HomeMy WebLinkAboutHuntington Center Associates LLC, (Ezralow), Burlington Coat Factory & Montgomery Wards - 2000-10-20�Aai m ell Ah, . I
0
Environmental Impact Report
No. 96-2
0
0
m
N
4/lAtAmein4 Ale, I /
is
r1
RESOLUTION NO. 279_
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THAT THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (NO. 96-2) FOR THE HUNTINGTON
BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT HAS BEEN PREPARED,
CIRCULATED AND COMPLETED IN COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA AND
STATE GUIDELINES FOR CEQA AND THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY HAS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE INFORMATION
CONTAINED THEREIN
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California (the
"Agency") as Applicant has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (the "Final EIR' for
the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project; and
Said Final EIR is a program EIR, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and State Guidelines for implementation of CEQA; and
The Draft EIR has been prepared and circulated pursuant to CEQA, and the State
Guidelines for CEQA; and
A duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on August 19, 1996, at which
time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and
The Final EIR, which includes the Draft EIR and responses to the concerns raised during
the review period and at the public hearing, has been prepared pursuant to said statute and
Guidelines; and
The City Council as Lead Agency certified the Final EIR on October 7, 1996 (Resolution
No. 96-63); and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Huntington Beach, California as follows:
Section 1. The Redevelopment Agency hereby certifies that the Final Environmental
Impact Report for the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project has been prepared,
circulated and completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and
applicable regulations.
Section 2. The Redevelopment Agency certifies that the information contained in the
Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project
has been reviewed and considered by the Redevelopment Agency Members.
SF/s: PCD-Rcso1 ution-Agen96-2
1115/96 - R2
R1S 96-806
a 79
Section 3. The Redevelopment Agency hereby certifies the Final EIR as complete
and adequate in that it addresses all environmental effects of the Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project, and fully complies with the requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines
for CEQA. The Final EIR is composed of the following elements:
a. Draft EIR and appendices; and
b. Comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments.
All of the above information has been and will be on file at the City of Huntington Beach
Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92648,
and with the City Clerk.
Section 4. The Redevelopment Agency finds that the Final EIR has identified all
significant environmental effects of the project and that there are no known potential
environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR.
Section 5. The Redevelopment Agency finds that the Final EIR has described all
reasonable alternatives to the project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the project
(including the No Project Alternative), even when these alternatives might impede the attainment
of project objectives and might be more costly. Further, the Agency finds that a good faith effort
was made to incorporate alternatives in the preparation of the Draft EIR, and all reasonable
alternatives were considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the
project. 0
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington
Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of November , 1996.
ATI�: . 9404�
Agency Clerk
REVIEWED AND AUROVED:
Executive Director
S F/s: PCD: R eso f u 6o rr A ge n 96-2
1115196 - M2
R1S 96-806
Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
L
Agency Attorney
2 AV
0
r . . ,
9 Res. No. 279
E
•
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 an adjourned regular meeting of said Redevelopment
Agency held on the 18th day of November, 1996 and that it was so adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Members:
Harman, Leipzig, Bauer, Sullivan, Dettloff, Green
NOES: Members:
None
ABSENT: Members:
Garofalo
i
Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Huntington Beach, Ca.
Gheso1uti/resbkpg2/Rcs.279
RESOLUTION NO. 96-100
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS
CONCERNING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MAKING CERTAIN
FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, AND ADOPTING A
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM AND A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California (the "City' as
Lead Agency has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") for the proposed
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project; and
Said Final EIR is a program EIR, as defined by State and local guidelines for the
implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); and
The EIR has been prepared and circulated pursuant to CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines
adopted pursuant thereto; and
A duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on August 19, 1996, at which
time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and
The Final EIR, which includes the Draft EIR and responses to the concerns raised during
the review period and at the public hearing, has been prepared pursuant to said statute and
guidelines; and
The City Council at its regularly scheduled meeting on October 7, 1996, adopted
Resolution No. 96-63 certifying that the Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA
and State and local guidelines adopted pursuant thereto; and
The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR
and other documents in the record with respect to the proposed Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California as follows:
Secton 1. The City Council hereby finds and determines that implementation of the
proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project will not have any significant effects on the
environment other than those set forth in the General Plan EIR with implementation of
mitigation measures contained in the EIR and included in Attachment "A."
0
Section 2. The City Council hereby finds as follows regarding the environmental
impacts of the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project detailed in the Final EIR:
a. That the environmental effects of the proposed Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project, including those raised in comments on the Draft
EIR, have been considered and recognized by the City Council.
b. That, based on information set forth in Chapter 4.0 of the Final EIR, and in
the Statement of Findings for the proposed Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project, attached to this Resolution as Attachment "A"
and incorporated herein by reference, the City Council finds and
determines that the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Plan will
not have significant environmental effects on land use, population and
housing, earth resources, water quality, air quality, transportation and
circulation, biological resources, public health (hazards), noise, public
services and utilities, aesthetics, cultural and scientific resources, and
schools, other than those set forth in the General Plan EIR.
C. The City Council also finds and determines that, based on information in
the Air Quality section of Attachment "A," the proposed Huntington
Beach Redevelopment Project may have a potentially significant short-
term construction air quality impact that can be mitigated to acceptable
levels. I*
d. The City Council also finds and determines that, based on information in
the Cultural Resources section of Attachment "A," the proposed
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project may have a potentially
significant impact to cultural resources that can be mitigated to acceptable
levels.
e. As to displacement effects that may result from the demolition and new
construction activities associated with implementation of the Huntington
Beach Redevelopment Project, identified in Section 4.2 of the Final EIR
and Attachment "A," the City Council finds and determines that the
mitigation measure identified in the Final EIR and in Attachment "A" will
reduce housing and population effects to acceptable levels.
f. The City Council finds and determines that no additional environmental
effects other than those identified above will have a significant effect or
result in a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the
environment as a result of implementation of the proposed Huntington
Beach Redevelopment Project.
2
SF/s=PCD:Resolution -EIR-114
11/5/96 -N2
RLS 96-806
•
•
•
•
g. The City Council hereby adopts the findings and measures and statements
contained in Exhibits A and B, and hereby incorporates Exhibits A and B
by this resolution.
Section 3. The City Council hereby finds and determines that all significant effects
identified in the Final EIR have been reduced to an acceptable level of significance in that:
a. All environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been
eliminated or substantially lessened, as determined through the findings
set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Resolution; and
b. Based upon the Final EIR, Attachment "A" and other documents and
information in the record, specific economic, social and other
considerations make infeasible other project alternatives identified in the
Final EIR.
C. The City Council hereby adopts Attachment "B" as its Mitigation
Reporting and Monitoring Program for implementation of the proposed
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project.
d. The City Council hereby adopts Attachment "C" as a Statement of
Overriding Consideration for implementation of the proposed Huntington
Beach Redevelopment Project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held this 18th day of November , 1996.
ATTEST:
&�e�
City Clerk OF
i:7�191-EWED AND APPROVED:
5F/s-PCD'Rcsolution-EIR-11-4
i 11996 42
RLs 46-806
3
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
1�,, City Attorney
Attachment A
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines states that:
`No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been
completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project
unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those
significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding."
The possible findings for each significant adverse impact are the following:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR
(§ 15091 [a]1)
Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes either have been
adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency
(§15091 [a]2).
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (§15091 ja]3). is
Although the EIR for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Amendment/Merger (known
hereafter as the Amendment/Merger) identified effects of the project and mitigation measures to
reduce these effects, the project did not result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts.
However, the following text identifies the effects of the project as it relates to each topical
section in the EIR and specifies how the mitigation measures will lessen the effects.
LAND USE
The intent of the Amendment/Merger is to provide a vehicle for the City's
Redevelopment Agency to assist the City in eliminating incompatible land uses and/or
blight, and to promote economic development. The Redevelopment Plan for the
Amendment/Merger designates permitted land uses within the Merged Project Area
consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. Because there is no
development authorized by the Amendment/Merger beyond the growth allowed by the
City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/Merger will have no impact beyond the
effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the
Amendment/Merger incorporates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate
development analyzed in the General Plan. Therefore, there are no significant land use
impacts associated with the proposed Amendment/Merger.
G:SF-96-Mi3c:Amach-A
1115196 - / 1
AL.S 96.806
(0-r 0V
0 Mitigation Measures
None required.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
The Amendment/Merger does not propose any changes in land use or zoning
designation, or policies that would result in any increases in population within the
Merged Project Area of the City. The project primarily allows for increased funding
opportunities for infrastructure improvements, commercial rehabilitation, and assisted
housing projects, which may facilitate development in the area; however, the scale and
type (i.e., land use) will be consistent with that projected in the City's General Plan.
The Amendment/Merger also facilitates implementation of housing programs in the
Merged Project Area, through financing mechanisms, and promotes the City's housing
goals. It is estimated that the Redevelopment Agency's activities will facilitate 610
dwelling units, which is 0.6 percent of the General Plan build out.
The City must also replace affordable housing units affected by redevelopment
activities; therefore, the proposed Amendment/Merger may result in the displacement of
low and moderate income families and/or loss of affordable housing units within the
Merged Project Area. Redevelopment activities include housing setaside, whereby a
portion of the Redevelopment Agency's tax increment revenue is required by the State
to be set aside into a special fund of the Agency to meet affordable housing needs
within the City. The Agency adopted a relocation plan in conjunction with the
preparation of the five existing Redevelopment Plans, and is also required to adhere to
the State Relocation Law. The Agency is required to replace affordable housing
destroyed or removed as a consequence of a redevelopment project.
One of the primary objectives of the Amendment/Merger is the enhancement of existing
employment opportunities and economic development within the City. Job creation
within the Merged Project will be within the employment projections outlined in the EIR
for the General Plan.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure will lessen the potentially significant effect to housing
and population to a level below significance.
The Agency shall relocate any persons or families of low and moderate income
displaced by a redevelopment project. The Agency shall adopt and implement a
relocation plan pursuant to Sections 33410 through 33411.1 of the California
Health and Safety Code. The relocation plan ensures that no families or single
persons of low and moderate income are displaced by a redevelopment project
until there is a suitable housing unit available and ready for occupancy. Such
z
G. SF-96-Mist. Attach -A
1115196 - # 1
RiS 96-806
4,,� i6—cvu
housing units shall be available at rents comparable to those at the time of
displacement. Further, housing units for relocation are to be suitable for the
needs of the displaced household, and must be decent, safe, sanitary, and
otherwise standard dwelling. It is the Agency's objective that residents be
relocated with the minimum of hardship.
EARTH RESOURCES
Huntington Center and Main -Pier are located within potential liquefaction zones.
Liquefaction is a construction hazard and may lead to severe settlement, lateral
dislocation, uplift (heaving) of buried structures and possible overturning of buildings.
Although a portion of the Merged Project Area may experience potential liquefaction
effects, the City's standard codes and General Plan policies will adequately mitigate this
impact to a level below significance.
Yorktown -Lake is susceptible to ground rupture impacts due to its location within the
Fault Hazard Zone. The remainder of the Merged Project Area is not within the Fault
Hazard Zone, but all of the Merged Project Area is susceptible to potential ground
snaking effects associated with an earthquake. The City's standard codes and General
Plan policies will adequately mitigate this impact to a level below significance.
Yorktown -Lake and Main -Pier contain oil fields that are typically locations of subsidence.
Subsidence can cause settlement of engineered structures built above oil fields,
potentially leading to distress to foundations and other structural elements. The City's
standard codes and General Plan policies will adequately mitigate this impact to a level
below significance.
Due to the location of Yorktown -Lake and Main -Pier within a Methane Overlay District,
the likelihood of methane exposure during construction is prominent. Therefore, future
development and redevelopment within these two areas may create exposure to
methane gas.
Mitigation Measures
City and State codes, development review processes, and General Plan policies will
mitigate these potential impacts to a level below significance.
WATER RESOURCES
Redevelopment within the Merged Project Area may increase the amount of urban
runoff and water pollution, including siltation/sedimentation.
•
3
G:SF-96-M isc:Attach-A
1115196 - 81
RIS 96.606
+W 96-(w
• Mitigation Measures
Existing regulations requiring water quality management plans and NPDES permitting
prior to construction reduce potential effects to less than significant.
AIR QUALITY
The Amendment/Merger will not result in any new development that has not been
analyzed as part of the previous Redevelopment Plans or as part of the City's General
Plan. However, future redevelopment within the Merged Project Area will result in short-
term construction and vehicle exhaust emission impacts.
Site clearing, grading, equipment travel on unpaved surfaces, and demolition of existing
improvements may result in an increase of fugitive dust during construction within the
Merged Project Area. In addition, an increase of contaminated soil, dust and other
pollutants may result during grading operations within the Merged Project Area.
Mitigation Measures
Construction Exhaust Emissions
is Mitigation for both heavy equipment and vehicle travel is limited. However,
exhaust emissions from construction equipment shall be controlled by the
applicant's contractor in a manner that is consistent with standard mitigation
measures provided within the AQMP, to the extent feasible. The measures to be
implemented are as follows:
•
Use low emission on -site mobile construction equipment;
Maintain equipment in tune, per manufacturers specifications;
Use catalytic converters on gasoline powered equipment;
Use reformulated, low -emissions diesel fuel;
Substitute electric and gasoline powered equipment for diesel powered
equipment, where feasible;
Where applicable, do not leave equipment idling for prolonged periods
(i.e., more than five minutes); and
Curtail (cease or reduce) construction during periods of high ambient
pollutant concentrations (i e_, Stage 2 smog alerts).
4
G:SF-96-Misc:Amch-A
11/5196 - #1
RI.S 96.806
1"A 61c.-rUo
The City shall verify use of the above measures during normal construction site
inspections. 0
Fugitive Dust
The applicant shall implement standard mitigation measures in accordance with
SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, to control fugitive dust emissions and ensure that
nuisance dust conditions do not occur during construction. These measures may
include the following:
Spread soil binders on site, unpaved roads, and in parking areas;
Water the site and equipment in the morning and evening;
Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and
watering;
Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over
extended periods of time;
Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil
during and after the end of work periods;
Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local
ordinances and use sound engineering practices;
Restore landscaping and irrigation removed during construction, in
coordination with local public agencies;
Sweep streets on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public
thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling;
Suspend grading operations during high winds in accordance with
Rule 403 requirements;
Wash off trucks leaving site;
Maintain a minimum 12 inch freeboard ratio on haul trucks; and
Cover payloads on haul trucks using tarps or other suitable means.
Volatile Organic Emissions
The application of paints and coatings and asphalt paving material will raise
significant quantities of VOC emissions during their application.
5
G.SF-9&Misc:Atnch-A
1115196 - i1
RLS 96-BM
PC5 C�("-IL310
Where feasible, emulsified asphalt or asphaltic cement shall be utilized.
The use of rapid and medium cure cutback asphalt should be avoided
whenever possible.
Where feasible, low VOC paints, primers, and coatings, as well as
precoated materials, shall be specified.
Contaminated Soils and Dusts
In larger areas of both surface and subsurface contamination, a site assessment
will be conducted before any construction takes place at that locale. At locations
where spillage of fluids from the petroleum extraction process has occurred, the
soils will be remediated using appropriate techniques. Removal of petroleum
contamination will also alleviate the generation of hydrogen sulfide and its
attendant odor. These activities would fall under the direction of both local and
State agencies, which would "sign off' on the remediation effort upon completion.
If unforeseen areas of subsurface contamination are encountered during
excavation activities, these activities would be curtailed in this area until the area
could be evaluated and remediated, as appropriate.
Any structures to be demolished will have an asbestos survey performed by
personnel trained and certified in asbestos abatement. Any existing asbestos
will be removed and disposed of in accordance with sound engineering practice
and federal regulations. Implementation of these measures will reduce
potentially significant contamination issues to a level that is less than significant.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
The Amendment[Merger maintains the same land use designations and intensities as
the General Plan, and the Amendment/Merger traffic setting and forecasts are the same
as those in the General Plan. Therefore, no circulation impacts are forecast that were
not considered in the General Plan Update EIR.
Mitigation Measures
None required. All development will be subject to General Plan Policies in the General
Plan EIR regarding transportation and circulation.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
No significant impacts to biological resources are identified with the Amendmentfinerger.
Minor wetland impacts of development of the waterfront site at PCH and Beach
Boulevard could occur, and a minor increase in human intrusion could occur, but these
are not considered significant.
6
G:SF-96-Misc:Amch-A
1115/96 - it
RLS 964W6
Mitigation Measures
None required.
PUBLIC HEALTH (HAZARDS)
NOISE
Future development and redevelopment related to the Amendment/Merger may
incrementally increase exposure to hazardous materials during construction of
operation.
Mitigation Measures
Existing City and State codes and General Plan policies will mitigate potential impacts to
a level below significance.
The Amendment/Merger may result in increased construction related noise in the
Merged Project Area.
Mitigation Measures
Existing City codes and General Plan policies will mitigate potential impacts to a level
below significance.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
The Amendment/Merger may result in increased demand on existing public services and
utilities.
Mitigation Measures
Existing General Plan policies limit growth if infrastructure is not available to serve the
increased demand.
AESTHETICS
Future redevelopment projects resulting from the Amend mentlMerger may alter existing
views.
11
7
G: SF-96-M isc: Atuch-A
1115196 - 01
RLS 96-806
4S c1(v-( 0-0
! Mitigation Measures
City development review processes, design guidelines, and General Plan policies will
reduce impacts to a level below significance.
CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES
Future projects resulting from the Amendment/Merger may disrupt or impact historical
resources. In addition, future projects within the Merged Project Area may encounter
previously unknown archaeological and paleontological resources.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure will lessen the potentially significant effect to cultural
resources to a level below significance:
Prior to the commencement of new construction that would displace or require
demolition of potentially significant resources, a complete assessment shall be
prepared for any of the potentially historic buildings identified in the present
report within the Merged Project Area. At a minimum, this assessment shall
include the following documentation:
A) A full description of each building including architectural style, roof
design, window design, type of foundation, exterior wall treatments,
special architectural features, etc.
B) Black and white photographs showing one or more facades of
each building.
C) A determination of construction date from existing records, such
as building permit record books on file in the Planning Department at the
City of Huntington Beach. In the event that records cannot be located
for some of the buildings, interviews should be conducted with members
of the local historical society or other individuals who may have relevant
data to share.
D) A competent architectural historian should be consulted prior to
the demolition of any of the potentially historic buildings identified in the
present study. Additional measures may be implemented as a result, if
necessary to prevent an adverse impact.
Should any cultural artifacts, archaeological resources or paleontological
resources be uncovered during grading or excavation, a County of Orange
certified archaeologist or paleontologist shall be contacted by the Community
8
G: SF-96-M Esc: AtMCh-A
I I l5196 - 91
RLS 96-SM
Development Director to: 1) ascertain the significance of the resource, 2)
establish protocol with the City to protect such resources, 3) ascertain the
presence of additional resources, and 4) provide additional monitoring of the site,
it deemed appropriate.
Monitors trained in fossil recognition, fossil recovery and heavy equipment
monitoring shall be on site during grading operations.
A copy of the present report shall be placed in the collection of historic
documents on file at the Huntington Beach Central Library or another suitable
local archive.
SCHOOLS
Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger beyond
the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/Merger
will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General
Plan Update EIR. This will not result in physical impacts on the environment. In
addition, development fees. State financing, and requirements for continued
levels of tax funding for affected school districts lessen potential impacts to a
level below significance.
Mrtlgation Measures 0
The Final EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorporates the applicable General
Plan policies regarding potential impacts on schools as analyzed in the
applicable General Plan.
9 0
G:SF-96-Misc:Atuch-A
1115196 - 81
RL5 96-806
Ls Ct4-(&0
Attachment B
•
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
PREPARED FOR:
City of Huntington Beach
Department of Economic Development
2000 Main Street
is Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Contact: Stephen V. Kohler, Project Manager
(714) 536-5582
or
Linda Niles, Community Planning Department
(714) 536-5271
PREPARED BY.
LSA Associates, Inc.
One Park Plaza, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92614
Contact: Robert W. Balen, Principal
(714) 553-0666
LSA Project #RSG630
. October 18. 1996
45 -�G-(w
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
This mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared in compliance with Public
Resources Code Section 21086.6. It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by
the City of Huntington Beach to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of the
Amendment/Merger will be carried out as described in the EIR.
Table 1.A lists each of the mitigation measures specified in the EIR, and identifies the party(ies)
responsible for implementation and monitoring of each measure.
•
G:SF-96-Misc-Attach-B
1115196 - St
RLS 96-"
Table 1.A - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Responsible Party for
Timing for Mitigation
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure
Implementation Monitoring Measure
4.2 Population and 4.2-A The Agency shall relocate any
Economic Development Economic Development Prior to the issuance of
Housing persons or families of low and moderate
Director (or designee) Director (or designee) any project requiring
income displaced by a redevelopment
removal or displacement of
project. The Agency shall adopt and
housing.
implement a relocation plan pursuant to
Sections 33410 through 33411.1 of the
California Health and Safety Code. The
relocation plan ensures that no families or
single persons of low and moderate
income are displaced by a redevelopment
project until there is a suitable housing unit
available and ready for occupancy. Such
housing units shall be available at rents
comparable to those at the time of
displacement. Further, housing units for
relocation are to be suitable for the needs
of the displaced household, and must be
decent, safe, sanitary, and otherwise
standard dwelling. It is the Agency's
objective that residents be relocated with
the minimum of hardship.
2
G:SF•96-Misc:Anach-B
1115196 - d1
RL5 96-806
4.5 Air Quality Construction
Exhaust Emissions
4.5-A Mitigation for both heavy
equipment and vehicle travel is limited.
However, exhaust emissions from
construction equipment shall be controlled
by the applicant's contractor in a manner
that is consistent with standard mitigation
measures provided within the AOMP, to
the extent feasible. The measures to be
implemented are as follows:
Use low emission on -site
mobile construction equipment;
Maintain equipment in
tune, per manufacturer's specifications;
Use catalytic converters
on gasoline powered equipment;
Use reformulated, low -
emissions diesel fuel;
Substitute electric and
gasoline powered equipment for diesel
powered equipment, where feasible;
Where applicable, do not
leave equipment idling for prolonged
periods (i.e., more than five minutes); and
Curtail (cease or reduce)
construction during periods of high ambient
pollutant concentrations (i.e., Stage 2
smog alerts).
The City shall verify use of the
above measures during normal
construction site inspections.
C:SF•96-Misc:Attach -B
RlS 96-8*
Community Development
Director (or designee)
3
9
Community
Development Director
(or designee)
Prior to the issuance of
any grading or building
permits associated with the
Merged Project Area.
0
,1
-5
r
•
Fugitive Dust
4.5-8 The applicant shall implement
standard mitigation measures in
accordance with SCAQMD Rules 402 and
403, to control fugitive dust emissions and
ensure that nuisance dust conditions do
not occur during construction. These
measures may include the following:
Spread soil binders on
site, unpaved roads, and in parking areas;
Water the site and
equipment in the morning and evening;
Reestablish ground cover
on the construction site through seeding
and watering;
Phase grading to prevent
the susceptibility of large areas to erosion
over extended periods of time;
Schedule activities to
minimize the amounts of exposed
excavated soil during and after the end of
work periods;
Dispose of surplus
excavated material in accordance with
local ordinances and use sound
engineering practices;
Restore landscaping and
irrigation removed during construction, in
coordination with local public agencies;
Sweep streets on a daily
basis if silt is carried over to adjacent
public thoroughfares or occurs as a result
of hauling;
Suspend grading
operations during high winds in
accordance with Rule 403 requirements;
G SF•96-Misc:Anach-B
1115196 • I I
RLS 96.806
•
Community Development Community
Director (or designee) Development Director
(or designee)
•
Prior to the issuance of
building or grading permits
associated with the
Merged Project Area.
Wash off trucks leaving
site;
Maintain a minimum 12
inch freeboard ratio on haul trucks; and
Cover payloads on haul
trucks using tarps or other suitable means.
Volatile Organic Emissions
4.5-C The application of paints and Community Development
coatings and asphalt paving material will Director (or designee)
raise significant quantities of VOC
emissions during their application.
Where feasible, emulsified
asphalt or asphaltic cement shall be uti-
lized. The use of rapid and medium cure
cutback asphalt should be avoided when-
ever possible.
Where feasible, low VOC
paints, primers, and coatings, as well as
precoated materials, shall be specified.
G SF-96-M i sc:Attach-H
1115196. /1
RU 9r'S*
Community
Development Director
(or designee)
Prior to the issuance of
building or grading permits
associated with the
Merged Project Area.
0
M
•
Contaminated Soils and Dusts
4.5-D In larger areas of both surface and
subsurface contamination, a site
assessment will be conducted before any
construction takes place at that locale. At
locations where spillage of fluids from the
petroleum extraction process has
occurred, the soils will be remediated using
appropriate techniques. Removal of
petroleum contamination will also alleviate
the generation of hydrogen sulfide and its
attendant odor. These activities would fall
under the direction of both local and State
agencies, which would "sign off' on the
remediation effort upon completion. If
unforseen areas of subsurface
contamination are encountered during
excavation activities, these activities would
be curtailed in this area until the area could
be evaluated and remediated, as
appropriate.
