Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRedevelopment Agency - 305 1. RES. NO. 305 RESOLUTION NO. 3�5 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 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 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. ("CRL"); 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 Redevelopment Agency of the:City of Huntington Beach finds and resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The Agency 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 Agency 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 Agency that the 1999 Amendment will have a significant effect on the environment: SECTION 4: The Agency hereby certifies Negative Declaration No. 99-4. 1 S E-99Resol ution:Agen 99-4 RLS 99-531 08/05/99-#3 RES. NO. 305 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof on the 16thday of August , 1999. 1� �' L Q A,--- Chairman ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: S Agency Clerk r Agency General Counsel h� b REVIEWED AND APPROVED: TED AND APPR VED: �S Gh7 Executi a Director 6irectof of Economic Development 2 SF-99Resolution:Agen994 RLS 99-531 08/05/99-#3 " I RES. NO. 305 EXHIBIT "A" �d d 1999 AMENDMENT O THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT SF-99 Resolution:'99Negdc RLS 99-531 09/05/99-#2 RES . NO. 305 1999 ANENDNIE-NT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON 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 I. (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 C), 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 acquisition by eminent domain within the Original and Added Main-Pier Areas (Exhibit [No further revisions to this section.] Section 603 (page 8) 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: Iwucb�li'J9:u ne cxlcnt�iicrclicxc 1 04/01/99 RES. NO. 305 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 enunent domain, property on which any persons legally reside_ unless such property is located within the Main-Pier Residential Eminent Domain Overlay Area as shown on Exhibit E; and this new limitation 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. pr-evided by law, fie eminent dafnain p,-eeee4ki- Except for- the Qakview Af:ea and as Pfqje�t-Area shall be eeriimeaeed f: twelve 1,112) years fellowing, the Ante A ri e,,,ffl of the efdifianee adeptinb o., T..vl,ib t D ne eat demain�o�ag tn_n<nr,:ro ..rn.,�nrtm T�t1, Q_Ak�.qu_nr ,n r Area'shall be cenuneiieed-after ,vekte (12) years fellowing-the-July 5, 198 amending the -Redevelopffient Plan for- the Oakview Redei,elep t-reject This Plate does-nat ame-nd, or ether"zse �eha the A j LTIc,�Zrc''�J .xiuii�iai uviicuiii u nvrtti .a-.a ccrQi`T.7TLG�—Lric OrdzRanee NE). 30020 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 domain 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 Q) 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." humlA99anexluieneVmcndecxt 2 n rn r rnn RES . NO. 305 EXHIBIT E �1�chv� ' MAIN-PIER RESIDENTIAL EMINENT DOMAIN OVERLAY I f O. 305 sd Amended Residential Eminent Domain `lcJ 0"V Overlay Area u �o F olop �� PALM AVE. ` O cl ACACIA AVE, a �. •�Q� `i> :,._ ��GP L p w ho Q0�'p.•. �jP a PECAN AVE. ORANGE AVE. OLIVE.AVE. ;^ V1 N H ==U v1 � F: z K ? j X Z F- KK N � K WALNUT AVE, y �' s 3t �Q f P>" i a E� a PACIFIC•COAST HIGHWAY W a. :... ::.. : ::.:::::::.::..... ::.::..,.::.... ........ ...... ....... ... PACIFIC OCEAN RES. NO. 305 • j EXHIBIT "B" NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON THE 1999 AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT S F-99 Resol ution:'99Negdc RLS 99-531 08/05/99-#2 RES. NO. 305 l - ENVIROT1NTENTAL CHECKLIST FORIVI��' s M K a CITY OF HLTNTINGTOMBEA CH~ t �.. rat ENV IROTZIVIENTAL ASSES SIVIENTs N� 99.�4- ` x 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 ofFirst Street) 4. PROJECT PROPONENT: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Contact Person: David C. Biggs, Economic Development Director Phone: (714) 536-5582 S. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Various 6. ZONJ` NG: 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. 8. OTHER PREVIOUS RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCU 'IENTATION: Environmental Impact Report No. 96-2 for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project 9. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERIT IHTS NEEDED): None Page I RES. NO. 305 ENVIRONNIENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below Nvould be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact';or is "Potentially Siguficant Unless Mitigated,"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use/Planniri- ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Public Services ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities /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 ti111i11 be prepared. ❑x 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 'N1ITIGATED NEGATIVE ❑ DECLARATION will 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 NIAY 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 DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursu t to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitig ion eas s that e imp sed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ❑ .4 1 1q [ 9a Signature Date Herb Fauland Senior Planner Printed Name Title Page 2 RES. NO. 305 EVALUATION OF ENVIRON1y1ENTAL IMPACTS'- 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact"answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following 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 of 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 level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "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 ofthe 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 XVIlI. 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 -T'ne 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 minimizing environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. However, because they are considered part of the project, they have not been 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 O UES770N.