„ � .::=:a::'}'fY:`.'.:?'c%�:�r.-�':;�:>r:;A:.{F�-r::.,a:c�:=S.r} :t'u.4 :'a:�ila:•.:v�t=<t
::3?.-:.".:.;::;;.n�,�>x r.:- r:�,�}.�oik¢.•Q{� ��•II.�/,;.a�:iF:hfo" `:,J`'on Finu:o-kt,'-0<.-r.-r;�:..: -'�:%?i--Y.
:�..... .... �-. - a}:}v..a.�r. $,:. } �'-]4.,A.1rW,_}}4 ?:.}.� �'4Y.Hy "�.'^"'C A\'i: .:.:ypv:C' /, ••4�pvw,J:jJ:;{{:::}j�p}::'Y'� �v::fi;.Z� '^." r.� "'=6 ,c{.4.''• �..:W::::. .Yy.:.F .a}}.r� -
'>.'s':'-v,':.':x;e..Y:i::,'.-,o-s..,s .. -.r^�f :';:::::;:A:::.:::....}:��tir �r-0r firs.:{..ar.f-:�T.�:.w:...ak;'_ ...{�`--sFt'.C-..-n+i:K{:r. :�-�k:2F�<rY: =s;:.•,.-.Yi- {:3,E{`7aae..;,�s;_,:..-:6'.f:r::��:
K t}fs:R fi%' -6r� .aF.o:c�-~ :i,•:;i�• � � .•c^:r+.o-y�•Yn_.:f.- "-:x��.or -%/{,-�,{r
„r- .a..� h';sr.�:'} s1c %rr»n} -:'{�: a :: ..}v,}�}.v:y.;v { '.}�. t•�}x- :y Yx •.
.< � �F -_rn"'�% -ssrp:ti� a r' :.+r-9>^i'•� _.�.•C. �,y ._` :'"�! .� at a �.{ • :rY.;,,"?°' ::?M;k:�?} aM_ ::,b:y .a.>�}i,- ::`-Y'-. ,:'d' L,;n,» ;a: ¢ .•t e•.._r. cs}x: :..�.,s -.a' 4? ;<Xp:;t ^^':3-r.
a,: •3 .:a!�oo-}4r�:C'�..{a:
�+ ':u:.>.{. '.3,:;,.:.. o`.• --;, �F,.'�. ,..:� ,', iG :3 +¢'ter �, -;v'w' „f ph,. .e?..wt.;{Sw': ^{«
a:,}•::.d:.;.}.;,. ..:a:. i..}::. a:,}ia- :. ;:+{5is ,� :h 'n :•rira'r`:...,�: Win. -: J:z}so-'-:{r�n:�,�s
..ice-. -:Y.. :!.+4Lr:�
- ::{:-;.;. .....
-
Fvx:•rrC .{
'yv'w.v:
'; .'-::<�:_}�r�':::::ti�::G::�.l}�N '§}...ni
vrv4!�i.. .`Y.a k:' :ii:. rii+:-.v$$
EXHIBIT A
Residential
P-
ential
Eminent Domain
0
Project
D
Area Boundary
LQ O
PALAVE- �0
O
ACACIA AVE. •4� 0
�'4+
t ti'
z
0. �Q� •
PECAN AVE.
----_'i c
ORANGE AVE, ^1 r•�::' Y� '
OCtVE AVE. .
_ 'ram.__ �.�: :•'ti �-�:�'{'.�:
W d` h t..: r• _:•:Y:l:::.
•V•
WALNUT AVE. }:i-:::r_'` ?:� :t:: g r. z8
PACIF C AST,-HIGHWAY
a
k
PACIFIC OCEAN
4^ �
RES. NO. 99-59
Res. No. 99-59
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
1, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of
the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City,
do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted
by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of August, 1999 by the following
vote:
AYES: Green, Dettloff, Harman, Sullivan
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo
�trn
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California