4.5-E Any structures to be demolished
will have an asbestos survey performed by
personnel trained and certified in asbestos
abatement. Any existing asbestos will be
removed and disposed of in accordance
with sound engineering practice and
federal regulations. Implementation of
these measures will reduce potentially
significant contamination issues to a level
that is less than significant.
G:SF-96-Misc:AUch-$
1115196 • #1
RLS 96-W
Community Development Community Prior to the issuance of
Director (or designee) Development Director building or grading permits
(or designee) associated with the
Merged Project Area.
Community Development Community Prior to the issuance of
Director (or designee) Development Director building or grading permits
(or designee) associated with the
Merged Project Area.
A
S
t
4.12 Cultural 4.12-A Prior to the commencement of new Community Development
Resources construction that would displace or require Director (or designee)
demolition of potentially significant
resources, a complete assessment shall
be prepared for any of the potentially
historic buildings identified in the present
report within the Merged Project Area. At a
minimum, this assessment shall include
the following documentation:
A) A full description of each
building including architectural style, roof
design, window design, type of foundation,
exterior wall treatments, special
architectural features, etc.
B) Black and white
photographs showing one or more facades
of each building.
C) A determination of
construction date from existing records,
such as building permit record books on
file in the Planning Department at the City
of Huntington Beach. In the event that
records cannot be located for some of the
buildings, interviews should be conducted
with members of the local historical society
or other individuals who may have relevant
data to share.
D) A competent architectural
historian should be consulted prior to the
demolition of any of the potentially historic
buildings identified in the present study.
Additional measures may be implemented
as a result, if necessary to prevent an
adverse impact.
G:SF-96-Misc: Atnch-B
Eil5196 - J!
Rls W10610
Community
Development Director
(or designee)
Prior to the issuance of
any entire structure
demolition, grading or
building permit.
•
4.12-B Should any cultural artifacts,
Community Development
Community
During demolition and
archaeological resources or
Director (or designee)
Development Director
grading associated with
paleontological resources be uncovered
(or designee)
the Merged Project Area.
during grading or excavation, a County of
Orange certified archaeologist or
paleontologist shall be contacted by the
Community Development Director to: 1)
ascertain the significance of the resource,
2) establish protocol with the City to protect
such resources, 3) ascertain the presence
of additional resources, and 4) provide
additional monitoring of the site, if deemed
appropriate.
4.12-C Monitors trained in fossil
Community Development
Community
During demolition and
recognition, fossil recovery and heavy
Director (or designee)
Development Director
grading associated with
equipment monitoring shall be on site
(or designee)
the Merged Project Area.
during grading operations.
4.12-D A copy of the present report shall
Community Development
Community
Prior to the issuance of
be placed in the collection of historic
Director (or designee)
Development Director
any demolition, grading, or
documents on file at the Huntington Beach
(or designee)
building permits associated
Central Library or another suitable local
with the Merged Project
archive.
Area.
G:SF-96-M isc: AttAch-R
1115196 - #1
RLS 96-806
r
J
0-,- S 9G -tom
ATTACHMENT C
SUMMARY OF/AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 96-2
In order to make a decision as to whether to approve a project that will have an adverse
environmental impact, the benefits of the proposed project must be balanced against its
unavoidable, significant adverse impacts. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh
the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered
acceptable (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093 (a)). Benefits from a project are
defined as those improvements or gains to the community that would not occur without
the proposed project. The benefits from adopting the Huntington Beach Redevelopment
Project Amendment/Merger are based primarily on the higher quality community
environment that will exist as the Merged Project Area develops and infrastructure
improvements are made according to the Amendment/Merger.
This EIR has identified that the Amendment/Merger may result in significant
unavoidable adverse impacts for two environmental issue areas, regardless of
implementation of the proposed policies and/or mitigation measures. These
environmental issue areas are: air quality and cultural resources. The Agency and the
City Council have balanced the benefits of the proposed Project against the
unavoidable risks identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report and make the
following Statement of Overriding Considerations. 0
1. The proposed Merged Project will contribute to the creation of a modem,
efficient, and balanced urban environment for people of the Redevelopment
Project Area and surrounding areas and uses, by providing infrastructure
improvements, street and storm drainage systems monitoring and improvements
and economic development activities funded through the Merged Project.
2. The proposed Amendment/Merger will eliminate and prevent the spread of blight
and deterioration, and will conserve, rehabilitate, and redevelop the Merged
Project Area in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan.
3. The proposed Amendment/Merger will encourage the involvement and
participation of residents, business persons, and community organization within
the Project Area in a coordinated revitalization design to meet the diverse needs
of the area.
4. Implementation of the proposed Amendment/Merger will improve social and
economic conditions in the entire Merged Project Area by: facilitating the
creation of additional commercial retail development offering easily accessible
neighborhood oriented goods and services; upgrading deteriorating industrial
1
G=SF-96-M [sc: Anach-C
11/5196-N1
RL.S 96-806
t2.es�c�-ram
and commercial areas by revitalizing existing businesses and generating
additional new development opportunities in a more attractive environment; and
creating additional recreational and library facilities.
5. New development, rehabilitation of existing structures, landscaping, drainage
improvements, and roadway and intersection improvements will improve the
overall aesthetics of the Merged Project Area in accordance with plans, policies
and mechanisms reflected in the City's recently adopted revised General Plan,
such as:
(a) The adoption of land use standards;
(b) The promotion of architectural and urban design standards including:
standards for height; building setback; continuity of street facade; building
materials; security lighting; and appurtenances;
(c) The promotion of landscape criteria and planting program to ensure
additional green space;
(d) The promotion of sign and billboard standards;
(e) Coordination of the provision of high quality public improvements-, and
(f) Integration of public safety concerns into planning efforts.
6. Implementation of the proposed Amendment/Merger will address conditions of
blight and effective redevelopment in the Merged Project Area.
7. Implementation of the proposed Amendment/Merger will encourage private
sector investment in the development and redevelopment of the Merged Project
Area, assist in the revitalization of viable commercial areas, and the development
of a viable business environment that positively relates to adjacent land uses.
8. Implementation of the Amendment/Merger will provide for the stabilization of
currently declining commercial areas by: providing the thrust for revitalizing the
Merged Project Area by occupying vacant buildings and developing on vacant
sites; reactivating underutilized structures; and providing additional employment
opportunities for small businesses.
9. The proposed Amendment/Merger will facilitate the successful elimination of
blight in the Merged Project Area. The proposed Amendment/Merger will
upgrade vacant sites at various key intersections in the Merged Project Area and
improve the area's physical and economic environment by providing consumers
a variety of much needed additional commercial and civic services.
2
G:SF-96-Misc-Attach{
11 /5196 - # 1
RLS 96-806
fb--. el & - / cro
10. Implementation of the proposed Amendment/Merger will encourage and motivate
owners and business tenants within the Merged Project Area to revitalize and
redevelop their properties.
11. Implementation of the AmendmentlMerger will not only benefit the immediate
Merged Project Area, but will have spin-off effects of benefiting surrounding
commercial uses in other parts of the adjacent community. Assistance by the
Agency will stimulate the economic base of the area by motivating commercial
and industrial involvement, and improving overall economic conditions, which in
turn will benefit the community at large.
12. The Amendment/Merger will attain the purposes of the Community
Redevelopment Law through the assemblage of land into parcels suitable for
integrated development, and the planning, redesign and development of areas
that are stagnant or underutilized.
13. Implementation of the proposed Amendment/Merger will generate new home
ownership, and property owner investment will be encouraged by the
Amendment/Merger. Property taxes will be used to increase and improve the
supply and quality of low and moderate income housing for all age groups.
14. Development and preservation of sound residential neighborhoods in the
Merged Project Area shall be encouraged by the promotion of residential
property rehabilitation, and implementation of sensitive and well designed infill
housing.
15. Implementation of the proposed Amend mentlMerger will provide a basis for the
location and programming of public service facilities and utilities including, but
not limited to, library facilities, street lighting, drainage improvements and
roadway improvements, and coordination of the phasing of public facilities with
private development.
16. Implementation of the proposed Amendment/Merger will provide the public
improvements necessary to eliminate impediments to private investment in the
area.
17. Implementation of the proposed Amendment/Merger will provide a full range of
employment opportunities for persons of all income levels.
18. Through new investment opportunities, the local job force in the community shall
be preserved and expanded. To the extent feasible, developers in the Merged
Project Area will be encouraged to hire at least a portion of the workforce to be
employed at the new developments from within the City of Huntington Beach.
•
3
G:SF-96-MiscAttach-C
1115196 • N 1
PJS 96.806
11t5 �6-fO-D
19. The development of new businesses in the Merged Project Area will provide
construction jobs and create new employment opportunities by attracting new
employers as tenants, who will, in turn, provide additional employment
opportunities. As new development is stimulated, it is anticipated that additional
employment opportunities will be achieved as new businesses with new
employers/employees replace vacant or underutilized business establishments.
20. New development within the Merged Project Area will provide the City annual
increased revenues from sources such as, but not limited to: property taxes,
commercial property rental taxes, telephone taxes, telephone equipment rental
taxes, electrical taxes, natural gas franchise taxes, sales taxes, retail business
taxes, retail property rental taxes, and liquor and cigarette taxes.
21. New development brought about by the Merged Project will generate an increase
in revenues available to the Agency from tax increments, which can be used to
further goals of the Redevelopment Plan.
22. The proposed Amendment/Merger will coordinate the revitalization effort in the
five existing Redevelopment Project Areas with one coordinated revitalization
effort that will leverage and maximize the effect of other public programs of the
City of Huntington Beach and the metropolitan area.
23. The Merged Project is required by provisions included within it to be consistent
with the City's General Plan. All land uses, infrastructure and public facility
improvements projects, roadway improvement projects, and economic
development actions carried out by the Agency in the Merged Project Area must
be consistent with the Adopted General Plan. As such, the proposed
Amendment/Merger does not allow any economic development activity, physical
improvement, or infrastructure improvement that has not already been
authorized by the General Plan. In adopting a revised and updated General
Plan on May 13, 1996, the City Council made the following findings that also
apply to the proposed Amendment/Merger:
• The General Plan provides for the development of a variety of housing
types to meet the needs of all segments of society by establishing
programs for the provision of affordable housing, the preservation and
improvement of existing housing, and a provision for the development of
housing for people with special needs.
• The General Plan provides for the linkage of new development with
available and expanded infrastructure and services, including streets,
transit, sewers, water, storm drainage, energy, and communication. The
timing of development will be phased with the provision of necessary
infrastructure/service improvements.
4
GSF-96-MiSc'Attach-C
1115/96 - 01
RLS 96.806
rZes °1L-tom
• The Circulation Element of the General Plan provides policies and
programs designed to provide a transportation network with adequate
capacity to accommodate proposed build out, including mechanisms to
monitor and maintain acceptable traffic conditions.
• The General Plan will ease the potential effects of traffic, equipment,
construction and other noise sources through policies that require the
installation of mitigation measures of many different means to ensure that
noise levels are maintained within City noise standards.
The City of Huntington Beach finds that the unavoidable risks of this project are
acceptable when balanced against the benefits of this project for the reasons set forth
above.
•
•
5
G:SF-96-Misc-Aaach-C
1115196 - N 1
RLS 96-806
•
[ -I
Res. No. 96-100
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of
the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-offlcio 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 18th of November, 1996 by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Harman, Julien, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan,
Green
None
None
Garofalo
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California
G/r=1uWrftbkp06-100
RESOLUTION NO. 9 6 _ 9 3
0
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIOL OF THE CITY OF
U
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THAT THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (NO. 96-2) FOR THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT HAS BEEN
PREPARED, CIRCULATED AND COMPLETED IN COMPLIANCE
WITH CEQA AND STATE GUIDELINES FOR CEQA AND THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL HAS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE
INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California (tie "City")
as Lead Agency has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (the "Final EIR") for the
proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project; and
WHEREAS, said Final EIR is a program EIR, as defined by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State Guidelines for implementation of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR has been prepared and circulated pursuant to CEQA, and
the State Guidelines for CEQA; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City on August 19, 1996, at
which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR, which includes the Draft EIR and responses to the concerns
raised during the review period and at the public hearing, has been prepared pursuant to said
statute and Guidelines; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach, California as follows:
1. The City Council hereby certifies that the Final Environmental Impact Report
for the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project has been prepared,
circulated and completed in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act and applicable regulations.
2. The City Council certifies that the information contained in the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project has been reviewed and considered by the City Council
Members.
ccga961s1/jn19130l96
3. That the City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR as complete and adequate
in that it addresses all environmental effects of the Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project, and fully complies with the requirements of CEQA and
the Guidelines for CEQA. The Final EIR is composed of the following
elements:
a. Draft EIR and appendices; and
b. Comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments.
All of the above information has been and will be on file at the City of
Huntington Beach Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, California, 92648, and with the City Clerk.
4. That the City finds that the Final EIR has identified all significant
environmental effects of the project detailed in Environmental Impact Report
No. 96-2, together with proposed mitigation measures to mitigate such effects
(see Exhibit A, attached hereto), and that there are no known potential
environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR.
5. That the City finds that the Final EIR has described all reasonable alternatives to
the project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the project
(including the No Project Alternative), even when these alternatives might
impede the attainment of project objectives and might be more costly. Further,
the City finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives in the
preparation of the Draft EIR, and all reasonable alternatives were considered in
the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the project.
6. The Planning Director is hereby authorized and directed to file with the Office
of the County Clerk and the State Office of Planning and Research a notice of
determination for Environmental Impact Report No. 96-2, as required by
Section 15094 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
ccga9WsUJn19/30/%
96-93
.7
U
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of October ,
1996.
ATTEST:
4�� AA��
City Clerk
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:
City Administrator
47)
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
-,.L /. 4—
rDir4tor of Economic Development
ccq a96/%1Ij n19l30196
96-93
RPS 9(.-i3
EXHIBIT A
MITIGATION MEASURES
4.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.2.6 MITIGATION MEASURES
4.2-A The Agency shall relocate any persons or families of low and moderate
income displaced by a redevelopment project. The Agency shall adopt and
implement a relocation plan pursuant to Sections 33410 through 33411.1 of
the California Health and Safety Code. The relocation plan ensures that no
families or single persons of low and moderate income are displaced by a
redevelopment project until there is a suitable housing unit available and
ready for occupancy. Such housing units shall be available at rents
comparable to those at the time of displacement. Further, housing units for
relocation are to be suitable for the needs of the displaced household, and
must be decent, safe, sanitary, and otherwise standard dwelling. It is the
Agency's objective that residents be relocated with the minimum of
hardship.
4.5 AIR QUALITY
4.5.6 MITIGATION MEASURES
The following recommendations will assist in reducing air quality impacts resulting
from future development and redevelopment within the Merged Project Area. The
Recommended mitigation measures are as follows:
Construction Exhaust Emissions
4.5-A Mitigation for both heavy equipment and vehicle travel is limited. However,
exhaust emissions from construction equipment shall be controlled by the
applicant's contractor in a manner that is consistent with standard mitigation
measured provided within the AQMP, to the extent feasible. The measures
to be implemented are as follows:
• Use low emission on -site mobile construction equipment;
• Maintain equipment in tune, per manufacturer's specifications;
• Use catalytic converters on gasoline powered equipment;
• Use reformulated, low -emissions diesel fuel;
• Substitute electric and gasoline powered equipment for diesel powered
equipment, where feasible;
• Where applicable, do not leave equipment idling for prolonged periods
(i.e., more than five minutes); and
•
•
ZeS.'1.-13
• Curtail (cease or reduce) construction during periods of high ambient
pollutant concentrations (i.e., Stage 2 smog alerts).
The City shall verify use of the above measure during normal construction
site inspections.
Fugitive Dust
4.5-13 The applicant shall implement standard mitigation measures in accordance
with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, to control fugitive dust emissions and
ensure that nuisance dust conditions do not occur during construction.
These measures may include the following:
•
Spread soil binders on site, unpaved roads, and in parking areas;
•
Water the site and equipment in the morning and evening;
•
Reestablish ground over on the construction site through seeding and
watering;
•
Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of larger areas to erosion
over extended periods of time;
•
Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil
during and after the end of work periods;
•
Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local
ordinances and use sound engineering practices;
•
Restore landscaping and irrigation removed during construction, in
coordination with local public agencies;
•
Sweep streets on a daily basis is silt is carried over to adjacent public
thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling;
•
Suspend grading operations during high winds in accordance with Rule
403 requirements;
•
Wash off trucks leaving site;
•
Maintain a minimum 12 inch freeboard ratio on haul trucks; and
• Cover payloads on haul trucks using tarps or other suitable means.
Volatile Organic Emissions
4.5-C The application of paints and coatings and asphalt paving material will raise
significant quantities of VOC emissions during their application.
• Where feasible, emulsified asphalt or asphaltic cement shall be utilized.
The use of rapid and medium cure cutback asphalt should be avoided
whenever possible.
• Where feasible, low VOC paints, primers, and coatings, as well as
precoated materials, shall be specified.
Pes-e TG -9,3
Contaminated Soils and Dusts
4.5-D In larger areas of both surface and subsurface contamination a site
assessment will be conducted before any construction takes place at that
locale. At locations where spillage of fluids from the petroleum extraction
process has occurred, the soil will be remediated using appropriate
techniques. Removal of petroleum contamination will also alleviate the
generation of hydrogen sulfide and its attendant odor. these activities
would fall under the direction of both local and State agencies, which would
"sign off" on the remediation effort upon completion. If unforeseen areas of
subsurface contamination are encountered during excavation activities,
these activities would be curtailed in this area until the area could be
evaluated and remediated as appropriate.
4.5-E Any structures to be demolished will have an asbestos survey performed by
personnel trained and certified in asbestos abatement. Any existing
asbestos will be removed and disposed in accordance with sound
engineering practice and federal regulations. Implementation of these
measures will reduce potentially significant contamination issues to a level
that is less than significant.
4.12 CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES
4.12.6 MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures will assist to reduce impacts to cultural
resources in the Merged Project Area. Although specific project level impacts
cannot be identified at this time, future specific development and redevelopment
projects will comply with the mitigation measures.
4.12-A Prior to the commencement of new construction that would displace or
require demolition of potentially significant resources, a complete
assessment shall be prepared for any of the potentially historic buildings
identified in the present report within the Merged Project Area. At a
minimum, this assessment shall include the following documentation:
A) A full description of each building including architectural style, roof
design, window design, type of foundation, exterior wall treatments,
special architectural features, etc.
B) Black and white photographs showing one or more facades of each
building.
C) A determination of construction date from existing records such as
building permit record books on file in the Planning Department at
the City of Huntington Beach. In the event that records cannot be
Pe-... 7 4 - Z3
located for some of the buildings, interviews should be conducted
with members of the local historical society or other individuals who
may have relevant data to share.
D) A competent architectural historian should be consulted prior to the
demolition of any of the potentially historic buildings identified in the
present study. Additional measures may be implemented as a result,
if necessary to prevent an adverse impact.
4.12-B Should any cultural artifacts, archaeological resources or paleontological
resources be uncovered during grading or excavation, a County of Orange
certified archaeologist or paleontologist shall be contacted by the
Community Development Director to: 1) ascertain the significance of the
resource, 2) establish protocol with the City to protect such resources, 3)
ascertain the presence of additional resources, and 4) provide additional
monitoring of the site, if deemed appropriate.
4.12-C Monitors trained in fossil recognition, fossil recovery and heavy equipment
monitoring shall be on site during grading operations.
4.12-D A copy of the present report shall be placed the collection of historic
documents on file at the Huntington Beach Central Library or another
suitable local archive.
r�
u
Res. No. 96-93 0
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CM OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, 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 7th of October, 1996 by the
following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Harman, Leipzig, Bauer, Sullivan, Dettloff,
Garofalo, Green
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
dwail qf�� -
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California
•
•
Grr=1uWrabkpg
•
0
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
IXQ 1010 1:1
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
E1R NUMBER 96-2
(STATE CUAWNGHOUSE NUMBER 96041075)
PREPARED FOR -
City of Huntington Beach
Department of Economic Development
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Contact: Stephen V. Kohler, Project Manager
• (714) 536-5582
or
Linda Niles, Community Planning Department
(714) 536-5271
C�;7�7ar,7�
ISA Associates, Inc.
One Park Plaza, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92614
Contact. Robert W. B21en, Principal
(714) 553-0666
iSA Project #RSG630
July 19,1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE 0
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................... 1-1
1.1 SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................... 1-1
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION ................................ 1-2
1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ............................... 1-2
1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL UsIPACTS .......................... 1-2
1.5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT . . ................ 1.11
1.6 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED .......................... 1-12
2.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................... 2-1
2.1 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY ........................ 2-1
2.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS PROGRAM EIR ........... 2-1
2.3 DOCUMENT FORMAT ............................... 2-2
2.4 PROJECT APPROVALS/IIgTENDED USES OF THE
PROGRAM EIR..................................... 2-3
2.5 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ............. 2-5
2.6 LEAD AGENCY ..................................... 2-7
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................... 3-1
3.1 INTRODUCTION .................................. 3-1
3.2 PROJECT LOCATION/GEOGRAPHICAL SETTING ......... 3-1
3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 3-5
3.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ............................... 3-7
3.5 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION/
STATUS OF PROCESSING .......................... 3-10
4.0 EXISTING SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ... 4.1-1
4.1
LAND USE ....................................... 4.1-3
4.2
POPULATION AND HOUSING .......................
4.2.1
4.3
EARTH RESOURCES ...............................
4.3-1
4.4
WATER QUAISIY.................................
4.4.1
4.5
AIR QUALITY ........... I .........................
4.5-1
4.6
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ..............
4.6-1
4.7
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..........................
4.7-1
4.8
PUBLIC HEALTH (HAZARDS) .......................
4.8-1
4.9
NOISE ..........................................
4.9-1
4.10
PUBLIC SERVICES AND LTIUXn[ES ..................
4.10-1
4.11
AESTHETICS ....................................
4.11-1
4.12
CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES ............
4.12-1
4.13
SCHOOLS ......................................
4.13-1
5.0 ALTERNATIVES ...................................... 5-1
5.1 ALTERNATIVE 1- NO PROJECTALTERNAI VE ........... 5-1
5.2 ALTERNATTVE 2 - ALTERNATIVE FINANCING ............ 5-7
5.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 - ALTERNATE PROJECT LOCATION ....... 5-9
5.4 ALTERNATIVE 4 - INCREASED DEVELOPMENT
ALTERNATIVE ................................... 5-10
7n9,964cI_ RSG63NEM70C.VPD- li
5.5 ALTERNATIVE 5 - REDUCED DEVELOPMENT
ALTERNATIVE .................................... 5-10
5.6 CONCLUSIONS ................................... 5-11
6.0 LONG-TER.M EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT ...................... 6-1
6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ANALYZED IN THE EIR ....... 6-1
6.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE
PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED ...... 6-4
6.3 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED
ACTION...........................................
7.0 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ....................... 7-1
8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ....................................... 8-1
9.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED ................. 9-1
10.0 REFERENCES ........................................... 10-1
APPENDICES
A - NOP/INMAL STUDY/COMAENT LETTERS
B - CULTURAL RESOURCES
C - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7/]9i96-1A?5G630lJMTM.VPD- iii
LIST OF FIGURES 0
PAGE
3.1 -
Regional Location ....................................... 3-2
3.2 -
Redevelopment Project Areas ...............................
3-3
4.1.1 -
Existing Land Use: Huntington Center ....................
4.1-5
4.1.2 -
Existing Land Use: Oakview .............................
4.1-6
4.1.3 -
Existing Land Use: Talbert -Beach .........................
4.1-7
4.1.4 -
Existing land Use: Yorktown -Lake ........................
4.1-8
4.1.5 -
Existing Land Use: Main -Pier .............................
4.1-9
4.3.1 -
Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone ..........................
4.3-4
4.6.1 -
Existing Network of Arterial Streets and Highways ...........
4.6-2
4.6.2 -
Existing Daily Traffic ...................................
4.6-7
4.6.3 -
Existing Intersections and Roadway Segments Operating
Below LOS C........................................
4.6-11
4.6.4 -
Intersections and Roadway Segments Operating Below LOS
C - Post -General Plan Update Implementation ..............
4.6-19
4.7.1 -
Huntington Beach Natural Open Space with Biological
ResourceValue ........................................
4.7-2
4.9.1 -
Land Use Compatibility with Community Noise Environments ..
4.9-4
4.10.1 -
Flood Hazard Areas ....................................
4.10-7
4.13.1 -
Schools Serving the Redevelopment Project Area ............