- 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) EJ El El0 Discussion: The attached source list explains that 1 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. (Vote: This response probably would not require further explanation). Page 3 RES. NO. 305 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,or El 11 El 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 Z natural community conservation plan?(Sources: 1, 6) c) Physically di-,ide an established community? (Sources: 1, 3, El El El Z 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. H. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either El U El 0 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, EJ El necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: 8) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the QEl 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 and/overseeing displacees and replacement of units. Because relocation assistance is available and units must be replaced,potential impacts resulting from the use of eminent domain are considered less than significant. Page 4 RES. NO. 305 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impi 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 on the El 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) El El El iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? EJ (Sources: 8) iv) Landslides? (Sources: 9) El 0 0Q b) Result in substantial soil erosion, loss of topsoil, or changes in El El El Q topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (Sources: 8) c) Be located on a geologic unit of soil that is unstable,or that EJ El El Q would 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 18-1-B of the El 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 El El El requirements? (Sources: 1, 8) Page 5 gy RES. NO. 305 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere El FJ substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lotivering 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 orEl El El 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 area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount or surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding oa or off- site? (Sources: 8) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed theEl capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Sources.- 8) f) Other«ise substantially degrade water quality? (Sources: 8) Ej El g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on A federal-Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Sources: 8) h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which El EJ El would impede or redirect flood flows? (Sources:8) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury 0 or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Sources: 8) j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami,or mudflow? (Sources:8) El ElQ 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. 305 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 following determinations. Would.the project: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources: 1, 8) El X b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Sources: S) c) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ofEl El z people? (Sources: 8).. d) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air El 0 El quality plan? (Sources: 1, 8) e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any El criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air 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 vi ill 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.TRANSPORTATIONrlRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to El El ElQ 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: 1, 8) b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service El QX 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 0 increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Sources: 8) Page 7 RES.NO. 305 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., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses? (Sources: 8) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Sources: 8) El El El f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Sources: 8) El El 0 g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative 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 will be evaluated from an environmental 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 El El El z 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, Fisli and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 8) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or El El 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 0 El ' 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 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. 305 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 El biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Sources: 1, 8) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat El 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. NTM. MI ENERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource El 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 O 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 HAZARD OUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment El through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? (Sources: 8) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 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 El El [�X hazardous material, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Sources: 8) Page 9 P� l/ . RES. NO. 305 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous El 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 EJ 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 workirig in the project area? (Sources: 3, 4, 8) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the El 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 EJ El adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Sources-. 8) h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, El or death involving wzldland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed v�ith wildlands? (Sources: 3, 4, 8) Discussion: The proposed project would not conflict with any adopted or proposed activities that would-\-pose persons to hazards or hazardous materials. X. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess El ❑ 0 of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Sources: 8) b) ._Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome El FJ ElQ vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Sources: 8) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in 11 El El the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Sources: 8) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Sources: 8) Page 10 I2� n RES.NO. 305 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact NO Impac e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where 0 such a plan has not been adopted,«thin 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 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. XL PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental 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 EJ El 0 b) Police Protection? (Sources: 8) ❑ ❑ Q c) Schools? (Sources: 8) Q El El d) Parks? (Sources: 8) 0 El El e) -Other public facilities or governmental services? (Sources: 8) 11 El El0 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 (� 0 Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Sources: 8) Page 11 �. C� l a, RES. NO. 305 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact NTo Impact b) Require or result in the construction of new water or El El wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,.the construction of which could cause significant emironmental effects? (Sources: 8) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water El El 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 projectEl El from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Sources: 8) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment EJ El provider 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 El El accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Sources: 8) g) Comply with federal, state,and local statutes and regulations El El0 related to solid waste? (Sources: 8) Discussion: The project does not include any development and will not impact utilities or service systems. XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Sources: El El El Q 8) b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not �X limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Sources: 8) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or qualityEl ElQX of the site and its surroundings? (Sources: 8) Page 12 RES . NO. 305 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 adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Sources: 8) Discussion: The proposed project would expand the pm«-ers 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. XB". CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 0 El El0 historical resource as defined in 815064.5? (Sources: 8) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 515064.5? (Sources: 1,3, 0 4, 8) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological Q Q resource or site unique geologic feature? (Sources: 1,3,4, 8) d) . Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Sources: 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 will result from the proposed project. XV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood, El El ElQ 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 ElQ 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) El El Discussion: The project does not include any development and will not impact recreational facilities or services. Page 13 RES.NO. 305 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XVI.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead 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 FRI 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 El El El 'to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? (Sources: 8) Discussion: The project does not include any development and will not impact any agricultural resources. XVEL -MANDATORY FENTItii TGS OF SIGNUICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of El 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 rare 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, Q [] 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 would be consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. Page 14 RES.NO. 305 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impac., c) Does the project have en«ronmental effects which will cause 11 El El El substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Sources: 8) Discussion: See discussion of Section I-XVI above. Page 15 ."l: f rii.•l .. .. RES .NO. 305 i 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 in this Analysis: Reference Document Title Available for Review at: 1 City of Huntington Beach General Plan City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept., Planning/Zoning Information Counter, 3rd Floor 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance " 3 Project Vicinity Map See Attachment'"I 4 Reduced Site Plan See Attachment Q 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 Law) ' Section 33000 et. Seq. 7 1999 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Plan Amendment S - -Project Narrative See Attachment#3 Page 16 RES.NO. 305 Project Vicinity Map ................. "" ' HME Cu .. ......... . ... . ..... .. ...... .... .. ... ...................... ...... ................... .:........ ..:. ..... ..... s ti� rc 1 /1cUlblry n n ' �v • � . . ,. , kill Uvll 41 z ,Q • - }HCN0.11 HDOOMII - r• WIAO w O •f RES . NO. 305 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 low- 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 independern environmental review. Attachment No. 3 -Page 1 RES. NO. 305 Reduced Site Plan D DD NINETH ST. pO D_J > EIGHTH ST. < > < < D n SEVENTH Sr. ti D ©, (J1 (( SIXTH ST. PECAN ST. �x FI PIER D I,, :;>��:�; ;� r�.::::;•:,•::.•. ���'�•:�:�:� •� '�• U` ry .,•. .•�,�. ,.• Nrnv:. ;:• p, i•' ;��{ ':WJ.Iti�W'wN :;.� J1fNli•••I�..':''''• '' . p >>z �� m :;�,; o/ A >, > z D - m 7 w v �lp. _ to O iv RES. NO. 305 Res. No. 305 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting of said Redevelopment Agency held on the 16th day of August, 1999 and that it was so adopted by the following vote: AYES: Green Dettloff, Harman, Sullivan NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Hun"S gton Beach, Ca. yo I