4.13-2
•
E
7/E9j96ft1NrS"30\EMT0C WPD- iv
•
•
LIST OF TABLES
1.A
2A
3.A
4.1A
4.2A
4.2.B
4.2.0
4.3A
4.3•B
4.5 A
4.5.B
4.5.0
4.5 -D
4.5.E
4.5.F
4.5.G
4.5.H
4.6A
4.6.B
4.6.0
4.6.D
4.6.E
4.6.F
4.6.G
4.9 A
4.9.B
4.9.0
4.9.D
4.10A -
4.10.B -
4.10.0 -
4.11A -
4.13A -
7A -
PAGE
Summary of Project Specific Impacts, Mitigation Measures,
and Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................
1-3
Future Discretionary Actions for the Amendment/Merger .......
2-6
Proposed h-dmtructure Projects ...........................
3-8
Existing Land Uses Within the Merged Project Area ..........
4.1-3
Population Comparisons 1970-1990 ......................
4.2-1
Housing Trends: 1980-1988 ............................
4.2-2
Housing, Population, Employment and Jobs -Housing Ratjo ...
4.2-3
Active/Potentially Active Faults That May Affect the Merged
Project ..............................................
4.3-6
Liquefaction Susceptibility in Merged Project Area ..........
4.3-7
Ambient Air Quality Standards ...........................
4.5-3
Air Pollutant Descriptions and Effects .....................
4.5-5
Air Quality Monitoring Summary for the Los Alamitos and
Costa Mesa Air Monitoring Stations .......................
4.5-7
Screening Table for Estimating Total Construction Emissions .
4.5-11
Screening Table for Estimating the Construction Period for
Various Land Uses That Will Remain Within the Significance
Criteria .............................................
4.5-13
Number of Pieces of Construction Equipment That Can Be
Operated on a Daily Basis and W111 Not Exceed the SCAQMD
Daily Significance Threshold by Type .....................
4.5-14
Approximate Land Uses, Densities and Daily Trips from
Estimated Projects within the Amendment/Merger .........
4.5-17
Operational Emissions from Estimated Projects within the
Amendment/Merger..................................
4.5-18
City of Huntington Beach Design Criteria for Arterial Streets
and Highways ........................................
4.6-1
Existing Merged Project Area Roadway Characteristics ........
4.6-4
Summary of Existing Roadway Level of Service ..............
4.6-8
Existing A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS at Signalized
Intersections ........................................
4.6-12
2010 Merged Project Area Roadway Level of Service
Summary...........................................
4.6-15
Year 2010 A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS at Signalized
Intersections ........................................
4.6-18
Merged Project Area General Plan Roadway Segments
Change in Roadway Classification .......................
4.6-20
Sound Levels and Human Responses ......................
4.9-3
Exterior Noise Standards ................................
4.9-6
Interior Noise Standards ................................
4.9-6
Existing and Future Noise Levels (Ldn) at 50 Feet from
Centerlines of Major Traffic Corridors .....................
4.9-7
Fire Stations Servicing the Merged Project Area ............
4.10-2
Fire Operations Staffing Levels ..........................
4.10-2
City of Huntington Beach Public Libra6es .................
4.10-4
Relevant Urban Forms in Merged Project Area .............
4.11-2
Schools Serving the Merged Project Area .................
4.13-3
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements ............
7-3
T/19/96-L•1RSG6301ETit T0C.WFDo-
v
GLOSSARY
Agency
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Amendment/Merger
Proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project
Amendment/Merger
AQMP
Air Quality Management Plan
BMPs
Best Management Practices
CAA
Cleat Air Act
CAAA
Clean Air Act Amendment of 1971
CAAQS
California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CEQA
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA Guidelines
The CEQA Guidelines is a document produced by the
State of California to provide interpretation of CEQA
and provide guidance regarding document
preparation and procedures for implementing CEQA
CERCIA
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
CIP
Capital Improvement Program
CMP
Congestion Management Program
DAMP
Drainage Area Master Plan
DFG
California Department of Fish and Game
EIR
Environmental Impact Report
EMA
County of Orange Environmental Management
Agency
ERC
Environmental Resources/Conservation Element
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIPs
Federal Implementation Plans
GMP
County of Orange Growth Management Plan
GTE
General Telephone and Electric
Hazmat
Orange County Hazardous Materials
HBCSD
Huntington Beach City School District
HBUHSD
Huntington Beach Union High School District
HCD
California Department of Housing and Community
Development
HHWE
Household Hazardous Waste Element
Huntington Center
The Huntington Center Commercial District
Redevelopment Project (previously adopted)
HWMP
Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan
ICU
Intersection Capacity Utilization
7n8,96-1:Vt5"50ZMr0c.wru- vi
•
•
•
LOS
Level of Service
Main -Pier
Main -Pier Redevelopment Project (previously
adopted)
Merged Plan
Formal name: Huntington Beach Redevelopment
Plan (combined previous redevelopment plans)
Merged Project
Formal name: Huntington Beach Redevelopment
Project (combined previous redevelopment projects)
Merged Project Area
Formal name: Huntington Beach Redevelopment
Project Area (combined previous redevelopment
Project areas)
MWD
Metropolitan Water District
NAAQS
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NOP
Notice of Preparation
NPDFS
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
Oakview
The Oakview Redevelopment Project (previously
adopted)
OCEMA
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
OCTA
Orange County Transportation Authority
OVSD
Ocean Yew School District
RHNA
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
RWQCB
Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCAQMD
South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCE
Southern California Edison
SCG
Southern California Gas
SCHWMA
Southern Hazardous Waste Management Authority
SIPS
State Implementation Plans
SRRE
Source Reduction and Recycling Element
SWPPP
Stone Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB
State Water Resources Control Board
Talbert -Beach
The Talbert -Beach Redevelopment Project (previously
adopted)
TDM
Transportation Demand Management
UBC
Uniform Building Code
LTD
Urban Design Element
WQMP
Water QualiryManagement Plan
WSD
Westminster School District
Yorktown -Lake
The Yorktown -Lake Redevelopment Project
(previously adopted)
7/1"6«IA13"30TMT0C.VPDP
vii
! 1.0 ExECUTWE SUMMARY
This Executive Summary has been prepared for the proposed Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project Amendment/Merger (AmendmenVMerger) in accor-
dance with Section 15123 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines. This Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been pre-
pared by the City of Huntington Beach to analyze the Amendment/Merger's po-
tential impacts on the environment, to discuss alternatives, and to propose
mitigation measures that will offset, lessen or avoid significant environmental
impacts. For a detailed description of the AmendmenvNerger, its im-
pacts/recommended mitigation, and alternatives, the reader is referred to Chap-
ters 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0, respectively.
1.1 SVMMARYPROJECT DESCRlP77ON
The project analyzed in this Program EIR is a proposed amendment and merger
of the five previously adopted Redevelopment Plans/Projects within the City of
Huntington Beach (City). The five previously adopted Redevelopment Projects
established since inception of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
(Agency) on March 1, 1976, are as follows:
• Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Project (Hun-
tington Center)
• Main -Pier Redevelopment Project (Main -Pier)
• Oakview Redevelopment Project (Oakview)
• Talbert -Beach Redevelopment Project (Talbert -Beach)
• Yorktown -ire Redevelopment Project (Yorktown -Lake)
The proposed actions would combine the adopted Redevelopment Projects into
a single Project called the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project. The
AmendmenVMerger is being initiated to provide the Agency the ability to expand
the Agency's financial and statutory authority as follows:
1) Merge the Redevelopment Plans for the five Projects into a single Rede-
velopment Plan (Merged Plan) to be designated as the merged Hunting-
ton Beach Redevelopment Project (Merged project) and Project Area
(Merged Project Area).
2) Increase the dollar limit on the cumulative amount of tax increment
revenue the Agency may be allocated from the Merged Project and elimi-
nate all preeidsting annual limits.
3) Increase the dollar limit on the amount of indebtedness char may be
outstanding at any one time.
7aq/WI:WG63NMk%5ECT2.O VrJp' 1-1
4) Extend the time frame within which the Agency may incur indebtedness
on behalf of the Merged Project. 9
5) On a selective basis, extend the time frame within which the Agency may
employ eminent domain proceedings on nonresidential properties on
the Main -Pier and Huntington Center Commercial District areas.
6) Extend the time periods within which the Agency may undertake rede-
velopment activities and receive tax increment.
7) Expand the list of infrastructure and public facility projects that the
Agency may undertake within the Merged Project Area.
The Amendment/.' lerger will allow the Agency to finish the redevelopment
programs within the previously adopted Project Areas. No additional properties
are added to the Redevelopment Project Area by the Amendment/Merger.
1.2 PROJECT LOCl7YON
The project location is in the City of Huntington Beach, Orange County, Califor-
nia. Figure 3.1 in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, illustrates the regional loca-
tion of the City.
The Merged Project is composed of five existing redevelopment project areas,
totaling 619 acres or approximately 3.5 percent of the City acreage. Each of the
five areas of the Merged Project Area is non-contiguous within the City bound-
aries, as shown in Figure 3.2 in Chapter 3.0.
A profile of the Merged Project is provided in Chapter 3.0, Project Description.
1.3 PROJECT OAfECBVES
Following is a list of project objectives:
1. Enable the Agency to continue to facilitate: 1) economic development
activities, 2) inft-astructure improvement projects, 3) commercial rehabil-
itation activities, 4) provision of market rate and affordable housing
opportunities, and 5) provision of housing rehabilitation programs and
elimination of blight.
2. Provide a redevelopment plan consistent with the City's General Plan
Update to guide future redevelopment of the Merged Project Area.
1.4 EINVIRONMF.NTAL ZKPACTS
Table lA summarizes potential project impacts, mitigation measures, and the
level of impact after mitigation has been implemented. 0
7/19ig6�t;NRSCr630,UR SEcrrA.mro. 1-2
4.1
4.2
4.3
•
Table IA - Summary of Project SpecWc Impacts, Mitigation pleasures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation
Potential
Environmental Impact
Land Use
None. The proposed Amendment/
Merger implements the General
Plan.
Population and Housing
May result In displacement of low 4.2-A
and moderate Income families
and/or loss of affordable housing
units within the Merged Project
Area.
Barth Resources
Mitigation Measure bevel of Significance
None. Less than significant.
The Agency shall relocate any persons or families of low Less than significant.
and moderate income displaced by a redevelopment pro-
ject. The Agency shall adopt and implement a relocation
plan pursuant to Sections 33110 through 33411.1 of the
California Health and Safety Code, The relocation plan
ensures that no families or single persons of low and
moderate income are displaced by a redevelopment pro-
ject until there is a suitable housing unit available and
ready for occupancy. Such housing units shall be avail-
able at rents comparable to those at the time of displace-
ment. Further, housing units for relocation are to be
suitable for the needs of the displaced household, and
must be decent, safe, sanitary, and otherwise standard
dwelling. It is the Agency's objective that residents be
relocated with the minimum of hardship.
suture redevelopment within the None. Less than significant.
Merged Project Area will be ex-
posed to Increased exposure to
fault rupturelground shaking, near
surface watcr/liquefaction impacts.
City codes and General Plan poli-
cies will mitigate.
7/19R&K1:VtSG6WW1WPC'rl-O.WPD» 1-3
4.4
4.5
Potential
Environmental impact Mitigation Measure Level of Significance
Future development and redevel-
opment in areas of active oil fields
experience increased exposure to
the risk of ground subsidence. City
codes and General Plan policies
will mitigate.
Future development and redevel-
opment within Yorktown -Lake and
Main -Pier may experience expo-
sure to methane gas. City and
State codes. development review
processes, and General Plan poli-
cies will mitigate these potential
impacts.
Water Resources
Redevelopment within the Merged
Project Area may increase the
amount of urban runoff and water
pollution, including siltation/
sedimentation. afsting regula-
tions requiring water quality man-
agement plans and NPDES permit-
ting prior to construction reduce
effects to less than significant.
Air Quality
Future redevelopment within the 4.5-A
Merged Project Area will result in
short-term construction and vehi-
cle exhaust emission impacts.
None.
None.
None.
Mitigation for both heavy equipment and vehicle travel Is
limited. However, exhaust emissions from construction
equipment shall be controlled by the applicant's contrac-
tor in a manner that is consistent with standard mitiga-
tion measures provided within the AQMP, to the extent
feasible. The measures to be implemented are as fol-
Iowa:
Less than significant.
Less than significant.
I,ess than significant.
Mitigated below a ICVCI of aig-
nificance.
7/19N61i\RSG63@11NEL 1-0.WPD* 1-4
0 . 0 is
0 0 0
Potential
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure bevel of Significance
• Use low emission on -site mobile construction
equipment;
• Maintain equipment in tune, per manufacturer's
specifications;
• Use catalytic converters on gasoline powered
equipment;
• Use reformulated, low -emissions diesel fuel;
• Substitute electric and gasoline powered equip-
ment for diesel powered equipment, where fca-
siblc;
• Where applicable, do not leave equipment idling
for prolonged periods (i.e., more than five min-
utes); and
• Curtail (cease or reduce) construction during
periods of high ambient pollutant concentra-
tions (i.e., Stage 2 smog alerts).
• The City shall verify use of the above measures
during normal construction site inspections.
May result in an increase of fugitive 4.5-B The applicant shall implement standard mitigation mca-
dust during construction within the sures in accordance with SCAQMD pules 442 and 403, to
Merged Project Area. control fugitive dust emissions and ensure that nuisance
dust conditions do not occur during construction. 't'itcsc
measures may include the following:
• Spread soil binders on site, unpaved roads, and
in parking areas;
• Water the site and equipment in the morning
and evening;
Mitigated below a level of sig•
nifica nce.
7/1906«IsW(;43CN!IMI!CTI-O.WPT)» 1-5
Potential
Environmental Impact
Mitigation Measure
• Reestablish ground cover on the construction
site through seeding and watering;
• Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of
large areas to erosion over extended periods of
time;
• Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of
exposed excavated soil during and after the end
of work periods;
• Dispose of surplus excavated material in accor-
dance with local ordinances and use sound engi-
neering practices;
• Restore landscaping and irrigation removed dur-
ing construction, in coordination with local pub-
lic agencies;
• Sweep streets on a daily basis if silt Is carried
over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs
as a result of hauling;
• Suspend grading operations during high winds
in accordance with Rule 403 requirements;
• Wash off trucks leaving site;
• Maintain a minimum 12 inch freeboard ratio on
haul trucks; and
• Cover payloads on haul trucks using tarps or
other suitable means.
Level of SIgnifIcance
4.5-C The application of paints and coatings and asphalt pav- Mitigated below a level of sig-
ing material will raise significant quantities of VOC emir- nificancc.
lions during their application.
7/19Newi:\ tsc43W,IMecrt-0.WPn» 1-6
s
Potential
Environmental Impact
Mitigation Measure Level of Significance
• Where feasible, emulsified asphalt or asphaltic
cement shall be utiliYed. The use of rapid and
medium cure cutback asphalt should be avoided
whenever possible.
• Where feasible, low VOC paints, primers, and
coatings, as well as precoatcd materials, shall be
specified.
During grading within the Merged
4.5-D 1n larger areas of both surface and subsurface contamina- Mitigated below a level of sig-
Project Area, an increase of con-
tion, a site assessment will be conducted before any con- nificance.
taminated soil, dust and other pot-
struction takes place at that locate. At locations where
lutants may result.
spillage of fluids from the petroleum extraction process
has occurred, the soils will be remediated using appro-
priate techniques. Removal of petroleum contamination
will also alleviate the generation of hydrogen sulfide and
Its attendant odor. 'These activities would fall under the
direction of moth IOcal and State agencies, which would
"sign ofr' on the rcmcdiation effort upon completion. If
unforseen areas of subsurface contamination are en-
countered during excavation activities, these activities
would be curtailed in this area until the area could be
evaluated and remediated as appropriate.
4.5.12- Any stntctures to be demolished will have an ashcstos
survey performed by personnel trained and certified in
asbestos abatement. Any existing asbestos will be rc-
moved and disposed in accordance with sound engineer-
ing practice and federal regulations. Implementation of
these measures will reduce potentially significant con-
tamination issues to a level that is less than significant.
7/19y6pu1RSG63t>1RtfMEC'n-0, ern» 1-7
Potential
Environmental Impact
Mitigation Measure
Level of Significance
4.7 Biological Resources
No significant impacts are identi-
None.
Less than significant.
fled. Minor wetlands impacts of
development of the waterfront site
at PCH and Beach Boulevard could
occur, and a minor increase in hu-
man intrusion could occur, but are
not considered significant.
4.8 Public Healtb (Hazards)
future development and redevel-
None.
Less than significant.
opment within the Merged project
Area may Incrementally increase
exposure to hazardous materials,
during construction or operation.
flowevcr, existing City and State
codes and General Plan policies
will mitigate impacts.
4.9 Noise
May result in increased construe-
None.
Less than significant,
tion related noise in the Merged
Project Area. Current City codes
and General Plan policies will miti-
gate potential impacts.
4.10 Public Services and Utilities
Increased demand on existing pub-
None.
Less than significant.
lic services and utilities that can be
accommodated by existing facilities
are mitigated by General Plan poli-
cies limiting growth if Infrastruc-
ture is not available.
7/19/Wli\ISG630\EIR1SP.CT14).WPD* 1-8
0 0 0
Potential
)environmental Impact
4.11 Aesthetics
Future redevelopment within the
Merged Project Area will alter exist-
ing views. I Iowever, City develop-
ment review proccasem, design
guidelines and General Plan poli-
cies reduce impacts to a level that
Is less than significant.
4.12 Cultural and Sciantfflc
Resources
Future projects within the Merged 4.12-A
Project Area may disrupt or Impact
historical resources.
Mitigation Measure
None.
Prior to the commencement of new construction that
would displace or require demolition of potentially sig-
nificant resources, a complete assessment shall be pre-
pared for any of the potentially historic buildings identi-
fied in the present report within the Merged Project Area.
At a minimum, this assessment shall include the follow-
ing documentation:
A) A full description of each building including ar-
chitectural style, roof design, window design,
type of foundation, exterior wall treatments, spe-
cial architectural features, etc.
D) Black and white photographs showing one or
more facades of each building.
C) A determination of construction date from exist•
ing records such as building permit record
books on file in the Planning Department at the
City. In the event that records cannot be located
for some of the buildings, interviews should be
conducted with members of the local historical
society or other individuals who may have rele-
vant data to share.
Level of Significance
IA:ss than significant.
Mitigated below a level of sig-
nificancc.
7/19/96«l.VtsG 630\ZlMecTt-0.wPn» 1-9
Potential
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
D) A competent architectural historian should be
consulted prior to the demolition of any of the
potentially historic buildings identified in the
present study. Additional measures may be im-
plemcntcd as a result, if necessary to prevent an
adverse impact.
Future projects within the Merged 4.12-B Should any cultural artifacts, archaeological resources or
Project Area may encounter previ- paleontological resources be uncovered during grading
oualy unknown archaeological and or excavation, a County of Orange certified archaeologist
paleontological resources, or paleontologist shall be contacted by the Community
Development Director to: l) ascertain the 31gn1fica nce of
the resource, 2) establish protocol with the City to pro-
tect such resources, 3) ascertain the presence of addi-
tional resources, and 4) provide additional monitoring of
the site, if deemed appropriate.
4.12-C Monitors trained in fossil recognition, fossil recovery and
heavy equipment monitoring small be on site during
grading operations.
4.12-1) A copy of the present report shall be placed in the collec-
tion of historic documents on file at the Huntington
Beach Central Library or another suitable local archive.
Level of Significance
Less than significant,
7/19/964wt:1RSc630\EI WECT1-0.WPD» 1-10
0 0 9
0 0 0
Potential
Environmental Impact M1021100n Measure Level of Slanilicance
4.13 Schools
The Amendment/Merger within the
Merged Project Area may
incrementally increase student err
rollment in affected school dis-
tricts, however, this will not result
In a physical impacts on the envi-
ronment. In addition, develop-
ment fees, State financing, and re-
quirements for continued levels of
tax funding for affected school dis-
tricts lessen potential impacts.
Nonc.
Less than significant.
7/19/9 1AYSC630\E1MECTt-0.WPD* 1.11
For each of these potential impacts, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce
the extent of, or to avoid, the environmental impact. These mitigation measures
will reduce the extent of the impact to below a level of significance. There are
no impacts considered to be significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the
Amendment/Merger.
1.5 ALTERNATIVES TO TILE PROJECT
The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR include a reasonable range of alterna-
tives that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and that could
avoid or lessen project impacts. A No Project/No Build Alternative is also re-
quired. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d) sets the requirements for the Alter-
natives discussion.
No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative is defined as build out of the land uses as specified in
the City's existing General Plan. As a subset of the No Project Analysis, a No
Build Alternative is provided. The No Project/No Build Alternative assumes that
no additional development would occur within the Merged Project Area. areas.
This alternative assumes no growth, development or change from the existing
condition and reflects conditions essentially the same as the existing conditions.
Alternative Financing Alternatsue
This alternative addresses the other options the City might use to promote the
basic objectives of the AmendmenvMerger.
Alternative Site
This section discusses the fact that there are no alternative locations that could
feasibly attain Amendment/Merger objectives.
ilsgber Intensity A$ernative
This alternative discusses different land use intensities and development stan-
dards that are higher intensity and would achieve basic Amendment/Merger
objectives.
Lower Intensity Alternative
This alternative discusses lower intensity land use/development standards and
associated environmental consequences. 0
7/19/96-1A tSG630="ECTi.O.WrD- 1-22
0 1.6 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
•
Areas of Controversy
Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines also requires that the EIR Summary
identify areas of controversy, including issues raised by other agencies and the
public. The areas of controversy are reported from the responses received from
distribution of a Notice of Preparation (NOP). The NOP and all response letters
are included in Appendix A. The following areas of controversy have been
identified:
• NOP response letter received by the City with a request by the Hunting-
ton Beach Union High School District (HBUHSD) to be recognized as a
"Responsible Agency."
• NOP response letter request by HBUHSD for detailed environmental
analysis of specific issues that are not a part of the proposed Amend-
ment/Merger.
• NOP response letters from HBUHSD and Ocean View School District
expressed concern regarding potential impacts to school facilities result-
ing from the AmendmenVMerger.
• NOP response letter from the Resources Agency of California, Division of
Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources requested that abandoned oil wells
in close proximity to the boundaries of the Merged Project Area be iden-
tffied, and the City give the assurance that proper review of future build-
ing projects and their relationship to abandoned and active oil wells be
provided in future discretionary actions.
NOP request by the County of Orange Environmental ?Management
Agency (EMA) that the Amendment/Merger consider a linear recreation
corridor along the railroad right -of --way near the boundaries of the
Merged Project Area.
NOP request by EMA that recreation facilities, including opportunities
for riding and hiking trails and on -road and off -road bikeways, be ad-
dressed in the environmental documentation.
7n9/96*(LWCv63QZW SEcti-0.VPD* 1-13
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach (City Council) activated the
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency (Agency) on March 1, 1976. In order
to improve those areas within the City that were in need of redevelopment, the
Agency created five separate Redevelopment Projects within the City. These
projects and their dates of establishment are as follows: Oakview Redevelop-
ment Project (September 20, 1982); Talbert -Beach Redevelopment Project
(September 20, 1982); Yorktown -Lake Redevelopment Project (September 20,
1982) Main -Pier Redevelopment Project (November 1, 1982) and, Huntington
Center Commercial District Redevelopment Project (November 26, 1984).
Several of these Redevelopment Projects have been amended since the original
adoption dates. For further information on each project adoption and amend-
ment, please see the Department of Economic Development, 2000 ?Main Street,
Huntington Beach, 92648, Attention: Stephen Kohler, (714) 536-5582. A de-
tailed description of each of these preexisting Redevelopment Projects is pro-
vided in Chapter 3.0, Project Description.
Progress towards the achievement of the goals established for each of the Rede-
velopment Projects has been hindered by various funding constraints and limits
on redevelopment activities. In order to improve funding and to finish out the
redevelopment programs initiated for the five existing Redevelopment Projects,
the Amendment/Merger was proposed by the Agency. The City subsequently
determined that, prior to approval of the AmendmentNerger, preparation of an
EIR would be necessary.
2.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS PROGRAM F.iR
The City has determined that an EIR is required: 1) to assess the environmental
effects of the Amendment/.Merger, and 2) w identify mitigation measures that
will lessen or avoid potentially significant impacts. The Amendment/Merger is a
program trade up of various components that include policies, land use plans,
public in5zstructure improvements, construction of public facilities. develop-
ment of affordable housing, and actions to promote commerpal rehabilitation
and economic development_ The Amendment/Merger qualifies as a "Program"
as defined by the CEQA Statutes and is consistent with all categories summarized
above, and as fully described in Guidelines Section 15168. This EIR prepared for
the Annendment/Merger is a Program EIR, wherein all public and private activi-
ties or undertakings pursuant to or in furtherance of the Amendment/Merger
constitute a single project according to CEQA Statutes, Section 21090. A Pr -
gram EIR is a type of EIR designed to address a series of related actions that are:
1) logical parts of a chain of contemplated actions; 2) related geographically; 3)
a plan, set of regulations, or a set of contemplated actions that are part of a
continuing program; or 4) individual activities carried out under the same
authoriring authority (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15168).
On April 16, 1996, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed to public
agencies soliciting comments on environmental subjects to be addressed in the
7n7/96"I:\RSG630,UMECT2.0.WPD- 2-1
EIR. The NOP, the NOP Distribution list and response letters from, all agencies
are included in Appendix A. 0
An Environmental Checklist and Environmental Effects and Consequences
Analysis included in the NOP describes the potential environmental effects of the
AmendmenvMerger.. The Environmental Effects and Consequences discussion
was used to guide preparation of this EER. The responses to the NOP were also
used to assure that agency and public concerns are adequately addressed in this
EIR.
2.3 DOCUMENT -FORMAT
This Program EIR is organized as follows:
Chapter 1.0 contains the Executive Summary of this document, listing
all project related environmental impacts, mitigation measures that have
been recommended to reduce any significant impacts of the
Amendment/Merger, and the level of significance of each impact follow-
ing mitigation. This chapter also discusses potential areas of controversy
attached to the project.
Chapter 2.0 contains a discussion of the EIR's purpose, project back-
ground, an outline of the document's format and the intended purpose
of the EIR. A summary discussion of the effects found not to be sigaifi-
rant and not further addressed in this EIR is also included.
Chapter 3.0 contains the location and description of the proposed
Amendment/Merger and the objectives of the Amendment/Merger.
Chapter 4.0 contains the environmental analysis of the Amendment/
Merger. Discussion of environmental setting, impacts, and mitigation by
environmental topic (e.g., biological resources, air quality, land use, etc.)
is organized under the following framework.
The environmental setting provides the ruder with the'base line" from
which future impacts are analyzed, and provides a standard against which
to measure these impacts.
An analysis of potential significant impacts of implementation of the
Amendment/Merger is presented in this section. As required by CEQA,
potential impacts caused by additional growth within the Merged Project
Area and on a cumulative basis outside of the Merged Project Area are
identified.
Mitigation measures are proposed to lessen or avoid any potentially
significant impact of the Amendment/Merger. References to their timing
and the party(ies) responsible for their implementation are included.
The level of significance of the potential impacts after mitigation is pro-
vided.
7/17196"r:VSGb3�EC72-0 WPD- 2-2
• Chapter 5.0 contains a discussion of alternatives to the Amendment/
Merger. As allowed by CEQA, the impacts of these alternatives are evalu-
ated at a more general Ievel than in Chapter 4.
• Chapter 6.0 contains discussions of additional topics required by CEQA,
including long-term implications of the Amendment/Merger, significant
irreversible environmental changes, and growth inducing impacts.
• Chapters 7.0, 8.0, 9.0 and 10.0 contain the Mitigation Monitoring Pro-
gram, listings of organizations and persons consulted in preparation of
the ELR, the EIR preparers, and reference documents used.
• An Appendix document contains copies of the NOP and NOP comment
letters, technical reports, and relevant correspondence received during
the preparation of this Program EM
2.4 PROJECT APPROVALS/INTENDED USES OF THE PROGRAM EER
The primary use of this Program EM is to inform decision makers and the public
of the environmental effects of implementing the Amendment/Merger. This
Program EIR documents the impacts of the Amendment/Merger on an area -wide
basis resulting from physical changes to the environment. This Program EM will
measure the potential effects of ongoing and future redevelopment activities and
related discretionary actions as allowed under the Amendment/Merger.
This Pmgmsn EIR analyzes the effects of the project as defined in Chapter 3.0.
A Program EIR is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 as applying to
related or sequential projects or programs that may be environmentally cleared
in one EIR. A Program EIR is a type of EIR designed to address a series of related
actions that are: 1) logical pare of a chain of contemplated actions; 2) related
geographically; 3) a plan, set of regulations, or a set of contemplated actions that
are part of a continuing program; or 4) individual activities carried out under the
same authorizing authority (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15168). The Amend-
ment/Merger is a program made up of various components which carry forth
already established redevelopment programs included in the existing Redevelop-
ment Projects aimed at infrastructure, housing and commercial rehabilitation
and promotion of economic development. The Amendment/Merger qualifies as
a "Progmm' as defined by the CEQA Statutes and is consistent with all categories
summarized above, and as fully described in Guidelines Section 15168.
CEQA recognizes that some proposed projects art specific (aid that their im-
pacts can be specifically addressed) and that some projects will require future
actions to implement their provisions. The Amendment/Merger falls into the
latter category. As defined in Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, Program
EIRs are intended to address macro -scale environmental impacts. One of the
major advantages of a Program EIR is that it allows the Lead Agency to examine
the cumulative effects of a Large-scale project such as the Amendment/Merger.
• Section 15168 states:
'7/27/9&G\RSG63&=ISEcn-0 WPD* 2-3
"...Use of a Program EIR can...(1) provide an occasion for a more ex-
haustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practi-
cal in an ELR on an individual action, (2) ensure consideration of
cumulative impacts that migbt be sligbted in a case -by -case analysis,
and (3) allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives
and program -wide mitigation measures at an early time wben the
Agency hasgreater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative
impacts."
Recognizing that a Program EIR can adequately address macro -scale impacts,
CEQA provides for its use in the environmental review of general policies or
programs and the subsequent projects that result from the policy or program. In
this way, this Program EIR would be consulted to determine whether a specific
subsequent project is either of the following:
Within the general limits of the potential physical changes examined in
this Program EIR.
likely to crate site specific impacts that are of a scale not examined in
this Program EIR. Such impacts could include traffic impacts related to a
specific intersection, or modification of a specific landform feature that
may not be included in the Program EM thus requiring further environ-
mental analysis.
CEQA defines how a Program EIR relates to the preparation of environmental
documents on individual projects in Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines,
under the heading of "Use with Inter Activities." Subsequent activities in the
program must be examined in the light of the Program E1R to determine
whether an additional environmental document must be prepared according to
the following criteria:
• if a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the Pro-
gram M,2 new Initial Study would need to be prepared, leading to
either an EIR or a Negative Declaration.
• If an agency finds that, pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects could
occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can
approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by
the Program EIR, and no new environmental documentation would be
required.
• An agency shall incorporate mitigation measures developed in the Pro-
gram EIR into subsequent actions relying on the Program EIR.
• Where the subsequent activities involve site specific operations, the
agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the
evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environ-
mental effects of the operation were covered in the Program E13L
Subsequent redevelopment projects will be subject to future review and approv-
al by the City Council, Redevelopment Agency, Planning Commission and other is
7/17)9drI:litSG630�Ef ECI'2-0.WPAI 2.4
appropriate decision making bodies and may require additional environmental
review if it is demonstrated that there are significant environmental impacts not
fully documented in this EIR. Should additional environmental reviews be
required for subsequent projects within the ?Merged Project Area, public input
will be solicited and considered prior to action on the project, in accordance
with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
In summary, this Program EIR provides a comprehensive analysis of the area -
wide impacts of implementing the Amendment/Merger and the physical changes
that might result in changes in the environment. Review of future projects en-
abled or undertaken as a result of adoption of the Amendment/Merger and the
environmental effects of specific projects will receive independent determina-
tions by City staff, consistent with CEQA requirements. It is also recognized that
this Program EIR can serve as a basis for future environmental review of subse-
quent projects and, therefore, future environmental reviews may be able to
incorporate by reference applicable portions of the analysis presented in taus
document.
Table 2A identifies the Lead Agency (City of Huntington Beach), Responsible
Agencies, and Trustee Agencies that May use this EIR when making future discre-
tionary decisions on projects within the Merged Project Area. Section 15381 of
the CEQA Guidelines defines Responsible Agencies as public agencies other than
the Lead Agency that will have discretionary approval power over the "project,"
as defined under CEQA. For purposes of this EM Responsible Agencies are
defined as public agencies that will have discretionary approval of future actions
implementing the Amendment/Merger.
2-5 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
Based on the Initial Study conducted by the City in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines, it was determined that the Amendment/Merger will not have signifi-
cant effects on certain environmental issues/resources. Therefore, these topics
are not addressed further in this EIR The following summarizes the conclusions
of the Initial Study (contained in Appendix A as part of the NOP) for the topics
for which the proposed project will have no impact.
• Conjlia toMb general plan des gnaftg i or zortsng? The proposed
Amendment/Merger conforms to the City's General Plan and by exten-
sion to zoning that implements the General Plan. There are currently
some areas where zoning is different from the General Plan Land Use
designation due to the recent adoption of the General Plan. In addition,
the Coastal Element of the General Plan for the areas within the Coastal
Zone is planned for update by the Coastal Commission by late 1996.
After Coastal Commission action, the General Plan Update for the
Coastal Zone areas will be agendized for City Council action. A Citywide
zoning code/map amendment process will be undertaken to make the
changes necessary to bring the zoning into conformance with the Gen-
eral Plan, as updated.
7/17&6wt:NRSG6309MSECt2-0.VPnr 2-5
Table 2 A - Future Discretionary Actions for the
Amendment/Merger
Agency Action
Lead agency
City of Huntington Beach
Trustee agencies
California Department of Fish and
Game (DFG)
Responsible agencies
California Regional Water Control
Board
Public infrastructure, public facilities
and private and public development
project approvals within the Merged
Project Area
Discretionary Actions within DFG ar-
eas of responsibility
Notice of Intent under Statewide
General Construction Activity Permit
Municipal Stormw2ter Permit
South Coast Air Quality Management Stationary Source Permits
District
Orange County Sanitation District Industrial Wastewater Discharge
Permit
Southern California Edison Relocation/replacement of facilities
The Gas Company Relocationlreplacement of facilities
7117/96KI \RSG630XMSECTZ-0.WPID- 2-6
�J
1]
•
The Amendment/Merger proposes ]and uses, streets, highways and pub-
lic facilities consistent with the General Plan and has provisions that
make it consistent with future General Plan amendments. Because the
Amendment/Merger is consistent with the General Plan and, in turn, will
comply with the underlying zoning, there are no specific environmental
impacts associated with the project.
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils
or fare:lands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? Some
agricultural land uses are still active in Huntington Beach; however, to a
large extent, they have been replaced by residential, commercial and
industrial development and related infrastructure. None of the areas
currently in agricultural production in the City of Huntington Beach are
within or adjacent to the Merged Project Area. Therefore, the Amend-
menvMerger will not affect existing agricultural resources or operations,
nor will it propose incompatible land uses in the existing agricultural
production areas.
Rail, :waterborne or usr sra„ ffic imparts? No impacts to rail, water or
air traffic are foreseen by the Amendment/Merger in that it proposes to
facilitate commercial rehabilitation, housing opportunities, street im-
provements and public infrastructure projects within the ?Merged Project
Area and, therefore, it will not create any physical effects on the subject
transportation facilities.
2.6 LEAD AGENCY
Questions regarding the preparation of this report, its assumptions, or its con-
chisions should be referred to the following persons:
Lead Agency:
City of Huntington Beach
Department of Community Development
2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648
Attention: Ms. Linda Niles
(714) 536-5271
Amendment/Merger Proponent
City of Huntington Beach
Department of Economic Development
2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648
Attention. Mr. Stephen V. Kohler
(714) 536-5582
'7n7,96"i 2-7
0 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 LN7RODUC770N
After initially identifying certain development goals and planning objectives for
the downtown area as early as 1969 (see City Council Resolution 3082, Novem-
ber 17, 1969), the City Council activated the Huntington Beach Redevelopment
Agency on March 1, 1976. Since that time, the Agency created five Redevelop-
ment Projects within the City: Huntington Center Commercial District Redevel-
opment Project; Main -Pier Redevelopment Project; Oakview Redevelopment
Project; Talbert -Beach Redevelopment Project; and Yorktown -Lake Redevelop-
ment Project.
Certain limitations with each of the existing Redevelopment Projects hinder the
Agenc}�s ability to correct blighting conditions, promote economic development,
and facilitate the construction of affordable housing. The project analyzed in
this EIR is a Redevelopment Plan/Project Amendment/Imerger. The Amend-
ment/Merger is proposed by the Agency to allow the Agency to finish out the
redevelopment programs begun by the agency by continuing the Agenc/s finan-
cial and statutory authority to alleviate conditions of blight, revitalize commercial
areas, protect residential uses and neighborhoods, construct additional public
improvements and facilities, and develop affordable housing. Each of the five
existing Redevelopment Projects (described in more detail below) is included in
the Amendment/Merger.
0 3.2 PROJECT LOCATION/GEOGRAPHLCAL SE7777VG
•
The project location is in the City of Huntington Beach, Orange County, Califor-
nia. Figure 3.1 illustrates the regional location of the Merged Project Area. The
Merged Project Area is composed of five existing Redevelopment Project Areas,
totaling 619 acres or approximately 3.5 percent of the City acreage. Each of the
five areas of the Merged Project Area is non-contiguous within the City bound-
aries, as shown in Figure 3.2.
The profile of each Redevelopment Project is provided below.
Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Project
Established via Ordinance No. 2743 adopted by the City Council on November
26, 1984, the Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Project
encompasses 160 acres of retail and office commercial uses, and is located in the
vicinity of Edinger Avenue, Beach Boulevard, and the San Diego Freeway (1-405).
The Huntington Center area includes the 960,000 square foot Huntington Beach
Mall (Area 1 on Figure 3.2), but excludes an area surrounded by Huntington
Village Way to the north and east, McFadden Avenue to the north, Southern
Pacific Railroad to the west, and Center Avenue to the south.
7na96-1.%RS"30ZDCR SEC73-0.WPD- 3-1
Oakinew Redevelopment Project
The Oakview Redevelopment Project of 68 acres was initially established on 1W
November 1, 1982, by City Council Ordinance No. 2582. The Oakview area is
generally located between Warner Avenue and Slater Avenue, from Oak Lane to
Beach Boulevard (Area 2 on Figure 3.2). On July 5, 1989, the City Council
amended the Redevelopment Plan for the Oakview Redevelopment Project with
Ordinance No. 3002 to extend certain time and financial limits. The Oakview
area includes existing general commercial, medium density and high density
residential land uses.
Talbert -Beach Redevelopment Project
The Talbert -Beach Redevelopment Project was established via Ordinance No.
2577 adopted by the City Council on September 20, 1982. The Talbert -Bach
area is located between Talbert Avenue and Taylor Drive, west of Beach Boule-
vard. The Talbert -Beach area encompasses 25 acres of existing low, medium,
and high density residential, and general industrial land uses (Area 3 on Figure
3.2).
Yorktown -Lake Redevelopment Project
The Yorktown -Lake Redevelopment Project was established by Ordinance No.
2576 adopted by the City Council on September 20, 1982. The Yorktown -Lake
area encompasses 30 acres of existing medium density residential and public
land uses such as the Huntington Beach Civic Center and Police Department.
The Yorktown -Lake area is located in the vicinity of Main Street, Yorktown Ave-
nue, lace Street, and Utica Avenue (Area 4 on Figure 3.2).
Main -Pier Redevelopment Project
On September 20, 1982, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2578, which
created the original five block Main -Pier Redevelopment Project. On September
6, 1983, the City Council amended the Redevelopment Plan for the Main -Pier
Redevelopment Project with Ordinance No. 2634, enlarging the Main -Pier area
to 336 acres. The Main -Pier area is located along Main Street, between Palm
Avenue and the Huntington Beach Pier, and along Pacific Coast Highway, be-
tween Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard (Area 5 on Figure 3.2). The
Mainz -Pier area includes existing retail, tourist, recreational, public, and residen-
tial land uses.
The Amendment/Merger does not propose to add property to or delete property
from the Merged Project Area.
•
7/18+96'4:N3M"3a1EM� SECT}O.V?D- 34
3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The Amendment/Merger will modify the existing Redevelopment Plans as fol-
lows.
Merge the Redevelopment Plans for the Existing Projects into a Single
Redevelopment Plan (Merged Plan) to be Designated as the Merged
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project (Merged Project) and ,project Area
The Agencys current Redevelopment Plans have been frustrated by an imbalance
of resources and needs among the existing Redevelopment Projects. Redevelop-
ment law generally prohibits redevelopment agencies from transferring tax
increment revenues from one project to another. In order to move funding re-
sources between the Redevelopment Projects, the Agency proposes to merge the
five Redevelopment Projects into the single Merged Project. For example, de-
clines in tax increment revenues in Huntington Center have insulted in a down-
grading of the Agencys 1992 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds. By merging the
existing Redevelopment Projects, resources from the Agency's other Redevelop-
ment Projects could be made available to Huntington Center.
Establish a New Dollar Limit on the Amount of Tax Increment Revenue the Agency
May be AAacated from the Project
Presently, Yorktown -lake exceeds its annual $ 250,000 tax increment cap. Given
. moderate growth projections, it is projected that Talbert -Beach will also exceed
its tax increment limit prior to the expiration of the Redevelopment Plan. With-
out an increase in the tax increment limits, the additional tax increment revenue
will not be available to the Agency to fund redevelopment projects and pro-
grams.
•
In conjunction with tax increment revenue limit amendments, bond indebt-
edness limit increases are needed to permit the Agency to raise additional capital
and invest in new redevelopment projects and programs.
Extend the Time Frame Within Wbi h the agency May Incur Indebtedness on Behalf
of Abe Project and Estabhsb New Time Periods Within Which the Agency May Isuser
Debt, Undertake Redevelopment Activities, and Receive Tax Increment
With the exception of Huntington Center, generally the Agency is prohibited
from incurring debt after 2002; 2004 for Huntington Center. In the event that
the Agency wishes to pursue new projects and/or incur debt after these time
frames, an amendment is necessary.
7R8/96-1:\RSG6301EEMECT3-0.WPD* 3-5
On a Selective Basis, Extend the Time Frame Within Which the agency May Employ
Eminent Domain Proceedings on Nonresidential Properties in the Main -Pier and
Huntington Center Areas is
In order for the Agency to implement redevelopment projects involving land
acquisition, eminent domain authority may be a useful tool to acquire nonresi-
dential property. Presently, the authority to use eminent domain has expired in
all but Huntington Center and Oakview. The Huntington Center Redevelop-
ment Plan's eminent domain provisions expire in November, 1996, and the
Oakview Redevelopment Plan's provisions expire in July, 2001. Through the
Amendment/Merger, the Agency proposes to establish a new 12 year time firlme
during which the Agency may employ eminent domain on nonresidential prop•
erties in the Main -Pier and Huntington Center areas.
Expand the List of Infrastructure and Public Facility Projects That the Agency May
Undertake Within the Merged Project Area
When adopted, the Merged Plan will amend and merge all existing Redevelop-
ment Plans for the five Redevelopment Projects, and will guide all future rede-
velopment activities, infrastructure and public facility projects, and programs in
the Merged Project Area, in furtherance of the original objectives of the five
Redevelopment Plans/Projects (please see discussion on page 2-1, Section 2.1,
Background and History.) The Amendment/Merger will not affect the Agency's
outstanding obligations or indebtedness.
•
CONFORMANCE WIIH TIME CITY'S GENERAL PLAN
Redevelopment Land Uses
The land uses permitted in the Merged Project Area are in conformance with the
City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and any other State and local building
codes and guidelines as they now exist or are hereafter amended.
Principal Streets
The principal streets within the Merged Project Area include Beach Boulevard,
Edinger Avenue, Talbert Avenue, Gothard Street, Main Stint, Yorktown Avenue,
Lake Street, Wainer Avenue, Slater Avenue, and Pacific Coast Highway. The
layout of principal streets and those that may be developed in the future shall
conform to the Circulation Element of the General Plan Update as currently
adopted or as hereafter amended.
Existing streets within the Merged Project Area may be closed, widened or other-
wise modified, and additional streets may be created as necessary for proper
pedestrian and/or vehicular circulation provided they are consistent with the
General Plan.
•
7/]&A>6 L-%RSG630%EMSECT30.WPDo+ 3-6
0 Proposed Population Densities
Permitted densities within the Merged Project Area shall conform to the General
Plan as currently adopted or as hereafter amended, and shall conform to applica-
ble City ordinances and local codes.
Proposed Building Intensities
Building intensity shall be controlled by limits on. 1) the percentage of the
building site covered by the building (site coverage); 2) the ratio of the total
floor area for all stories of the building to the area of the building site (floor area
ratio); 3) the size and location of the buildable area on the building site; and 4)
the heights of the building. The limits on building intensity shall be established
in accordance with the provisions of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and
local codes and ordinances, as they now exist or are hereafter amended. The site
coverage, sizes and location of the buildable areas will be limited, as is feasible
and appropriate, to provide adequate open space and parking.
Proposed Building Standards
Building standards shall conform to the building requirements of applicable
local codes and ordinances. The Agency may consider more restrictive require-
ments and may incorporate such requirements into the Merged Plan in the
interest of the public health, safety and welfare.
Potential Public Infrastructure, FaciUdes, Housing and Economic Deoeoopment Pr�vjects
The Agency is currently funding infrastructure improvements and public facili-
ties projects, assisting with housing projects, and participating in economic
development and commercial rehabilitation projects. These projects will con-
tinue under the Amendment/Merger. Agency funding of these projects may
include but are not limited to those in Table 3.A.
The Agency has completed some projects under existing Projects/Plans, and the
Amendment/Merger will enable the Agency to finish remaining tasks in further-
ance of project objectives.
3.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Project objectives include:
1. Enable the Agency to continue to facilitate: 1) economic development
activities, 2) infrastructure improvement projects, 3) commercial rehabil-
itation activities, 4) provision of market rate and affordable housing
opportunities, and 5) provision of housing rehabilitation and protection
• programs and elimination of blight.
7ns9&9t rS"3a\MMEcr3-o.WFrn► 3-7
Table 3A - Proposed Infrastructure Projects
and Proje
cts
Proposed Possible Implementation Activities
Housing Programs Increase and improve the community's supply
of bousing affordable to very low, low and
moderate income bousebolds
Affordable Housing
Assist development of single family, multifamily,
Development Projects
and senior housing inside and outside the Merged
Project Area pursuant to housing requirements.
Housing Code Enforcement
Continue program throughout Merged Project
Program
Area.
Housing Rehabilitation
Continue program throughout Merged Project
Program
Area.
rnfrasftuctur v Programs
Improve pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular
traffic flows, upgrade utilities and drainage
systems, enbanee public sgfety, and promote
recreational opportunities.
Oakview
Complete improvements to streets, stint lights,
alleys, and landscape.
Talbert -Beach
Monitor maintenance requirements of public
infrastructure.
Center Avenue
Complete construction of Center Avenue street
improvements and traffic signal, and
improvements to sigmge and landscaping at the
Huntington Beach Mall.
Interstate 405
Improve I405 off -ramp access to Huntington
Center. Improve I405 cloverleaf landscaping and
widen McFadderV1405 overpass.
Edinger Avenue Street
Seek adoption of the specific plan and
Alignment
construction of street improvements, including
consolidation of ingsrss/egress points, unified
signage and landscaping.
Gothard Street and Hoover
construct street improvements to connect
Street Connection
Gothard and Hoover Streets to create another
north -south arterial to alleviate traffic congestion
on other north -south anerials.
Public Facility Program
Develop commrenrity facilities that meet the
needs of the community's r e iderdc.
Branch library
Complete construction of the Oakview branch
library.
•
7/i&,96-it:1RSG63oznt�SECT3.0- vPt). 3-8
•
•
•
Progranss and Projects
Proposed Possible Implementation Activities
Community Development Protect residential neigbborboods to enbance
Programs public safety and provide positive community
development opportunities.
Neighborhood Plan Review plan and update recommendations as
appropriate.
Community Services Police Continue assistance program for gang prevention
Assistance in Merged Project Area.
Operation LOGOS Continue youth employment neighborhood
cleanup program in Merged Project Area.
Comnsercial RebabilitanoW Revitalise deteriorating and substandard
Economic Developmestt eormmercial facilities.
Huntington Beach Mall
Prepare a market and development strategy with
the mall owner and facilitate repositioning of the
Mall.
The Waterfront
implement and monitor terms of development
agreement, as they currently exist or may be
subsequently amended_
New Development/
Encourage Merged Project Area private
Construction
development to recycle blighted properties, and
identify sites with the potential for consolidation
for redevelopment.
Commercial leasing
Cooperate and assist in leasing of commercial/
office space in Merged Project Area.
Rehabilitation
Assist property owners with renovations and other
improvements to deteriorating commercial and
industrial properties in the Merged Project Area.
Planning Activities
Prepare and implement downtown parking master
plan, downtown specific plan, Pacific Coast
Highwayllst Street property master plan, and
other plans to coordinate development in Merged
Project Area.
7/1&96 1:-\RSCd30XMSECi"3-o.W?D-
3-9
r
2. Provide a Redevelopment Plan consistent with the Ciry's General Plan to
guide future redevelopment of the Merged Project Area.
3.5 PREVIOUS ENVLRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION/STATUS OF PROCESSING
The Merged Project Area is primarily an area previously developed that is being
served by an aging and sometimes inadequate infrastructure. In many instances,
streets, water delivery pipelines, storm drainage systems and landscaping are
ending their useful life or have demands upon them that exceed their capacity.
The City and Agency, recognizing the need for infrastructure capacity upgrades,
aging infrastructure replacement and general infrastructure repair, have initiated
public infrastructure improvement construction projects. In addition, the City
and Agency have identified projects and programs deemed necessary to attain
the redevelopment and affordable housing objectives included in Section 3.4
above. These projects are ongoing projects or projects initiated in the previously
approved Redevelopment Project Areas that will be completed under the
AmendmentNMerger. Projects that have been approved or are ongoing programs
within the Merged Project Area are included below. The status of their environ-
mental processing (CEQA) clearances are included.
i. Affordable Housing Programs Status of Environmental Processing
A. Bowen Court Affordable Hous- Negative Declaration No_ 94-22 (project
ing Development Project scheduled for public hearing)
B. Housing Code Enforcement Ongoing City program
Program
C. Housing Rehabilitation Program Ongoing City program
II. infrastructure Programs Status of Environmental Processing
A. Public Infrastrucn= in Talbert -
Beach Area
B. Storm Drain improvements in
Oakview
C. Street Improvements
1. Oakview Area
• Improvements along
segments of Oak, Ash,
Elm, Sycamore, Cy-
press, and Keelson
• Creation of a cul-de-sac
at Keelson and Elm
• Improvements at the
intersection of Warner
and Gothard, and
Gothard south of
Warner)
Ongoing monitoring and maintenance
Negative Declaration No. 95-7 for storm
drain improvements on Warner between
Oak and Nichols
Negative Declaration No. 92-29
Negative Declaration No. 92-5
Negative Declaration No. 91-45
711e,9CrKiutsc630\EWFCT3-0VPtb• 3-10
E
•
2. Center Avenue (Gothard to
Caltranns Project Report Complete - con -
Beach)
struction anticipated in 1996
3. Interstate I-405
• McFadden Bridge
Negative Declaration No. 95-1
Overcrossing Widening
4. Edinger Avenue Street
Alignment
• Construction of street
Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 92-8
improvements, includ-
for Precise Plan of Street Alignment for
ing unified signage and
Edinger Avenue between Beach Boule-
landscaping.
vard and Gothard Street.
5• Gothard Street and Hoover
Screencheck EIR completed in August,
Street Connection
1991. Project pending.
III. Public Fac ity Programs
Status of Environmental Processing
A Branch Library
Negative Declaration No. 93-11 for con-
struction of the Oakview Branch Library
Negative Declaration No. W52 and 91-
36 for the Central Library expansion and
Talbert parking lot
IV. Community Development Pro-
Status of Environmental Processing
grams
A. Neighborhood Plan
None required
B. Community Services Police As-
None required
sistance
C. Operation LOGOS
None required
V_ RehabBitatiovvEoonomic
Status of Environmental Processing
Development
A. Huntington Beach Mall
No specific proposal considered now
B. Waterfront
Supplemental EIR No. 82-2 testified in
1988
•
C. Commercial Leasing None required
D. Rehabilitation (Assistance is None required
rehab of industrial/cotnmercial
proper)
E. Planning Activities None required
1. Implementation of the
Downtown Specific Plan,
etc.
7/lSi96«t 1RSG630\EMSECI3-0.VPE ► 3-11
4.0 EXISTING SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
MEASURES
CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE E R DOCUMENT TO BE INCORPORATED BYIZEF RLYCE
The City of Huntington Beach City Council adopted an Update to the General
Plan on May 13, 1996, for all non -Coastal Zone portions of the City. The Califor-
nia Coastal Commission will consider those areas in the Coastal Zone, and com-
plete their review and give their approval by falUovinter, 1996. Accompanying
the General Plan was an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated July 8, 1995,
which was circulated for public review and comment, and certified by the City
Council on May 13, 1996.
The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15150, allows the use of existing environmental
documents to assist in describing or evaluating impacts for a project for which an
EIR or Negative Declaration is being prepared. Section (a:) states that An EM or
Negative Declaration may incorporate by reference all or portions of another
document which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the
public Wbere all or part of another document is incorporated by reference, the
incorporated language shall be considered to be set forth in full as part of the
text of the EW or Negative Declaration." Information included in the General
Plan Update EIR is particularly useful and relevant to this EIR analysis of the
Amendment/Merger. As previously mentioned in Chapter 2.0, Introduction, the
land use designations within each of the five Redevelopment Projects mirror the
designations of the General Plan Update. In effect, the General Plan defines the
land uses for the Merged Project Area. All land uses will be consistent with the
CiWs General Plan, City Codes and ordinances, as reflected in the General Plan
and analyzed in the General Plan Update EIIL Consequently, portions of the
General Plan Update EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 94091018) are incorporated
by reference in several of the sections of this document.
The General Plan Update EIR includes a description of the General Plan Update
as follows:
`T be General Plan is a comprebensive, longterm planning document
wincb serves as the official statement of the City of Huntington Beach
regarding policies, standards, and actions needed to achieve the short
and long-rerm pbysical, economic, socia% and environmental goals of
the City."
This Program EIR does not attempt to duplicate all of the discussions contained
in the City's General Plan, but rather refers the re2der to those sections of the
Ciry's General Plan that contain the required information, where appropriate,
and incorporates this information by reference.
SEWKARYOF GENERAL PLAN UPDATEEM
Two development scenarios were evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR- the
Theoretical Scenario and the Policy Scenario. The Theoretical Scenario repre-
7/1&*6K1ARSSG630\FX3EC ".WPDA 4.1-1
sents the amount of development that could occur if all the proposed land use
designations were developed to their maximum potential, significantly higher
than what realistically may be assumed given historical trends and current City
policies. The Policy Scenario reduces the Theoretical Scenario build out through
a set of land Use Element Policies (Policies 2.1.4, 2.1.5, and 2.1.6) that correlate
land use development with supporting infrastructure and services. The City
Council selected the Policy Scenario for adoption. This scenario allows (in
addition to existing conditions) a build out increase of 18,500 dwelling units;
4,737,500 square feet of commercial office and retail land uses; 2,505,000
square feet of industrial uses; and 2,200 hotel rooms.
Environmental topics evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR include land
use, housing/population, transportation/circulation, air quality, noise, geology
and soils, biological resources, water quality, aesthetics/visual resources, cul-
tural/historical resources, human health/hazardous materials, infrastructure/
utilities and public services.
Significant unavoidable adverse impacts were identified as follows:
Transportatiori/Circulation
Air Quality
Noise.
Alternatives analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR included 1) No Project
Alternative (build out under the then existing General Plan Update), 2) No
Growth Alternative, and 3) Reduced Build out Alternative. The No Project
Alternative would generate more adverse environmental impacts than the Gen-
eral Plan Update and the remaining alternatives because it would permit the
greatest amount of development; also, it would not meet the objectives of the
General Plan Update. The No Growth Alternative would result in the fewest
environmental impacts as it is the lowest growth alternative.
The City Council has adopted Resolutions 96-35 and 96-36, certifying the Gen-
eral Plan Update EIR and approving the General Plan, respectively. The City, in
certifying the EIR and adopting the General Plan, adopted overriding consider-
ations for the significant unavoidable impacts mentioned above.
• ; 1!i 4! _ r. �i7:ii7�Fr�•�ar�aia�l«al
This Program EIR references the CEQA Guidelines throughout. The CEQA
Guidelines are hereby incorporated in their entirety by reference.
7na9,e«i:%xs0630�EMSECT".Wen- 4.1-2
0 4.1 LAND USE
4.1.1 EXISTING EN RONMBNTAL SETxTNG
The existing setting for Section 4.1, hand Use, describes the land uses that cur-
rently occur in the Merged Project Area. Existing land uses have been deter-
mined through aerial photo interpretation and a survey.
Existing Land Uses
There is a variety of land uses within the Merged Project Area. The primary land
uses are commercial/residential, civic uses (public facilities) and industrial.
These uses are described below for each location:
Table 4.1A - Existing Land Uses within the Merged Project Area
Acreage
Location
Existing Land Uses
of Use
Hurting&" Center (160 —vw)
Cornmetdal
152
might -Of --Way (Caltrans and Raikaad)
8
Oakie- (68 acres)
Commercial
11
Residential
54
Vacant
3
Talbert-Beacb (25 acres)
Residential
14
Vacant
2.25
Civic (Paris)
2.50
Industrial
6.25
Yorktorero-La" (30 acres)
Residential
11.50
Vacant
0.50
Civic (Civic Center)
18
Main -Pier (336 acres)
Conunerual
45
Residenoal
113
Vacant
24.25
Industrial
2
Beach
145
Civic (Fire Station. Art Center,
6.75
Chusdr)
Total (619 acres)
Commercial
208
Residential
192.50
Vacant
30
Civic
27.25
Industrial
8.25
Bach
145
Right -of -Way (Cal cans and Railroad)
8
Tote! Acreage
619
J
7na96eI:VLSG630`EMSECT+O.Wn)* 4.1-3
Other land uses identified in the Merged Project Area include vacant parcels and
roadways and railway corridors. Figures 4.1.1 through 4.1.5 illustrate the land
uses within the Merged Project Area.
Under current conditions, several locations within the Redevelopment Projects
include land uses that are incompatible with adjacent or surrounding land uses.
These are noted as follows: 1) oil production and gas production next to urban
uses (Main -Pier), 2) older deteriorated strip commercial adjacent to residential
uses (Oakview), 3) residential uses among or adjacent to industrial uses (Main -
Pier), and 4) residential uses among predominantly commercial uses (Oakview).
The existing land use incompatibilities have occurred over many years due to the
piecemeal transition within the Merged Project Area. These land use incompati-
bilities contribute to the conditions originally responsible for establishing the
five Redevelopment Projects.
In addition to the existing land use incompatibilities, there are blighted and/or
underutilized structures and vacant parcels. Some residential structures, as well
as commercial and industrial uses, show signs of neglect, poor maintenance,
structural deterioration, underutilization, and vacancy or abandonment. These
conditions reflect incompatible land uses, or f dlure of sustained business or
residential viability in these areas of transition.
A survey by ISA Associates, Inc. (May, 1996) revealed that areas in transition
from one use to another may be contributing to uncertain land use patterns, and
possibly some of the visible deterioration. Some buildings that formerly housed
one land use have transitioned into another (e.g., single Family residential to
commercial), which has prompted further transition. Similarly, as land uses and
buildings have changed, some buildings have become obsolete and require
significant maintenance or improvement to remain econornically viable. As
buildings are abandoned or vacated, the surroundings become devalued, pro-
ducing a downward economic trend and further transition.
City ojxrrsrtington Beach General Plan
The Merged Plan designates permitted land uses within the Merged Project Area
consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. Future projects
within the Merged Project Area must be found to be consistent with the Merged
Plan and, therefore, must be consistent with the City's adopted General Plan.
•
7ne,06-r:\sc.63U%Exr Z�SEc'r".wrm• 4.1-4
BEACH BLVD
i
tiW M'�
KEELSON LN
k"
ASH ST
77T++Q k j
z0
tx
AM
{
N
KOLEDO
}
� Y
OAK LN
{ {
f yr
a
� t ,'JACQUELYN LN3
{Y YY �Y! W. YY WI �W W. Wi WI W.. _.,• W�
A
DAIRYVIEW CIR
NICHOLS ST
A
�
3
TALBERT A VE
Z
I
k
I 0
.T /►IT•RRTI!�IT''► IT ITrr rrllT 1 r,} y $„ }
�:PARKVIEW'',FI},
I
F }
•k
5 \• 1,
P�
i•
..}t`
I:
•:7
�'I
LEGEND:
+ .......•«-+-+ f + f .•. f + I
—
Project Boundary
+,f,+,+,+,+-f,+,f TAYLOR DR
•f •f ,+-♦,f,f,f-+,+.+
Residential
Industrial
•'+
Civic -Pork
Vacant
Source: LSA.
7/1&%(RS0630) Figure 4.1.3
N Existing Land Use
Scale in Feet Talbert -Beach
L—SA 0 ISO 300 J
Redevelopment Project
P
�P.
N
6D
8.O
w (O
LEGENL MW q \
--- Protect Boundary
Commercial Uses:
® Commercial
Motel '9
P
Mixed Use - Residential w/ Ist Floor Retails'�,'p c�,t, Qoti`5
P
Other Uses:
Residential e00.4�
Beach �fq
Industrial
® Civic - Fire Station, Church, Art Center
Vacant
^x PALM AVE
V
C tT�i �i p e� �• a ACAYCIA A SVYB Q
FWAN AVE
ORANOB AYH
�p I I
1 14
WALNUrAV8 - - - --
' Cl HWY
.is �i`•`a.i::i.'y'�•�l"�"�:i:►%:�ai��.iiiv.'a1:��w�•:ii�:'��'�:.;•:..:::..... .:.'.::�•���`y�'�u:
ri-'-
Source: LSA.
7/ 171%(RSa630)
Scale in Feet
LSAO 600 1200
N
Jv
MW`M
M
Figure 4.1.5
Existing Land Use
Main -Pier
Redevelopment Project
In the City's recently adopted General Plan, three policy references are specifi-
cally relevant to the evaluation of the Merged Plan's land use plans:
• Limit the total additional new development citywide (above that existing
in 1990) that can be accommodated in the City to the following, or an
equivalent number of trips that can be generated ("trip budget'), pro-
vided that the highway improvements stipulated by the Circulation Ele-
ment are implemented:I
Residential Units (single famiIy, multifamily and 18,500
mixed use)
Commercial Retail Square Feet 3,165,000
Commercial Office Square Feet 1,570,000
Industrial Square Feet 2,505,000
Overnight Accommodations Rooms 2,500
The permitted development, or "trip budget," shall be allocated to spe-
cific subareas of the City, as determined by the City's traffic model used
in the preparation of the General Plan. The mix of uses that are permit-
ted may be varied provided that the total "trip budget" is not exceeded
(Policy 2.1.4).
Permit increases in development capacity consistent with the types and
densities on the Land Use Plan and prescribed by Policy 7.1.1, when it
can be demonstrated that additional transportation improvements have
been implemented or are funded, or demands have been reduced (based
on highway level of service and vehicle trips) (Policy 2.1.5).
Monitor the capacities of other infrastructure (water, sewer, and other)
and services, and establish appropriate limits on development should
their utUization and demands for service exceed acceptable levels of
service (Policy 2.1.6).
The policies above establish general growth and development parameters for the
entire City of Huntington Beach, including the Merged Project Area. Growth
and development were projected, and appropriate policies have been adopted
to guide this growth, including the development projected within the Merged
Project Area, as long as such growth is consistent with the guiding principles
established by the above policies.
Pursuant to Section 33000 of the Californ& Redevelopment Law (CRL.), a jurisdic-
tion's Redevelopment Plan must be consistent with its General Plan. To ensure
such conformity, the Merged PLm adopts by reference the General Plan and any
subsequent amendments thereto. The Merged Plan, therefore, proposes only
actions, improvements and land uses that would be permitted under the Gen-
eral Plan.
The trip budget incorporates development projects approved prior to
the adoption of the 1996 General Plan. .0
7na9«t: YSG6YhE3MEcr".VPD- 4.1-10
Because the Merged Plan references and relies upon the City's General Plan for
all allowable uses, and requires that any subsequent project must be consistent
with the General Plan, it is appropriate to judge Merged Plan land use issues
within the context of the City's adopted policies as reflected in the General Plan.
Special Development Areas
There have been several special development areas designated throughout the
City since the late 1960s. Two of the Redevelopment Projects include areas that
are affected by Specific Plans. Main -Pier is overlapped by the Downtown Specific
Plan, adopted in 1982. (This area has received a substantial amount of land use
Planning attention and economic development activity sponsored by the City
and the Redevelopment Agency over the years, beginning in 1969 With adoption
of Resolution 3W2 by the City Council, approving the 'Top of the Pies' develop-
ment plan for downtown). The lop of the Pier" Plan has been incorporated in,
and superseded by, the Downtown Specific Plan and the Main -Pier Redevelop-
ment Plan has been approved for implementation by the Calffornia Coastal
Commission.
The second area included in a Specific Plan is the northerly portion of Hunting-
ton Beach Mall (north of Center Dive). The North Huntington Center Specific
Plan has been implemented.
4.1.2 ZZMESHOLDS OF SIGNZYWANCE
TbresboUs of Signifscance
This EIR establishes thresholds of significance to determine potentially signifi-
cant land use impacts. A significant impact would result if the threshold limits
are exceeded due to the implementation of the Amendment/Merger. The pro-
posed Amendment/Merger could generate a significant impact on the environ-
ment if one of the following conditions results:
Creation of substantial (noticeable) alteration to Huntington Beach's or
the Merged Project Area's community character.
Creation of land uses that am incompatible (in terns of density and type
of use) with surrounding uses.
Creation of unbalanced land use mnc.
In addition to the above thresholds of significance, the 1996 CEQA Guidelines
(Appendix G) provide other criteria by which to measure potentially significant
impacts that are applicable to the project analyzed in this EIR. As stated in the
CEQA Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant effect on the environ-
ment if it will:
• Conduct with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community
where it is located; or
7/18r96■I:1RSG63aE XR SECT".WPD» 4.1-11
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. 0
4.1.3 PROJECT IMPACT'S
The Amendment/Merger allows redevelopment activities and financing incen-
tives to continue in antes that are demonstrated to be in need of these efforts. As
mentioned in Section 4.1.1, Existing Environmental Setting, incompatible land
uses and blight exist within the Merged Project Area. It is the intent of the
Amendment/Merger to provide a vehicle for the Agency to assist the City in
eliminating incompatible Land uses and/or blight, and to promote economic
development. Other possible implementation activities may include efforts to
assemble parcels for redevelopment and to encourage new development that is
compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the City's General Plan.
Additionally, a substantial effort will be directed towards maintaining and up-
grading inhrastructure that supports economic development and investment mi
private property maintenance within the Merged Project Area.
It is important to note that the AmendmentiMerger does not include authoriza-
tion of any specific project, and is limited to the objectives detailed in Chapter
3.0, Project Description.
Current revenue projections for the Merged Project indicate that there are lim-
ited opportunities to assist in development projects within the Merged Project
Area. The following is an estimate of development that could be assisted by
redevelopment activities associated with the Amendment/Merger.
• 530 Single Family Homes
• 80 Multiple Family Units
• Huntington Beach Mail Refurbishment
• 600 Hotel/Iune Share Rooms
• 260,000 square feet of Cornmercial Uses
• 3,000 square feet of Industrial Uses
Because there are no specific land use changes identified by the Merged Plan,
and there are no specific development projects included within the Merged
Project Area, there is no land use conflict or incompatible use that would occur
with approval of the Amendment/Merger. As future projects, both public and
private, are submitted to the City for approval, each project will be reviewed for
consistency with the Merged Plan and General Plan Land Use Element and other
General Plan policies, as well as the City's zoning ordinance and development
codes which further restrict new development density and type. In addition, the
City will conduct the appropriate environmental review of each project in com-
pliance with CEQA to determine whether further environmental documentation
will be required beyond this EIR It during their review, City staff determines
that a project could have a significant impact that has not been identified in this
EIR, the City wilt require subsequent environmental documentation to fully
evaluate any potential impacts.
7n9&6WtvSG630Z0r6fCr4-0-cvPn- 4.1-12
•
Community Character and .land Use Compatibility
There will be no change in the redevelopment boundary areas with the Amend-
ment/Merger. The Amendment/Merger is a reorganization of redevelopment
processes and extensions of time for incurring indebtedness and condemnation
proceedings.
This reorganization does not amend the land use designations within the Merged
Project Area. Land uses will continue to reflect the designations in the General
Plan, as required in the Merged Plan, in the same manner as with the previously
adopted Redevelopment Projects.
A time extension for incurring indebtedness and raising the limit on tax incre-
ment revenues will not directly affect land use; rather, it will enhance the
Agency's ability to fully utilize financial resources that would otherwise not be
available for redevelopment, infrastructure improvements and economic devel-
opment purposes. With additional financial resources and an extension of time
available, the Agency could conduct additional redevelopment activity in accor-
dance with the Merged Plan. This is considered a beneficial impact, in view of
current signs of deferred maintenance, structural deterioration, underutiliration,
and vacancy or abandonment.
The adopted General Plan identifies development districts, along with specific
development guidelines for all areas of the City and for specific subareas within
the City. Specific Plans for several districts have been adopted, as explained in
the Special Development Areas subsection, above. The Specific Plans that are
relevant to the Merged Project Area are: 1) the Downtown Specific Plan, and 2)
North Huntington Center. The Merged Project is consistent with both Specific
Plans. These Specific Plans further ensure that new development, in&structure
improvements and refurbishment of businesses occurring through Agency assis-
tance will be compatible with the community character expressed in these
Specific Plans.
The Specific Plans established for these areas within the Merged Project Area
ensure that environmental protection is enforced, that land development is
carried out consistent with adopted objectives; and that design guidelines are
implemented in a cohesive and interrelated fashion.
The General Plan includes pedestrian, historic and design overlays for certain
subareas of the City, all of which include some portions of the Merged Project
Area. Taken together, the General Plan Land Use Element policies for permitted
uses, overlay district requirements and development guidelines for specific
subareas, substantially avoid the potential to impact community character within
the Merged Project Area. Specific projects will be subject to individual review for
consistency with General Plan and Zoning Code provisions through the entitle-
ment process.
The General Plan Update EIR (pages 5.1-16 and 5.1-17) discusses land use com-
patibility relevant within the Merged Project Area.
7na96-cj:vSGa30\EWECT4.0.VFD ► 4.1-13
The General Plan Update ELR includes the following specific analysis in land use
compatibility that is relevant to Main -Pier, Huntington Center, Oakview and
Talbert -Beach
"With regard to localized incompatibilities along Beach Boulevard
there are several policies which reduce the potential impact. Policy LU
10.1.5 requires that buildings, parking and vehicular access be sited
and designed to prevent impacts on adjacent residential neighbor-
boods Policy LU 10.1.6 requires that commercial projects abutting
residential properties adequately protect the residential use from exces-
sive or incompatible impacts of noise, light, vehicular traffic, visual
abaracter and operational hazards. Policy 10.1. 7 requires tbat parking
structures located on commercial parcels abutting residential uses be
designed to prevent adverse noise and air emission impacts and incor-
porate arcintectural design elements to provide interest. Finally, Policy
LU 10.1.8 requires that entertainment, drinking establishments and
other uses characterized by high patronage provide adequate pbysical
and safety measures to prevent negative impacts on adjacent proper-
ties. Incompatibilities that may occur in mixed use developments are
minimized through Policy LU 11.1.5 (which requires that mixed use
developments mitigate potential conflicts between the residential and
commercial components) and Policy LU 11.1.6 (which requires that
housing be placed on upper floors, or at the rear end, of m xed use
structures). Consequently, existing and potential land use incaompati-
bilthes aeated by the juxtaposition of residential and convneresal uses
akmgBeaab Boulevard are considered to be reduced to less than stnif-
scant levels with inclusion of these policies."
Given the requirement that the Merged Plan mirror and fully implement the
General Plan, any subsequent development within the Merged Project Area must
be consistent with the policies included in the analysis above, which fully ad-
dresses land use compatibility issues.
Land Use Balance
The land use mix proposed in the Merged Plan is the same as in the General Plan
Land Use Element. The land use mix and distribution of land uses included in
the General Plan for the Merged Project Area are not proposed to be changed by
the Amendment/Merger. Potential impacts from an inappropriate land use mix
would be avoided through implementation of General Plan land uses, as pro-
posed in the Merged Plan.
Effects on Open Space
The Amendment/Merger does not involve changes or redesignations of any lands
designated as "open space" to other land use categories. Therefore, with imple-
mentation of the Amendment/Merger, the amount of designated open space
acreage will not diminish from that adopted on the General Plan land use map.
7na96«t-NWX.63V=SEcTa.o.Vrn• 4.1-14
A limited number of vacant parcels exist throughout portions of the Merged
Project Area, encompassing approximately 30 gross acres (or 4.7 percent of the
entire Merged Project Area). Existing land uses, including vacant parcels, are
shown on Figures 4.1.1 through 4.1.5. The General Plan land use map desig-
nates these vacant parcels for future development. It is reasonably expected that
these vacant parcels will be developed with permitted uses, with or without
redevelopment assistance, consistent with the Merged Plan and General Plan.
Potential impacts due to development of currently vacant parcels will be miti-
gated to a level of insignificance through implementation of the General Plan
policies. Subsequent development within the Merged Project Area is required to
be consistent with General Plan policies to preserve and protect open space.
Consistency witb Adopted Plans and Establisbed Community
The CEQA criteria cited above state that a project will normally have a significant
impact if it will -conflict with adopted plans and goals.- The Merged Plan con-
forms to the existing policies and environmental plans in the recently adopted
General Plan and in the applicable Specific Plans, as explained in the preceding
analysis.
The second CEQA criterion, "disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community," is addressed in the analysis below. Amendment/Merger
does not include any large-scale infrastructure improvements or major reconfig-
uration of streets or roadways that are typically associated with division of com-
munities. In addition, the land uses and infrastructure improvements will be
consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning, and would not disrupt the
arrangement of established communities as defined by the General Plan.
For purposes of this EIR, the appropriate potential cumulative land use impact
area is the entire City. Because the the Merged Project Area extends from the
City's southern boundary to the northern boundary, and because these areas
make up a significant amount (15.7 percent) of the commercial areas of the City,
the cumulative study area has been determined to be the entire City.
The General Plan Update EM contains citywide growth projections for the 20
year period 1990-2010. Residential dwelling units are anticipated to increase by
18,500, or 10.46 percent, during this 20 year time fume, with commercial/
industrial square footage increasing by 15,867,540 square feet, or 21.9 percent,
over the same 20 year time fume. The land uses and anticipated projects within
the Merged Project Area arc included in these General Plan projections.
Given that the City has recently adopted the General Plan (May 13, 1996), and
that the land use designations and intensities proposed under the Amendment/
Merger are identical to those analyzed in the General Plan Update EM this
analysis can rely data and analysis included in the General Plan Update EIR. The
City's General Plan Update EIR addresses the potential land use impacts from
7n"6KtVW,630JM5£cr" WPI> 4.1-15
implementing the General Plan program, and found that there were no signifi-
cant environmental impacts related to 1) land use compatibility, 2) alteration of
community character, 3) resultant Land use imbalance, and 4) substantial loss of
open space.
The General Plan correlates land use development with supporting infmtruc-
ture and services. The General Plan sets a cap on development that cannot be
removed unless public infrastructure is upgraded or expanded and service
improvements are implemented, particularly with regard to transportation. The
practical development potential of the City is identified in Policy LU 2.1.4, in-
cluded in the Setting Section on page 4.1-10. The Amendment/Merger is consis-
tent with the General Plan and thereby provides policies and development
guidelines that lessen and avoid cumulative land use impacts. Because the
Amendment/Merger does not include specific development projects and does
not change land use designations assigned by the General Plan Land Use Ele-
ment, there are no cumulative impacts.
4.1.5 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
'Ihe General Plan includes several policies contained in the land Use Element of
the General Plan that serve to minimize potential land use impacts. The policies
applicable to the Amendment/Merger that reduce or avoid project related im-
pacts are identified below.
Require that new and recycled industrial projects be designed and devel-
oped to achieve a high level of quality, distinctive character, and be com-
patible with existing uses (Policy LU 12.1.4).
Require that new and recycled industrial structures and sites be designed
to convey visual interest and character and to be compatible with adja-
cent uses, considering the (Policy LU 12.1.5).
Use of multiple building masses and volumes to provide visual
interest and minimize the visual sense of bulk and mass;
Architectural design treatment of all building elevations;
Use of landscaping in open spaces and parking lots, including
broad landscaped setbacks from principal peripheral streets;
Enclosure of storage area with decorative screening or walls;
Location of site entries to minimize conflicts with adjacent resi-
dential neighborhoods; and
Mitigation of noise, odor, lighting, and other impacts.
Require that heavy industrial uses incorporate landscape setbacks,
screening walls, berms, and/or other appropriate elements that mitigate
7/1"6KL•\RSG630JMNSECT".VPU ► 4.1-16
visual and operational impacts with adjacent Land uses (Policy LU
i2.i.8).
• Require that heavy truck and vehicle access be controlled to minimize
potential impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods and commercial
districts (Policy LU12.1.9).
• Require that buildings, parking, and vehicular access be sited and de-
signed to prevent adverse impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods
(Policy LU 10.1.5) .
• Require that commercial projects abutting residential properties ade-
quately protect the residential use from the excessive or incompatible
impacts of noise, light, vehicular traffic, visual character, and operational
hazards (Policy LUIO.1.6).
• Require that parking structures located on commercial parcels abutting
residential uses a) be designed to prevent adverse noise and air emission
impacts and b) incorporate architectural design elements, such as facade
articulation, offset planes, and landscape, to provide visual interest and
compatibility with the residences (Policy LU 10.1.7).
• Require that entertainment, drinking establishments, and other uses
provide adequate physical and safety measures to prevent negative im-
pacts on. adjacent properties (Policy LU 10.1.8).
• Require that mixed -use developments be designed to mitigate potential
conflicts between the commercial and residential uses, considering such
issues as noise, lighting, security, and truck and automobile access (Pol-
icy LU 11.1.5).
• Require that the ground floor of structures that horizontally integrate
housing with commercial uses locate commercial uses along the street
frontage (housing may be located to the rear and/or on upper Boors)
(Policy LU 11.1.6) .
• Accommodate the development of public parks, coastal and water re-
lated recreational uses, and the conservation of environmental resources
in areas designated for Open Space on the Land Use Plan Map and in
accordance with Policy 7.1.1(Policy LU 141.1).
• permit the acquisition and/or dedication of lauds for new open space
purposes in any land use zone where they complement and are compati
ble with adjacent land uses and development, contingent on City review
and approval (Policy LU14.1.2).
4.2.6 MMGAT7ON MEASURES
0 Mitigation measures are not warranted.
7/1&96" t:VtSG63WMECiT"-VPD- 4.1-17
4.1.7 LEVEL OF MfPACT SIGNIFICANCE AF73EK MrHGA77ON 0
Implementation of the General Plan policies will reduce the potential land use
impacts resulting from the Amendment/Merger to a level below signifsc2nce.
•
7/1&96KL- 01EI MECr".WPD» 4.1-18
0 4.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.2.1 EU5T77VG FAVMONMENTAL SE777NG
Populations
From 1980 to 1992, the population of Huntington Beach increased by almost
nine percent, as shown in Table 4.2.A. In 1980, the City had a population of
181,519, while the population in 1992 was 185,000.
For the past 20 years, the City has consistently experienced a higher rate of
growth than either Orange County or the State of California. While the average
annual population increase in California was 2.1 percent from 1970 to 1980, and
2.3 percent from 1980 to 1990, Huntington Beach experienced average annuaI
increases of 4.05 percent and 6.27 percent respectively, during these two
periods. As a comparison, Orange County experienced annual growth rates of
3.1 percent and 2.3 percent, respectively, during the 1970s and 1980s.
Table 4.2A - Population Comparisons 1970-1990
Compound
Annual
Growth Rate
1970- 1980-
1970
1980
1990
1980 1990
19961
California 19,241,000
23,668,145
29,760,021
2.09% 2.31%
32,231.000
Orange County 1,421,000
1,932.709
2.410,556
3.M 2.23%
2,624.300
Huntington Beach 114,593
170,505
181,519
4.05% 6.27%
187,200
Mousing
Source: 1970, 1980 and 19W U.S. Census; and Department of E'urance 1996
Estimates.
Housing Grmwtb
The City of Huntington Beach's housing stock experienced substantial growth
during the 1980s, but significantly slowed in the 1990s due to diminishing
supply of available land and the economic recession. In 1980, Huntington
Beach had a housing stock of 63,686 units, and by January, 1988, the number
had increased to 70,179, an increase of more than ten percent. By 1994, the
number of housing units reached 74,179, a 16 percent increase over the 63,686
units.
0 1 The California Department of Finance.
7119i96-LUtSG63aiF tSECT4-2.WPIDp 4.2-1
Housing Type and Tenure
Although Huntington Beach experienced significant gowth in its housing stock
during the 1980s, the composition of the housing stock (single versus multiple
family) has experienced little change. Single family dwelling units make up
three -fifths of the housing type in the City (42,326 units in 1988). Multifamily
units, however, experienced a greater rate of growth during the 1980-1988
period, increasing by 13 percent (to 25,170 in 1988), as compared to the 9
percent increase for single family units. Construction of condominium units
declined in the mid-1980s; however, condominium activity has increased since
then. Condominium units comprise over half of the Ciry's multiple family hous-
ing stock, with two-thirds of the units in the southeast and Downtown/Old Town
neighborhoods (13,151 units in 1988).
The tenure of a community's housing stock (owner versus renter) influences
several aspects of the local housing market. Tenure preferences are primarily
related to household income, composition, and age of the householder. For the
past several decades, Huntington Beach has been a predominantly owner occu-
pied community; however, the ratio of owner occupied to renter occupied units
has steadily declined since 1970, when 70 percent of the City's households were
owner occupied in 1980, owner occupied housing comprised 58 percent of the
City's households, decreasing to 53 percent by 1988.
Existing housing in the Merged Project Area consists of the following:
Subarea
# Units
Oak -view
641
Main -Pier
915
Yorktown -lake
81
Talbert -Beach
336
Huntington Center
0
Total (Approximately)
14973
Housing Element Objedsves
The City of Huntington Bosch Housing Element outlines the existing housing
needs within the City, based on SLAG projections, and identifies strategies that
the City will employ to achieve its housing objectives. The City is currently in
the process of updating its Housing Element'; however, the update is still in the
prehmiaary draft phase and is not complete. Therefore, for the purposes of this
' The Housing Element Update will address the projected housing needs
for the next cycle (1996-1998). SCAG staff has not prepared an RHNA
for the 1996-1998 Housing Element period. Given the absence of m-
gional estimates, the State has directed all cities to utilize the 1989 RHNA
figures. Following a review of historical growth trends, regional growth
forecasts, and lands that are or could reasonably be made available for
new housing development, the Housing Element revision will determine
the housing needs for the City during the 1996-1998 period. is
7n9)96wt:NS"30ZUC%SEcr4-2 WPD* 4.2-2
review, the analysis of consistency with Housing Element Objectives will be
based upon the 1989 Housing Element. As indicated on page 2-20 of the Hous-
ing Element, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) prepared by
SLAG identified a future housing need for Huntington Beach of 6,228 units to
be developed over the five-year period from 1989 to 1994. This span was ex-
tended by recent legislation adopted by the State to extend the valid date of the
RHNA figures, as well as postpone the mandatory deadline for Housing Element
Updates (for Cities within the SCAG Region) to June, 1998. Of these 6,228
units, housing needs for the very low income group total 984 units, 1,264 for
the low income group, 1,370 for the moderate income group, and 2,610 for the
upper income gmup.
The Housing Element identifies that through a combination of residential devel-
opment potential on vacant, underutilized, redeveloped, non-residential and
surplus sites in the City, an estimated 7,527 additional units could be developed
in the City. Of the 7,527 units identified, 904 of these units were to be con-
structed within ?Main -Pier. Previously, the Agency has assisted in the construc-
tion of 724 dwelling units within the five Redevelopment Projects since 1982.
Employment
According to the CiWs General Plan Technical Background Report, there were
60,869 jobs in Huntington Beach in 1992. Of the 60,869 jobs, 25 percent were
in the retail trade, 24 percent in manufacturing, and 17 percent in business and
personal services.
General Plan
The General Plan build out will provide for additional new housing build out, as
shown in Table 4.2 Z.
Table 4.2.B - Housing, Population, Employment and Jobs -Housing Ratio
(Policy Plan Adopted by City Council May 13, 1996)
Existing
Additional New
Build
% Incise
units _
Homim
out
Abom Existing
Dwelling Units
74,179`
18,500
92,679
24.94%
Population
181,5192
48,470
233,47d
28.62%
Employment
60,869`
22,413
83.E
36.82%
Jobs -Housing Ratio
0.82
2.21
0.90
9.51%
Source: City of Huntington Beach, General Plan Update EIR, July, 1995.
t City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department, 1994.
2 General Plan Technical Background Report (MR), Chapter 2, 1992.
5 Assumes 1990 persons per household ratio of 2.62 (Table SD-2 of the TBR)
Table ED-1, TBR
7/19t96-cL-V 4"UAEat�SECT4-2.mPIA 4.2-3
4.2.2 ZZLRESHOIDS OF SIGNIFICANCE 0
The following thresholds of significance criteria are used in evaluating the effects
of the Amendment/Merger on population and housing.
Population
• increases in population in excess of that projected in the General Plan
and by SCAG.
• Alteration of the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the
human population in an area.
Housing
• Development that reduces the ability of the City to meet housing objec-
tives set forth in the City's Housing Element (1989) for all income levels.
Employment
• Displacement of more than 500 employees.
4.2.3 PROJECT IMPACTS
Population
The project does not propose any changes in land use or zoning designation, or
policies that would result in any increases in population within the Merged
Project Area of the City. The General Plan EIR concluded that, with implementa-
tion of General Plan Policies ensuring that development is coordinated with
provision of adequate public facilities and services, potential impacts were re-
duced to less than significant. The Amendment/Merger will primarily allow for
increased funding opportunities for infrastructure improvements, commercial
rehabilitation, and assisted housing projects, which may facilitate development
in the area; however, the scale and type (i.e., land use) will be consistent with
that projected in the General Plan. The potential number of housing units
assisted would be 610. Using the General Plan figure of 2.7 persons per house-
hold, this would add only 1,647 people to the City's population of 187,200 (less
than one percent). Impacts associated with this level of population will be
minimized to a level of ins4pi fcance through implementation of General Plan
policies ensuring that development is coordinated with the provision of ade-
quate public services and facilities. Future development proposals within the
Merged Project Area will require analysis of consistency with the General Plan
and, where proposed development is greater than the planned growth in the
General Plan, additional project specific analysis will be required.
7/19/96-1:VtSG63OgMtl$ECr42.WPD► 4.24
•
0 Housing
As indicated in the General Plan EIR, implementation of the General Plan will
provide 18,500 new dwelling units by the year 2010. The corresponding annual
increase of 1,156 units will exceed the annual housing growth rate of 1,038 units
per year, identified in the 1988 RHNA_ Implementation of the policies and
programs contained in the Housing Element will assist the City in providing
affordable housing to meet the City's identified regional share and will have a
beneficial effect on housing.
Implementation of the Amendment/Merger will facilitate implementation of
housing programs in the Merged Project Area, through various financing mecha-
nisms, and wilI promote the City's housing goals. It is estimated that the
Agency's activities will facilitate 610 dwelling units, which is 0.6 percent of the
General Plan build out.
In addition, the Agency is required to set aside a portion of its tax increment
revenue to provide for additional affordable housing units anywhere within the
City. The City must also replace affordable housing units affected by redevelop-
ment activities. Each of these requirements is outlined below.
Housing Set Aside
A portion of the Agency's tax increment revenue is required by the State to be
set aside into a special fund of the Agency ro meet affordable housing needs
within the City. Section 33334.2 of the CalifbMia Health and Safety Code re-
quires that not less than 20 percent of all tax increment revenues allocated to a
redevelopment agency shall be used for the purposes of increasing, improving
and preserving the community's supply of low and moderate income housing.
Such housing is to be affordable to very low, low, and moderate income house-
holds.
Redevelapment Frayed Housing Relocation
The Agency adopted a relocation plan in conjunction with the preparation of the
five existing Redevelopment Plans. As an agency formed under the provisions of
State Law, the Agency is required to adhere to the State Relocation Law (Govern-
ment Code Sections 7260 through 7277) and follow the California Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines as established in the Cabbr-
nia Code of Regulations, Title 25, Chapter 6. The Agency's existing relocation
plan incorporates the State Relocation Law and Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Guidelines. For the Amendment/ Merger, the Agency will
reaffirm its relocation plant for the Merged Project.
Replacement Housing
The Agency is required to replace affordable housing destroyed or removed as a
consequence of a redevelopment project. Section 33413 of the California
7Y1996-cl VMG63MEMSECT4.2 V )* 4.2.5
Health and Safety Code provides that, whenever dwelling units housing persons
and families of low or moderate income are destroyed or removed from the
affordable housing market as a part of a redevelopment project that is subject to
a written agreement with the agency, or where financial assistance has been
provided by the agency, the agency shall provide, or cause to be provided, an
equal number of replacement dwelling units. The replacement dwelling units
must have an equal or greater number of bedrooms as those destroyed or re-
moved and shall be affordable to persons and families of low or moderate in-
come. Further, replacement dwelling units must be available for occupancy
within four years of the destruction or removal of any affordable dwelling units.
By assisting in the achievement of planned housing growth in the General Plan
through tax increment financing, replacement housing and other mechanisms,
implementation of the Amendment/Merger will assist in meeting the City's
housing objectives for all income levels and will have a beneficial effect on hous-
ing within the City, consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update EIR.
.Employment
Enhancement of existing employment opportunities and economic develop-
ment within the City is a primary objective of the Amendment/Merger. By estab-
lishing an increased tax increment limit, extending the time fiames for incurring
indebtedness and employing eminent domain proceedings, the Amend-
ment/Merger will assist implementation of the planned employment growth
outlined in the City's General Plan. The employment generation identified in
the General Plan Update EIR would not be exceeded with implementation of the
Amendment/Merger. Future development proposals within the Merged Project
Area will require analysis of consistency with the General Plan and where pro-
posed development is greater than the planned growth in the General Plan,
additional project specific analysis will be required. job creation within the
Merged Project will be within the employment projections outlined in the EIR
for the General Plan. The Amendment/Merger will benefit the City of Hunting-
ton Beach, facilitating achievement of General Plan goals by providing funding
opportunities.
4.2.4 CEWE71ATIVEZKPAC7S
Increases in population, housing and employment associated with implementa-
tion of the Amendment/Merger will be consistent with the growth projections
for the Merged Project Area, as identified in the General Plan Update EIR, and
will not result in grater cumulative impacts than identified for implementation
of the General Plan on a citywide basis. Opportunities encouraging planned
development and redevelopment within the Merged Project Area will be pro-
vided as part of the Amendment/Merger, however, provision for additional land
use intensity is not permitted.
•
7/19A6s,L%RSc.630%EWEcr4-2.VPD- 4.2-6
0 4.2.5 GENERAL PLAN POMCLES
Impacts associated with the project are not considered significant, as they will be
offset by implementation of policies of the General Plan, which require develop-
ment to provide for adequate public services and facilities to meet forecast
demands. These policies are provided in the Public Services and Utilities Section
of this EIR. Relevant policies are included below to relate to population, em-
ployment and housing.
• Plan and construct public infrastructure and service improvements as
demand necessitates to support the land uses specified in the Land Use
Plan (as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Services Ele-
ments of the General Plan) (Policy LUZ1.1).
• Require that the type, amount, and location of development be corre-
lated with the provision of adequate supporting inhistructure and ser-
vices (as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Service Ele-
ments (Policy LU2.1.2).
• Limit the type, location, and/or timing of development where there is
inadequate public infrastructure and/or services to support land use
development (Policy LU2.1.3).
• Limit the total additional new development citywide (above that existing
in 1990) that can be accommodated in the City to the following, or an
equivalent Humber of trips that can be generated ("trip budget'), pro-
vided that the highway improvements stipulated by the Circulation Ele-
ment are implemented (Policy LU2.1.4):
Residential Units (single, multifam- 18,500
ily, and mixed use)
Commercial Retail Square Feet 3,165,000
Commercial Office Square Feet 1,570,000
Industrial Square Feet 2,505,000
Overnight Accommodations Rooms 2,500
The permitted development, or "trip budget," shall be allocated to spe-
cific sub -areas of the City as determined by the City's traffic model used
in the preparation of the General Plan. The mix of uses that are permit-
ted may be varied provided that the total "trip budget" is not exceeded.
' The trip budget incorporates development projects approved previous
to the adoption of the General Plan.
7/19j96KtARSG630�EMSECT4-2.Wn)* 42-7
Permit increases in development capacity consistent with the types and
densities of uses depicted on the land Use Plan and prescribed by Policy
7.1.1, when it can be demonstrated that additional transportation im-
provements have been implemented or are funded, or demands have
been reduced (based on highway level of service and vehicle trips) (Pol-
icy LU2.1.3).
• Monitor the capacities of other infrastructure (water, sewer, and other)
and services and establish appropriate limits on development should
their utilization and demands for service exceed acceptable levels of
service (Policy LU2.1.6).
• Accommodate the development of parks, sports facilities, schools, librar-
ies, community meeting facilities, religious facilities, and similar commu-
nity -serving uses in all residential areas, provided that they are compati-
ble with adjacent residential uses and subject to review and approval by
the City and other appropriate agencies (Policy LU9.4.1).
• Require development projects to mitigate off -site traffic impacts and
pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular conflicts to the maximum extent feasi-
ble (Policy CE2.3.1).
• Require that new development mitigate its impact on City streets, includ-
ing but not limited to, pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular con&cts, to
maintain adequate levels of service (Policy CE2.3.4).
• Monitor the demands on the water system, manage the development to
mitigate impacts and/or facilitate improvements to the water supply and
distribution system, and maintain and expand water supply and distribu-
tion facilities (Policy U 1.1.1).
• Approve and implement development in accordance with the standards
identified in the Growth Management Element (Polity U2.1.1).
• Monitor the demands and manage development to mitigate impacts
and/or facilitate improvements to the storm drainage system (Policy U
3.1,3).
• Limit new development, when necessary, until adequate flood control
facilities are constructed to protect existing development and accommo-
date the new development runoff, or until mitigation is provided in
accordance with the Growth Management Element (Policy U3.1,5).
• Maintain adequate solid waste collection for commercial, industrial, and
residential developments in accordance with State law (Policy U41.1).
• Continue to work with service providers to maintain current levels of
service and facilitate improved levels of service (Policy U5.1.1).
A
7119R6aL RSG.63&=5ECT4-2.wpn* 1 4.2-8
•
• Enhance and maintain personnel and facilities in the City's Police De-
partment necessary to provide response times at standards determined
by the Growth Management Element (Policy PF 1.1.1).
• Ensure that adequate Police services are maintained through a periodic
conditions and needs assessment of department services, facilities and
personnel (Policy PF 1.1.2).
• Locate fire stations in a manner which will enable emergency fur re-
sponse time to meet a five minute standard, 80 percent of the time (Pol-
icy PF2.1.1).
• Maintain adequate facilities and personnel by periodically evaluating
population growth, response time and fire hazards (Policy PF2.1.3).
• Maintain phasing and funding standards based on population, response
time projections, and build out in accordance with the Growth Manage-
ment Element (Policy PF2.1.4).
• Continue the dialogue between the City of Huntington Beach and the
local school districts to review measures alleviating some school's over-
crowding while other school's have available capacity (Policy PF 4.1.1) .
• Ensure adequate government facilities and services are being provided to
meet the needs of the City's population (Policy PF 6.1.1).
• Maintain or improve the govemmental facilities and services in order to
meet the adopted levels of service and standards established in the
Growth Management Element (Policy PF 61.3).
Horsing Element Policy 2
To ensure adequate provision of housing for all economic segments of the
community, the City of Huntington Beach shall:
Encourage the provision and continued availability of a range of housing
types throughout the community, with variety in the number of rooms
and level of amenities.
Encourage both the private and public sectors to produce or assist in the
production of housing with particular emphasis on housing affordable to
lower income households, as well as the needs of the handicapped, the
elderly, loge family and female -headed households.
Facilitate the development of mixed use projects containing residential
and non residential uses which can take advantage of shared land costs
to reduce the costs of land for residential uses through General Plan
designation and the Specific Plan process.
7R9j9&t 6ceo=gcT4-z WFIY- 4.2-9
• Encourage alternative forms of home ownership, such as shared equity
ownership, Shared Living Units, and other housing arrangements to
encourage affordability. Explore the feasibility of implementing a mort-
gage credit certification program (refer to Section 3.6 beginning on page
3-36 for program descriptions).
• Promote adoption of development standards which reduce housing
costs, while ensuring that any adverse impacts are minimized when in-
creasing densities or relaxing standards.
• Continue and expand utilization of federal and State housing assistance
programs.
• Promote the availability of sufficient rental housing to afford maximum
choice of housing type for all economic segments of the community.
• Encourage the retention of adequate numbers of mobile homes and
investigate areas for potential new mobile home zoning.
• Encourage the provision of alternative housing through replacement
housing and/or relocation for low or moderate income households dis-
placed by public or private developments.
Housing Element Policy 3
To assure the adequate provision of sites for housing, the City of Huntington
Beach shall:
Utilize the following general criteria for identifying and avaluating poten-
tial sites for low and moderate cost housing and sites for the elderly
and/or handicapped. While compliance with the following criteria is
preferable, no site shall be dismissed for failure to meet this criteria and
shall be judged on its own merit. Sites should be.
Located with convenient access to arterial highways and public
transportation, schools, parks and recreational Facilities, shop-
ping areas, employment opportunities.
- Adequately served by public facilities, services, and utilities.
- Minimally impacted by seismic and flood hazards. Where such
hazards cannot be avoided, adequate mitigation measures shall
be incorporated into the design of all proposed development.
- Minimally impacted by noise and blighted conditions.
- Compatible with surrounding existing and planned land uses.
Located outside arias of predominantly lower income concentra-
tions.
7ngig 6KtvXsc. P-RJMMCT4-2 V?D- 4.2-10
• Plan for residential. Land uses which accommodate anticipated growth
from new employment opportunities.
Locate residential uses in proximity to commercial and industrial areas
and transportation routes to provide convenient access to employment
centers.
Permit the development of manufactured housing in single family zones,
and accommodate the development of mobile home parks through the
City's Manufactured Housing Overlay Zone.
Housing Element Policy 4
In order to preserve housing and neighborhoods, the City of Huntington Beach
shall:
• Encourage the maintenance and repair of existing owner -occupied and
rental housing to prevent deterioration of housing in the City.
• Encourage the rehabilitation of substandard and deteriorating housing
where feasible.
• Where possible, take action to promote the removal and replacement of
those substandard units which cannot be rehabilitated.
Provide and maintain an adequate level of community facilities and mu-
nicipal services in all community areas.
• Improve and upgrade community facilities znd services where necessary.
• Encourage compatible design to mivirn the impact of intensified reuse
of residential land on existing residential development.
• Encourage preservation of the existing low density residential character
in established single family neighborhoods.
• Establish incentives for the development of uses to support the needs
and reflect the economic demands of City residents and visitors (Policy
LU 1.1.1).
• Permit increases in development capacity consistent with the types and
densities of uses depicted on the Land Use Plan and prescribed by Policy
7.1.1, when it can be demonstrated that additional transportation im-
provements have been implemented or are funded, or demands have
been reduced (based on higl a y level of service and vehicle trips) (Pol-
icy LU2.I.$).
• Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with
the Land Use and Density Schedules (Table LU4 in the General Plan)
(Policy LU 7.1.1).
7/19/96KL•1RSG63U%EM$Ecr4-2.VPD ► 4.2-11
Accommodate land use development in accordance with the patterns
and distribution of use and density depicted on the Land Use Plan Map
(Figure LU-5 in the General Plan), and in accordance with the principles
discussed below (Policy LU8.1.1).
a. Enhance a network of interrelated activity centers and corridors
by their distinct functional role, activity, and/or form and scale of
development.
b. Vary uses and densities along the Citys extended commercial
corridors, such as Beach Boulevard.
C. Increase diversification of community and local commercial
nodes to serve adjacent residential neighborhoods.
d. Intensify residential uses in proximity to key commercial or
wed -use districts to promote accessibility and reduce vehicular
use.
e. Improve industrial districts to accommodate the changing charac-
teristics and needs of manu&ctuting and other industrial sectors.
f. Intermnc toes and densities in large-scale development projects.
g. Site development to capitalize upon potential long-term transit
improvements. 0
h. Establish linkages among community areas, which may include
pedestrian and vehicular paths, landscape, signage, other
streetscape elements, open space, transitions in form, scale, and
density of development, and other elements.
• Accommodate the development of single family and multifamily residen-
tial units in areas designated by the Land Use Plan Map, as stipulated by
the Land Use and Density Schedules (Policy LU9.1.1).
• Require that special needs housing is designed to be compatible with
adjacent residential structures and other areas designated for other cate-
gories of use provided that no adverse impacts will occur (Policy LU
95 ).
• Accommodate the development of neighborhood, community, regional,
office, and visitor -serving commercial uses in areas designated on the
Land Use Plan Map in accordance with Policy 7.1.1(Policy LU 10.1.1).
• Accommodate the development of structures and sites that integrate
housing units with retail and office commercial uses in areas designated
for "mixed use" on the Land Use Plan Map in accordance with Policy
7.1.1(Policy LU11.1.1).
7n9)9&MYsc,63amEMsEcr4-IVPD* 4.2-12
•
• Accommodate the continuation of existing and development of new
manufacturing, research and development, professional offices, support-
ing retail commercial (including, but not limited to, sales area for manu-
facturers and photocopy stores), restaurants, and financial institutions,
and similar uses in areas designated on the Land Use Plan Map in accor-
dance with Policy 7.1.1(Policy LU 12.1.1) .
Maintain and expand economic and business development programs
that encourage and stimulate business opportunities within the City
(policy ED 1.2.1).
Create an Economic Development Strategy that. a) is based on the most
recent growth and economic forecasts, b) reflects both the City perspec-
tive and the business community perspective for economic develop-
ment, and c) is updated and reviewed tri-annually (Policy ED 1.1.3).
Seek to rapture -new growth" industries such as, but not limited to
(Policy ED 2.5.2):
- "Knowledge" based industries such as research and development
firms (higher technology communications and information in-
dustries);
- Communication industry service providers and equipment manu-
factures which are creating the next series of consumer and util-
ity company equipment and services;
Biotechniral industries;
Environmental technology;
- "Shop for value" or "big box" stores;
- Entertainment -commercial developments;
- High sales tax producing businesses; and
- Point of sale industries.
4.2.63f177GA77ON MEASURES
4.2 A The Agency shall relocate any persons or families of low and moderate
income displaced by a redevelopment project. The Agency shall adopt
and implement a relocation plan pursuant to Sections 33410 through
33411.1 of the California Health and Safety Code. The relocation plan
ensures that no families or single persons of love and moderate income
are displaced by a redevelopment project until there is a suitable hous-
ing unit available and ready for occupancy. Such housing units shall be
available at rents comparable to those at the time of displacement. Fur-
ther, housing units for relocation are to be suitable for the needs of the
displaced household, and must be decent, safe, sanitary, and otherwise
standard dwelling. It is the Agency's objective that residents be relocated
with the minimum of hardship.
7n9/96«l-.VMG630ZIIi ECT4-z.wPnxI 4.2-13
implemenmUon of the A,meadmentNeiger wiR rwWt in berm impacts € n
the pwvision of housing and employment oppommities. Potentially significant
inezeases in population am reduced with implementation of the policies out -
fined in. the Genera Fba, and ate considered les& than sigtail€caat.
7llS+t9GKJ:�SF�T4 2�P1�Lb► 4,2,14
0 4.3 EARTH RESOURCES
4.3.1 E USTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This section incorporates information from the General Plan Update EIR by
reference, and analyzes effects of the Amendment/Merger. This section summa-
rizes the geologic and soil conditions within the Merged Project Area and the
City of Huntington Beach that may have an effect on project components.
Geologic Units and Geotechnic 1 Prope>✓ties
Geologic conditions within the City of Huntington Beach are characterized as
lacking bedrock exposure, and as including the surface traces of the active New-
port -Inglewood fault zone. Geologic units consist of Quaternary deposits (Pleis-
tocenei and Holocene Z) as shown on Figure GS-1 in the General Plan Update
EIR (page 5.6-2). The older Quaternary deposits are exposed on the mesas
(Bolsa Chica and Huntington Beach) and in the perimeter bluffs; these are
termed older alluvium or terrace materials of the Lakewood and San Pedro
Formations 3
The mesas (topographically high flat areas) are surrounded and separated by
younger alluvium, which (from north to south) fills the gaps (topographically
low arras) at Seal Beach, Bolsa Chica and the Santa Ana River. Younger alluvium
is divided into river floodplain deposits (washed in from the northeast as sand,
gravel and silt); tidal flatJlagoonal type deposits lie in the gaps (finer grained silts
and clays). Peat and organic soils are found within the younger alluvium up to
about 25 feet (averaging five to ten feet thick) s These fine grained deposits are
eapansive,3 compressible, and generally have fair to poor geotechnical engineer-
ing properties. Floodplain sands and silts are largely unconsolidated, and con-
tain the peat layers. On the whole, these deposits are subject to liquefaction
(fine sand and peat), settlement, and expansion, and have good to fair engineer-
ing properties, except for peat, which has poor tovery poor engineering proper-
ties.
The oldest terrace deposits consist of sand with interbeds of silty clay and clay,
overlain by interLayered sand -gravel and silt -clay beds. All older alluvium is
unconsolidated to semi -consolidated, contains "aquifers" in the thicker sand
2 11,000-1,700,000 years before present.
2 0-11,000 years before present.
3 City of Huntington Beach Seismic Safety Element, 1974.
City of Huntington Beach Geotechnical Inputs, 1974.
s Loosely arranged or unstratified; not cemented together.
7/2" K1.\R5G63a\r=Ecr43.arn* 4.3-1
units, has Sow -moderate expansive soil qualities, has a moderate to high erosion
potential,' and is susceptible to landslide/slope instability/erosion at the edge of
the bluffs and in canyons. WIthin the Merged Project Area, the Huntington
Beach mesas in Main -Pier and Yorktown -Lake and along drainages where slopes
are oversteepened are areas of unstable slopes.
Near Surface Water Depth
Fasd&
The City is underlain by shallow near surface water,Z which is of interest with
regard to liquefaction potential (within depths of 0-50 feet) and as a hazard for
construction (within depths of 0-30 feet). Figure GS-3 in the General Plan
Update E1R (page 5.6-4) identifies near surface water depths for the City. Near
surface water is found in the alluvial valley and mesa areas as perched water, and
in shallow aquifers. in the gap areas between the mesas, the City appears to be
entirely underlain by water at less than 50 feet deep. These alluvial floodplain
(gap) areas have the greatest concentration of shallow water, with depths less
than 30 feet and most often less than 5 feet deep. The mesa areas (because of
their higher elevations) have water depths of 10 feet to greater than 30 feet
within the older alluvium. in the northeastern and eastern City areas, water
depths are 5-30 feet beneath the floodplain deposits. Narrow strips along the
immediate coastline have water depths of less than 10 feet.
The Huntington Center has a near surface water depth of 10-30 feet. A portion
of Oakview has a near surface water depth of 10-30 feet; however the remainder
of the area has a depth of greater than 30 feet. Talbert Beach and Yorktown -Lake
have near surface water depths of greater than 30 feet- A portion of Main -Pier
has a near surface water depth of getter than 30 feet. However, the areas along
PCH in Main -Pier have a near surface water depth of less than 3 feet.
All of Southern California geology and seismicity is affected by plate tectonics'
Faults are formed at the plate boundaries and within the plates. Faults that
cause the plates to slip horizontally past one another are strike slip faults; verti-
cal movement is mainly along normal, reverse or thrust` faults. These fault
' City of Huntington Beach, Seismic Safety Element,1974.
2 Sprotte and others, 1980.
s A theory of global tectonics in which the earth is divided into a number of plates
that interact with one another at their boundaries, causing seismic activity along
these boundaries.
` A fault with a dip of 45 degrees or less with horizontal compression rather verti-
cal displacement. 0
7n&X>6%L\VaG63WMMEcr4-3 eta 4.3-2
movements cause earthquakes deep in the crust, and may cause surface fault
rupture or deformation along buried (blind) thrust faults. This seismorectonic
setting has been a part of the evolution of the Los Angeles/Orange County land-
scape for the past five million years or so. The most important fault to the City is
the Newport —Inglewood Fault.
Neupert-Inglewood Fau& Zone
The Newport —Inglewood Fault Zone is an Active Right-IateraI Fault System
consisting of a series of echelon' fault segments and anticlinal folds = that are
believed to be the expression of a deep seated fault within the basement rock.'
The fault zone is visible on the surface as a series of northwest trending elon-
gated hills, including Signal Hill and the Dominguez Hills, extending from New-
port Beach to Beverly Hills. The total fault length is about 44 miles. The surface
and subsurface segments of the fault in the City-, and the relationships of the
fault segments to the Merged Project Area, are shown on Figure 4.3.1.
The estimated maximum earthquake assigned to the fault zone is magnitude M.
7, based on its estimated rupture length versus magnitude relationship, by
Slemmons (1982), and its slip rate. The expected (average) amount of surface
fault rupture on any given fault trace for the maximum probable or maximum
credible earthquake ranges from zero to approximately one foot for magnitudes
under M6.0, and from one foot to ten feet or more for magnitudes between
M6.0 to 7.5.
Other Fault Segments, Achvity Criteria, and Zarring
Faults adjacent to, within, and beneath the Merged Project Area may be classified
as inactive, potentially active, or active. Faults classified as inactive (no demon-
strated movement in the past two million years) are of no present concern as
earthquake sources, and are not discussed further. Potentially active faults show
evidence of movement and may be possible earthquake sources, but no data are
known to conclusively demonstrate Holocene fault movement (within the past
10,000-12,000 years). Active faults are the most concem for earthquake genera-
tion and fault rupture potential, since they have documented Holocene fault
movement or are clearly associated with historic seismicity. Alquist-Priolo Earth-
quake Fault (formerly Special Studies) Zone Maps delineate active faults and
potentially active faults considered by the State to be "sufficiently active" and
Faults that are in an overlapping or staggered arrangement.
Convex upward folds with cores containing the stratigraphically older rocks.
0 ' Bryant, 1988; Barrows, 1974.
7/1&A>CWK :VGG63V\EMSECr4-3.IW7r]- 4.3-3
z
/
W
SEAL
WEST>tiiMTER
BEAM!
'
FADDEN§5
EDVMR
HEL
WARNER
FOUNTAJN
VALLEY
SLATER
TALURT
'•K �3'.�r � 4_<a;, •ice ♦ � ` � - EILtS � � �`
`pis s s � ���.. •t � — _ � �
_-`` -� .`�� = �=��. •.ram?� ��
-- }•.�' :i^ �� �'�" SEAT �
Legend
Fes City Boundary
Category A
Alquist Priolo Special Stud
Category B
Sperm Studies, including subsurtam invesrigation
for uiocal and important turd uses and speaal-" s:
erralul6on of butts for all habitable sineures.
-4; ,
i• Category C
Special Studies, including subsurtam 6hmsfigabon.
for crimW and important land uses =
f' Category D
Imam or non-u subsurface irnrestipton
may be required by City
?? Fault Uncertain
® Redevelopment Project Areas
Source: Ciry of Huntington Beach, 1974 Seismic Safety Element, Figze 3-1:
modified using Leightao & Assoaat n. 1996. Frgmrs 2 snd 3.
113N6(RSCY630)
i r"•
v
LSASc- is Kles
O 0-5 1 4.3.4
--L--
��
I
~�
J
` YORKTOWN
XDAUS
• �
``
001A VAMLIS
rp
I AMWA
i MAYLTON
w.
COSTA
MESA
,
%
Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone
•
•
-well-defined.- The City Seismic Safety Element (1974) delineates fault zones of
concern in the City; these are fault segments within the Newport -Inglewood
Fault Zone (NIFZ) that were deemed active or potentially active at the time the
City of Huntington Beach Seismic Safety Element eras adopted. The California
Division of Mines and Geology (1992) has delineated Alquist-Priolo study zones
along the Newport -Inglewood fault zone. These zones are shown as Category A,
B and C on Figure 4.31.
Yorktown -Ike and Main -Pier lie within the NIFZ, with Talbert -Beach located
just to the north of the NIFZ. Oakview and Huntington Center are located
approximately one mile or more to the north of the NIFZ-
Buried (Blind) Tbrusts
The aforementioned strike -slip fault types have surface expressions (fault traces)
that allow zoning in order to reduce the potential effects of fault rupture on
structures. The blind or buried thrusts have been the focus of more study since
the 1987 Whittier Narrows magnitude 5.9 earthquake and the 1994 M 6.7
Northridge earthquake.
Table 4.3A lists the following: 1) active or potentially active faults that may
affect the Merged Project Area, including segments of the Newport -Inglewood
fault zone that are deemed capable of producing fault rupture; and 2) the blind
thrusts that are discussed below as earthquake sources.
Earthquake Ground Sbaking
Liquefaction
Table 4.3.A also identifies other active and potentially active faults that may affect
the Merged Project Area. The General Plan Update EIR (pages 5." and 5.6-10)
includes a discussion on the frequency of occurrence and magnitude and the
intensity and acceleration of earthquake ground shaking. In addition, a listing of
near City significant earthquakes is also identified in the General Plan Update
EIR.
The liquefaction susceptibility for the Merged Project Area is shown on Table
4.3.B. The rating ranges from very high, high, medium to low. primarily depend-
ing on two factors: 1) depth to groundwater, and 2) competency of soils.
Liquefaction is the condition in relatively loose, saturated sandy sediments
where support strength' is lost due to repeated vibrations from earthquake
striking. Settlement during and after an earthquake can occur where sediments
are only partially saturated.
' The internal resistance of a body to shear stress, typically including a
frictional part and a part independent of friction called cohesion.
7/1&9&1-. SG630QEWECr4-3.VPIT► 4.3-5
Table 4.3-A - Active/Potentially Active Faults That May Affect the
Merged Project
Fault Name
(Distance to City)'
Project
Impacted
By Offset
Orientation
(Compass)
Maximum Earthquake
Probable Credible
Comments
(Acceleration
in y)
Faults with Mapped
Surface Traces
Elsinore (28)
No
NW -SE
6.75
7.5
0.11-0.18g
Newport -Inglewood
Yes
NW -SE
5.75
7.0
0.55-1.Og
(<2)
Palos Verdes-
No
NW -SE
6.75
7.5
0.34-0.53g
Coronado Bank
(10)
Raymond (30)
No
E•W
4.0
7.5
0.02-0.21g
San Andreas (51)
No
NW -SE
8.0
8.3
0.11-0.14g
Sierra Madre -San No
Fernando (32)
Whittier --North No
Elsinore (19)
Blind or Buried Thrust Faults
Elysian Park (25) No
Compton -Los An- No
gles (<10)
E-W 6.0 7.5
NW -SE 6.0 7.5
E-W, WNW 5.75 7.0+
ESE
NW -SE 5.6?? 7.0+
Torrance- No NW -SE 5.6?? 7.0+
Wilmington (<10)
Source: City of Huntington Beach, General Plan Update EIR, July, 1995.
NIFZ = Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone
PVFZ = Palo Verde Fault Zone
' Distance to City Center in miles is shown in parentheses.
�nagc�t:�sc63o�sEcr�3.wrn»
(long period
motions impt.)
0.07-0.30g
0.11-0.30g
Whittier 5.9
Little known;
possible asso-
ciation w/
N57
Little known;
apparent asso-
ciation with
PVFZ
4.3-6
•
•
•
•
Subsidence
•
Metbane
•
Table 4.3.B - Liquefaction Susceptibility in Merged Project Area
Location Liquefaction Susceptibility
Huntington Center
Oakview
Talbert -Beach
Yorktown -lake
Main -Pier
High -Very High
High -Medium; Low
Low
Low
Very High, High Very High, High-Me-
diurn, Loco
Source: City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update EIR, July, 1995.
The oil fields in Huntington Beach are areas with subsidence potential; the
pattern and rate of subsidence (one to ten inches during 1976-1986) has been
documented in an area corresponding roughly to the limits of the Huntington
Beach Oil Field (Figure GS-S in the General Plan Update Ell , page 5.6-15) with
the maximum of approximately five feet located roughly at the corner of Golden
West Street and Pacific Coast Highway (Morton and others, 1976). Water flood-
ing injection has been used to stabilize this subsidence.
As identified earlier, the rate of subsidence was documented in an area corre-
sponding to the limits of the Huntington Beach Oil Field. Within the Merged
Project Area, Huntington Center and OakviCW are not within the Oil Field limits.
Subsidence of one to two inches has been documented in Talbert -Beach, three
to four inches in Yorktown -Lake and zero to three inches in Main -Pier.
As indicated in the General Plan Update EIR, Figure GS-9 (page 5.6-16),
Yodaown-lake and Main -Pier are within an area designated as a Methane Overlay
Districts AH oil fields are considered high risk areas for methane seepage; there-
fore, all areas that lie above or in the immediate vicinity of one of the identified
major oil field areas or drilling areas in the City ate potentially areas of con-
cern. Methane may also be trapped beneath impervious surfaces (e.g., parking
lots) or in enclosed underground areas (e.g., basements, subterranean garages,
tunnels), where concentrations may cause an explosion or hazardous breathing
conditions.
City of Huntington Beach, General Plus, Environmental Hazards Ele-
ment, 1996.
7/I896 1.-V 3Gb3fhFmt%SEGT4.3.WPDoP
4.3-7
Other Geologsc and Soils Engineering Hazards
F—%pansive Soils/Peat
As identified in Figure GS-10 in the General Plan Update ErR (page 5.6-17),
expansive soils exist throughout the City. The Merged Project Area is within the
low to moderate (6 percent-27 percent) and moderate to high (20 percent-42
percent) and variable expansive areas.
Landslides
As identified in the General Plan Update EIR (page 5_6-14), potential landslide
areas are limited to those area near the mesa bluffs. None of the Merged Project
Area is located in proximity to the mesa bluffs.
Erosion
Soil erosion in Huntington Beach ranges from a slight to a high hazard. With
proper ground cover and drainage controls, the erosion is minimized. The
seaward facing bluffs of Huntington Beach are subject to erosion during periods
of extremely high tides. If beach sand replenishment has not maintained an
adequately wide beach and the beach has narrowed due to the net loss of sand,
the bluffs would be susceptible to ocean flooding and wave erosion.
The potential for soil erosion in the Merged Project Area varies because the
perched (shallow) water table is high throughout the entire City. In addition,
most of the soils also cause water to percolate slowly downward into deeper
layers so any water entering the soil tends to remain fairly near the surface, or in
local ponds.
Overall, each of these other geologic and soils engineering hazards represents a
potential hazard that is routinely evaluated by standard soils and foundation
engineering and testing required by City of Huntington Beach grading and
building codes. These hazards are to be considered on a site specific basis as
projects within the various areas of the City are initiated.
4.3.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGAMCANCE
The General Plan Update EM (page 5.6-19) identified the following threshold of
significance to determine the potential impacts to earth resources that will be
used in this EIR as well. This threshold limit has been exceeded when:
Proposed land uses and development occur within areas directly associ-
ated with one or more major hazards identified in the General Plan.
These major hazards are identified above, are summarized from the General Plan
Update EIR, and are herein incorporated by reference.
7na96-1-1RSC,63oTM%SECr4.3.WPt)* 4.3-8
0 4.3.3 PROJEC7IMPACTS
Direct Impacts
Direct impacts are discussed for geotechnical properties of geologic units, near
surface water deptl4quefaction, faults/groundshaking, subsidence and methane
gas.
Geotecbnica4 Properties of Geologic Units
Expansive clays, weak and compressible peat and organic soils, and minor slope
instability are the main geotechnical issues relating to natural deposits within the
City. Landslides (including mudslides) in natural alluvial deposits occur on
slopes; these areas are subject to lateral and vertical ground displacement with,
or without, future development or disturbance. Such displacements may be a
few inches to several feet; any structure overlying or in the path of such a dis-
placement would be severely damaged or destroyed, with resultant loss of prop-
erty or of personal injury. Future construction of cut and fill slope, and place-
ment of structures, must be particularly careful of potential problems in these
areas. Within the Merged Project Area, this is a prime hazard of concern only
along the edges of the Huntington Beach mesas in the Main -Pies and Yorktown -
Lake and along drainages where slopes are oversteepened.
Due to the distance of the Merged Project Area from the Bolsa Chica and Hun-
tington Beach mesas and lack of proximity to drainages where slopes are
oversteepened, the Merged Project Area is identified as not being in an area of
concern. Only a small part of the northern tip of Main -Pier is in an area of high
slope instability. However, building codes, grading codes, and engineering
investigation report requirements are in place as safeguards to prevent unsafe
design and construction practices related to slope stability, and unsatisfactory
foundation conditions.
Near Surface Water Deptbasquefaction
Within the Merged Project Area, only Huntington Center and Main -Pier are
within potential liquefaction zones.
Near surface water can be a liquefaction and a construction hazard. Excavations
from the surface (open cuts and pits) or underground (tunnels, vertical large
diameter borings) can experience inflows of near surface water that may be
perched, and local or widespread in extent. The presence of this water can
affect excavation stability and, therefore, short-term and long-term safety for
workers, and post -construction stability of structures associated with the excava-
tion areas.
Uquefacrion can lend to severe settlement, lateral dislocation, uplift (heaving) of
buried structures and possible overturning of buildings. Although liquefaction
is one of the more widespread hazards affecting the City and the Merged Project
7na96«r:Vt5"3MEM6Ecr4-3 win- 4.3-9
Area, methods oast for safely designing and constructing facilities in liquefaction
prone areas.
Existing building codes, engineering investigation report requirements, and
generally accepted building and foundation engineering criteria for building in
liquefaction areas are in place to allow proper design and construction practices.
Although Huntington Center and Main -Pier are located in areas of high hquefac-
tion susceptibility, implementation of the mitigation treasures outlined in the
General Plan Update EIR and incorporated in the Environmental Hazardous
Element of the General Plan will reduce the effects of near surface wa-
ter/lique faction to a Ievel below significance.
Fault Rupture/Ground Shaking
The General Plan Update EIR reports that the Newport -Inglewood fault zone
may have the capability to break the ground surface during a major earthquake
associated with the zone. Other faults not exposed at the surface or not yet
propagated through the shallowest earth materials are at a lower risk for fault
rupture; however, localized uplift may still occur. The fault segment with
ground rupture potential may be expected to generate movements at the surface
ranging from a few inches to about six feet, most of which should be horizontal
offset; however, the vertical component may be several feet. More than several
inches of differential lateral or horizontal movement could cause severe, some-
times irreparable, damage to most structures (e.g., buildings, pipelines, bridges,
cables). The likely areas for fault rupture lie within about one-e*hth mile of the
mapped fault segments; the most likely are within the more restricted Alquist-
Priolo zones. Although the Newport -Inglewood fault underlies the City of Hun-
tington Beach, the General Plan Update EIR reports that the fault rupture zones
recommended by Leighton & Associates (1986) should be used as the best
available basis for evaluating potential rupture hazard. Yorktown -Lake is suscep-
ale to ground rupture impacts since a Fault Hazard Tone passes through the
project boundaries. The remainder of the Merged Project Area is not within
Fault Hazard Zones, but all of the Merged Project Area will be susceptible to
potential ground shaking effects associated with an earthquake.
Engineemg geologic and geotechnical engineering investigation report require-
ments arc in place to mandate special site specific studies as a means of mitipt-
ing for construction (usually avoidance). Implementation of policies incorpo-
rated into the Environmental Hazards Element of the General Plan policies will
reduce effects of fault rupture/ground shaking to a level below significance.
Subsidence
Subsidence can cause settlement of engineered structures built above oil fields,
potentially leading to distress to foundations and other structural elements. Also,
in these oil field areas the deeper materials may be conduits for methane gas (or
other gas) to seep into shallow deposits leading to accumulation of layers or
pockets within the construction zone, and potentially underground structures
(e.g., transit stations, basements, parking garages). The greatest concern for
7/2Ar96KL\RSG630XR%5ECT4.3.VTD - 4.3-10
subsidence is in the area of active oil fields. Although Yorktown -Like and Main -
Pier contain oil fields, the State Division of Oil, Gras, & Geothermal Resources
requirements, municipal and building codes, grading standards, and engineering
investigation report requirements are in place to mitigate against unsafe condi-
tions and promote sound construction practices. In addition, policies in the
Environmental Hazards Element of the General Plan will reduce effects of subsi-
dence to a level below significance.
Metbane Gas
Earth materials may become conduits for methane gas (or other gas) seeping
upward from these deep, petroleum rich formations or from shallow, organic
rich alluvial deposits. Methane may accumulate in layers or pockets within the
construction zone. Due to the location of Yorktown -lake and Main -Pier within
a Methane Overlay district, the likelihood of methane gas exposure during con-
struction is prominent. The General Plan Update EIR reports that City, State,
and federal regulations are in place to provide for safety in the presence of
methane and gas related gases during construction. Current City standards,
criteria, codes and policies provide a framework within which such assessments
can take place; however, they are not specified in the General Plan. These
policies provide for avoidance of the defined hazard areas. in addition, policies
in the Environmental Hazards Element of the General Plan will reduce effects of
methane gas exposure to a level below significance.
0 4 3.4 CCWULs77YE IMPACTS
0
The cumulative study area for this issue is the entire City and all foreseeable
projects contemplated by the City's recently adopted General Plan. As the
Merged Project Area is developed, the cumulative increase in the number of
persons exposed to geologic hazards increases. However, the increase in popu-
lation within the Merged Project Area and within the City as a whole does not
necessarily add people to a situation with any more risk than any other area in
Southern California.
The Amendment/Merger will not directly result in increased development in the
Merged Project Area (as addressed in the General Plan.) Future development in
Main -Pier and Yorktown -lake is the most sensitive in terms of geologic impacts,
and thus contributes to cumulative impacts. Although there is geologic hazards
exposure to the existing population and any future development occurring in
the Merged Project Area (as addressed in the General Plan), and the incorpora-
tion implementation of the policies in the General Plan will mitigate the cumula-
tive impacts resulting horn geologic hazards to a level below significance.
WIth implementation of the policies contained in the Hazards Element and the
Land Use Element of the General Plan, effects resulting from geologic hazards
will be substantially reduced. The following General Plan policies are relevant to
the project.
7/1"6*LNRSG6W0 ERSECT4-3.WPD* 4.3-11
4.3.5 G NER.t r_ PLAN POLICIES 0
With implementation of the policies contained in the Hazards Element and the
Land Use Element of the General Plan, effects resulting from geologic hazards
will be substantially reduced. The following General Plan policies are relevant to
the project:
• Maintain a complete database of the location and distribution of seismic
and geologic hazards related to ground shaking, liquefaction, subsi-
dence, soil stability, slope stability and water table levels (Policy F.H
1.1.1).
• Require seismic/geologic assessment prior to construction in Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Policy EH 1.13).
• Requireappropriate engineering and building practices for all new struc-
tures to withstand groundshaking and liquefaction, as stated in the Uni-
form Building Code (UBC) (Policy EH 12.1).
• During major redevelopment or initial construction, require specific
measures to be taken by developers, builders or property owners in
flood prone areas to prevent or reduce damage from flood hazards and
the risks upon human safety (Policy EH 4.1.1).
• Identify tsunami and seiche susceptible areas, and require that specific
measures be taken by the developer, builder or property owner, during
major redevelopment or initial construction, to prevent or reduce dam-
age from these hazards and the risks upon human safety (Policy EH
S 1.1).
• Support land use patterns, zoning ordinances, and locational criteria that
prohibit development in hazard areas, or which significantly reduce risk
from seismic hazards (Policy F.H 1.1.2).
• Evaluate the levels of risk based on the nature of the hazards and assess
acceptable risk based on the human, property, and social structure dam-
age compared to the cost of corrective measures to mitigate or prevent
damage (Policy IX 1.1.4).
• Establish specific priorities for improvement of existing structures based
on hazard to life, type of occupancy, method of construction, physical
condition, and Iocation (Policy EH 12..2).
• Require that earthquake survival and efficient post disaster functioning
be a primary concern in the siting, design, construction, operations, and
retrofitting standards for critical, essential, and high occupancy facilities,
including public safety facilities. Define critical essential, high occupancy
facilities, and public safety facilities elsewhere in the Draft General Plan
(Policy EH 13.4). 0
7na�96•t \RSCAP-Z\ZMSrcr4s.VPI)• 4.3-12
• Encourage property owners to take adequate steps to protect their prop-
erty against economic risks of seismic and geologic hazards (Policy FJf
13.5)
• Minimize bluff and mesa edge erosion (Policy EH 2.1.1).
• Maintain and revise as necessary standards of construction within identi-
fied Methane Zones (PolicyEH3.2.1).
• Establish, enforce, and periodically update testing requirements for sites
proposed for new construction within the identified Methane Overlay
District (Policy EH3.2.2).
• Provide mitigation measures and other assistance intended to reduce the
potential for the buildup of methane with existing buildings (residences
and businesses) (PolicyEH32.3).
• Remain current on new technologies, policies and procedures to further
protect against a major methane -related catastrophe (Policy EH3.2.4).
• Conduct periodic training of Fire Department and other appropriate
emergency personnel on procedures in the Methane Hazards Mitigation
Plan (Policy EH33.3).
• Ensure that development shall not occur without providing for adequate
school facilities. Require that development impacts be reviewed by the
City with the developer and with the School Districts prior to project
review for determination of necessary mitigations to school impacts.
Require developers to meet with the appropriate school district with the
intent to mitigate the impact on school facilities, prior to project ap-
proval by the permitting City authority. Appropriate mitigation may
include, but not be limited to, use of existing facilities or surplus sites,
expansion of capacity at existing sites, construction of new facilities,
payment of fees, and reduction of densities (Policy LU2.1. 7).
General Plant Implementation Programs
implement the fault classification system suggested by Leighton & Associ-
ates (April 17, 1986) with regard to faults in the City susceptible to fault
rupture, and establish a study requirement based on risk and structure
importance (Program I-EF-43,1).
Use the EHE and the data from items a) and b) above to prepare and
submit a formal update of the seismic safety components of the Safety
Element requirement (Program I-EH1,C).
• That proposed critical, essential, and high occupancy facilities be subject
to seismic review, including detailed site investigations for faulting, lique-
faction, ground motion characteristics, and slope stability, and applica-
7naga«t:vtsc.63a\E=Ecr4-3.W?D • 4.3-13
tion of the most current professional standards for seismic design (Pro-
gram I-EM4) . 0
Conduct, prepare, and/or update the following as funding permits;
A Methane Hazards Guidance manual, which will be available to emer-
gency personnel, developers and consultants in order to ensure the
minimum proper guidance for all occurrences. Topics shall include, but
not necessarily be limited to, methane overlay districts, standards of
construction, definition of additional harunds areas, and hazard mitiga-
tion. This manual shall be available at the permit stage prior to initial
feasibility and design studies in order to enhance (streamline) the devel-
opment review and environmental review processes (Program I-EMI,A).
Request that the Orange County Surveyor update its Subsidence Book
report through 1993 for the Pacific Coast Highway, Huntington Beach
Pump station, and Huntington Beach. The City shall perform an evalua-
tion of the data to assess possible subsidence at the oil field and drilling
areas underlying the City. Based on the results of this evaluation, a miti-
gation program for reducing the potential hazards shall be prepared for
use by the City (Program I-F.1HI,4).
4.3.6 MrHGA27ON 3LEASVRES
Mitigation measures are not required. 0
4.3.7 LEVEL OF LNPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFTER h=GA77ON
With implementation of the General Plan policies identified above, the effects of
geologic hazards within the Merged Project Area are reduced to the greatest
extent feasible and impacts are reduced to a level that is less than significant.
•
7/1819&I.1RSG630N.tlhsEcr43 .vPDw 4.3-14
0 4.4 WATER QUALITY
This section provides an overview of the water resources identified within the
City of Huntington Beach in general, and as conditions apply to the Merged
Project Area. This section discusses potential impacts to those resources result-
ing from the Amendment/Merger. The information presented here is taken
primarily from the General Plan Update EIR and from reference documents
provided by ISA.
4.4.1 BUSTING ENVVZONMENFAL SE7MWG
Water resources relevant to the Merged Project Area include flood control chan-
nels, wetlands and the Pacific Ocean. These water resources serve a variety of
functions, including navigation, recreation, commercial and sport fishing, shell-
fish harvesting, and babitat for fish and wildlife. There are no water resources
within the Merged Project Area that are subject to any change resulting from the
Amendment/Merger, with the exception of flood control channels. The Pacific
Ocean and the Newland Street wetlands adjacent to Main -Pier will not be af-
fected.
The greatest threat of impact to water resources and of primary concern to water
quality within the City is pollution from urban areas. These substances enter
water bodies primarily through storm drains as a result of runoff and illegal
dumping. Because the Merged Project Area is nearly built out, and is of the same
urban character as the balance of the City, it already contributes to the urban
runoff pollution in the City of Huntington Beach, as reported in the General
Plaza Update Elfi.
Criteria for the protection of water quality of the various waters within the City
are established by the Santa'Ana River Basin Plan and the California Ocean Plan,
both of which are administered by the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB). These plaw provide both qualitative and quantitative objectives and
standards for protection of water quality throughout the region. In addition to
these water quality plans, the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program, implemented pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act, estab.
lishes strict limitations on point discharges of pollutants into the nations' waters.
The NPDE5 permit focuses on the elimination of illegal municipal and industrial
stormwater discharges into the County's stormwater drainage system, and the
implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs).
The SWRCB adopted a General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit (Gen-
eral Permit) pursuant to NPDFS requirements. This permit applies to all con-
struction activities resulting in a land disturbance of five acres or more. The
General Permit does not apply to those areas of land disturbance of less than five
acres. The general permit establishes criteria, for protection of receiving waters
during project construction.
The General Permit requires all owners of land where construction activity
occurs (dischargers) to:
7l19/96O.-\FS� EGT+4.VM) 4.4-1
Eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm server systems
and other waters of the nation (as identified on U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers maps),
2. Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP), and
3. Perform inspections of stormwater pollution prevention measures (con-
trol practices).
The General Permit authorizes the discharge of stormwater associated with
construction activfty from construction sites. However, it prohibits the discharge
of materials other than stormwater.
Within the Merged Project Area, NPDES permits are administered by the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The RWQCB relies on water quality
testing information from a number of County agencies that monitor water and
impacts of various water quality conditions. These permits and testing results
are required and are reviewed for all relevant projects in the Merged Project
Area.
4.4-2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGAWCANCE
Implementation of the AmendmentJMerger would result in a significant impact
to water quality if development results in either or both of the following:
Non-conformance with NPDES permitting regulations.
Production of significant sedimentation and siltation pollutant discharge
from construction projects.
Substantially degrade water quality.
4.4.3 PROJECT ZKPACTS
There are a number of water quality issues that are concerns within the City of
Huntington Beach- The most significant of these concerns affects the coastal
graters, bays, estuaries and wetlands, as well as the man-made lake features
located in the City's Central Park The Merged Project Area is not expected to
have land uses or activities that will contribute to the decline in water quality of
these resources. There are no plans to change land uses on the beach area,
which is the primary resource in the Merged Project Area.
Because the Merged Project Area is primarily built out and there is no new devel-
opment proposed with the Amendment/Merger, the Amendment/Merger is not
expected to stnificantly impact water quality. Future redevelopment within the
Merged Project Area will be subject to project specific water quality mitigation,
including compliance with the Drainage Area Master Plan prepared by the
County of Orange for compliance with municipal stormwater NPDES require-
7n9,96(¢:Vse63MEMS CT44-VM) 4.4-2
ments. In addition, compliance with General Plan policies enumerated in Sec-
tion 4.4.5, below, will ensure that there will be no significant impact on the
environment. General Platt policies and current City practices ensure compli-
ance with NPDES permitting regulations. Sedimentation and siltation pollution
discharge from construction impacts are controlled through the NPDES permit-
ting process. In conclusion, there are no significant impacts to water quality
from the Amendment/Merger.
Because of the citywide nature of these resources and the urban nature of the
City and the Merged Project Area, the cumulative study area is considered to be
the City itself. As stated above, the Merged Project Area is primarily built out
with urban uses. The relatively small amount of infill projected for the Merged
Project Area (see Section 4.1, Land Use) and required compliance with NPDES
and other existing mitigation (see Section 4.4.5, below) reduces impacts to a
level that is less than significant. No cumulative impacts to water resources
within the City of Huntington Beach or surrounding areas are expected to occur
as a result of the Amendment/Merger.
Several policies included in the General Plan will assist in munimizing the poten-
tial impact on water resources.
0 4.4.5 GEIVERAL PLAN POLICIES
The General Plan includes several policies contained in. the Environmental
Resources/Conservation Element and Utilities Element of the General Plan to
reduce water quality impacts that are relevant to the Amendment/Merger. The
applicable policies are as follows:
• Improve infrastructure that would prevent sewage system failures that
may result in the discharge of untreated sewage and, consequently, in
the closure of beaches and Huntington Harbour (Policy ERC 2.224).
• Require that permits for mineraVoil reclamation projects specify compli-
ance with State, federal and local standards and attainment programs
'with respect to air quality, protection of rare, threatened or endangered
species, conservation of water quality, watersheds and basins, and ero-
sion protection (Policy ERC3.2.2).
Continually monttor the impleutentation and enforcement of water
quality regulations by appropriate County, State and federal agencies to
prevent additional pollution of the City's aquatic and intertidal environ-
ments (Policy ERC51.1).
• Continue to evaluate and mitigate the effects of domestic and industrial
wastes on living marine resources, through the conduct of objective
biological studies performed by appropriate regulatory agencies and
implementation of recommended mitigation measures by Property own-
7n9,9C�-\sc,65MVR,SEcr4-4.Vvi 4.4-3
ers or facility operators, to ensure the protection and viability of these
biological communities (Policy ERC5.1.2).
Continue to work with the Orange County Environmental Management
Agency on the draft countywide ordinance, which will require (Policy U
2.3.2):
All applicable industries and businesses to obtain sewer discharge
permits;
b. Elimination of illegal and illicit stormwater discharges;
C. A reduction of point source pollutants;
d. The use of Hest Management Practices by businesses in the City;
and
C. The implementation of all NPDES and SCAQMD regulations.
Until such ordinance is adopted, the City will ensure appropriate en-
forcement procedures are taken against pollution as set forth in the draft
countywide ordinance.
Require efforts which reduce urban storm water, including the (Policy
ERC 2.1.18) :
a. Use of the best available runoff control management techniques
in new development, including the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System Standards (NPDES);
b. Adoption of guidelines to reduce runoff from construction sites;
these implementation guidelines will be developed with the
guidance and approval of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality
Control Board and the State Water Resources Control Board; -
C. Establishment of runoff controls for soils removed in restoration
and/or remediation of oil sites; and
d. Development of plans to modify flood control channels that
empty into the Bolsa China, Huntington Beacb Wetlands and
beach areas; these modifications should enhance the upstre2m
ability to remove harmful constituents from runoff before enter-
ing the wetlands, while not altering their flood control ability.
Implementation Programs
Continue to expand the following programs (Program 1-UI B):
The NPDES, as appropriate, which includes: 0
7/19r9b(I:VtSG63Q1EWsECr44 VM) 4.4-4
- Adopting an ordinance patterned after the countywide ordinance
requiring industries and businesses, and construction actin Ues
larger dean five acres to obtain regulatory permits for pollution
runoff control;
Adopting a drainage area management plan for the City to con-
trol pollution runoff; and
Performing a reconnaissance survey of the discharges to elimi-
nate illegal and illicit surface water and groundwater discharges;
• Public education promoting water conservation;
• Water use audits for all City owned buildings. The audit programs shall
identify levels of existing water use and potential conservation measures;
• The Green Acres and other reclaimed water prograrns; and
• Loral, State, and federal requirements mandated by SCAQMD. Consider
assessing fees, where appropriate, to offset implementation costs.
4.4.6 M=GAITON MEASURES
0 None required.
•
4.4.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE ARER MITIGATION
Implementation of applicable General Plan policies will minimize Amendment/
Merger impacts on water quality, resulting in impacts that are less than signifi-
cant.
7119N6(LAMG630JZrSFC ".WM) 4.4-5
4.5 AIR QUALITY
4.5.1 E USTTNG E TMONMENTAL SErmG
Meteorology/Climate
The Merged Project Area is located in the City of Huntington Beach, which is
within the South Coast Air Basin. The local climate is dominated by the strength
and position of the semi -permanent high pressure center over the Pacific Ocean
near Hawaii. This high pressure center results in cool summers, mild winters,
and infrequent rainfall. It also drives the cool, daytime breezes, maintaining
comfortable humidities and ample sunshine. These same atmospheric processes
that create a desirable living climate restrict the dispersion of air pollution.
Coastal areas (such as Huntington Beach), however, typically experience very
little unhealthy air quality often found in other parts of the air basin.
Based on data obtained through the South Coast Air Quality Management Dis-
trict (SCAQMD) (1980), temperatures in the coastal portions of Orange County
average 61°F, with average summer temperatures of approximately 68 to 71°F
and average winter temperatures of approximately 51 to 53"F. Rainfall averages
around 12 inches per year in the coastal areas. In contrast to a very steady pat-
tern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable, with most
rain falling from November through April.
On -shore winds across the south coastal region are from a westerly and south-
westerly direction during the day; easterly or northeasterly breezes predominate
at night. Wind speed tends to be somewhat greater during the dry summer
months than during the rainy winter season.
Periods of air stagnation may occur, both in the morning and evening hours
between the periods of dominant air flow. These periods of stagnation are one
of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. Surface
high pressure systems over the Great Basin, combined with other meteorological
conditions, can result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds during the
winter and fall months. These winds normally last for a few days before predom-
inant meteorological conditions are reestablished.
Within the South Coast Air Basin, two types of inversions occur. Radiational
inversions are produced by offshore descending air Sows and nighttime
radiational cooling. For the most part, these inversions are dry because of the
continental origin of the air masses involved. However, with high surface hu-
midity, there can be patchy late night and early morning fog or widespread
dense fog lasting several days. Marine/subsidence inversions serve to cap the
surface marine layer and serve as a barrier to vertical mixing because air that
pushes through the inversion base is heavier than the air in the inversion and
returns to equMrlum by sinking below the base. The combination of winds and
inversions, coupled with their seasonality, lead to the degraded air quality in
summer and the generally good air quality in the winter in the ais basin.
7n9j9&z mZMsEcr4-s VPID* 4.5-1
0 Regulatory Background
Federal Regulations/Standards
The passage of the Federal Air Quality Act of 1967, subsequently known as the
Clean Air Act (or CAA), provided the first national program to control pollution
from automobiles and stationary sources. National Ambient Air Quality Stan-
dards (NMQS) were subsequently established under the Clean Air Act Amend-
ment (CAAA) of 1971. These air quality standards are classified as either primary,
which seek to protect human health, or secondary, which are designed to pro-
tect not only human health but property, the appearance of the air, and re-
sources such as crops, wildlife, and vegetation.
States could -adopt the federal standards as promulgated, but retained the option
to adopt more stringent standards and/or include other pollutants. California
began setting air quality standards in 1969 with the passage of the Mulford -
Carrell Act, before NAAQS were established; California standards are more strin-
gent than federal standards. The State and federal standards are listed in Table
4.5 -A. Note that, in addition to its more stringent ambient air quality standards,
California uses more stringent regulations than the federal government for
vehicle emissions, under a program administered by the GARB. In addition to
the sit criteria pollutants covered by the NAAQS, there are California Ambient Air
Quality Standards (CAAQS) for sulfites, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and
visit ility reducing particles. These standards are shown in Table 4.5A.
These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate
margin of safety, to protect the public health and welbre. They are designed to
protect those "sensitive receptors" most susceptible to respiratory distress, such
as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by
other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. A
description of each pollutant type and its effects is included in Table 4.5.B.
Congmss amended the CAA in 1977 to require the identification of areas that did
not meet the NAAQS. A "nonattainmene plan showing how the standards would
be met by 1982 was required for each area failing to meet the standard. Because
some areas in California could not attain the standards by 1982, the State was
granted an extension to 1987. In November, 1990, Congress again enacted a
series of amendments to the CAA intended to intensify air pollution control
efforts across the nation. One of the primary goals of the 1990 amendments was
to overhaul the planning provisions for those arras that did not meet NAAQS.
Not satisfied with the progress of the local actions, public interest groups suc-
cessfully challenged EPA's decision not to disapprove respective 1982 State
plans, and sought orders requiring EPA to promulgate Federal Implementation
Plans (%TPs). Pursuant to the amendments of 1990, EPA argued that it no longer
had an obligation to issue FIPs because Congress had established comprehensive
new State planning requirements and attainment deadlines. Subsequently, the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California agreed with the EPA, and
effectively vacated the orders for both the South Coast and Ventura FIPs. How-
ever, the District Court for the Easter a District concluded that the FIP obligation
remained, as did the U.S. Court of Appeals.
7J]9,9s L1RSG630WWEcr4-5.WPD* 4.5-2
Table 4.5-A - Ambient Air QunUty Standards
California Standardsl Feclernl Standnrds2
Pollutant Averaging Time ConcentratioW Method4 Primary" , Secoadnry3.6 - - Method4.7
0.09 m (180 Ultraviolet Pho- 0.12 ppm (235 Same as Primary Ethylene Chemilumines-
Ozone I Hour ug/m�1 tometry ug/m ) Std. cence
8 Hour 94PPm (10 mg/- 9.1 ppm (10 mg1-
m Non -dispersive m
Carbon Mon- ) Infrared Sppectros- ) Same as Primary Nan -dispersive Infrared
oxide I Hour 2gfpm (23 mg/- copy (ND1R) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) Stds. Spectroscopy (NDIft)
Annual Average --- Gras Phase 0.05�4 ppm (100
uPrimary $/m ) Same as Prima Gas Phase Chemiluml-
oxide en Di- I Hour 025
2 ppm (470 cc emiluminescen --- Std. nescence
m))
Annual Average 0.93 ppm (80 ug/- -_-
m
Sulfur Dlox- Ultraviolet Fluo- Pararosanilinc
ide 24 Hour 0.05 gpme (131 rescence 0� Qpm (365 �-
ug/m )
Annual Geomet- 30 µg/m3 Size Selective Inlet
ric Mean High Volume
Suspended Sampler and
Particulate 24 Hour 50 ug/m3 Gravimetric Mal- 150 ug/m3
Matter (PM10) 'i'sis Same as Primary Inertial Separation and
Annual Arithme- _-_ --- 50 ug/m3 Stds. Gravimetric Analysis
tic Mean
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 ug/m3 Turbidimetric Dar- -,- ---
ium Sulfate
30 Day Average 1.5 uWim3 Atomic Absorp-
Lead tion 3 Same as Primary Atomic Absorption
Calendar Quarter --- 1.5 ug/m Std.
Visibility Re- In sufficient at�unt to reduce the re-
iles
ducing Parti. 1 observation when he visibility'
humidity is less1than-
cles 70 percent
Source: California Air Resources Board, California Air Quality Data for 1994.
7119/96 1nRSGGj�tigSEGT4•S.vW1]y
4.5-3
California Standards Federal Standards
i Pollutant Averaging Time Concentration Method PrImarY315 SecoadarY3,6 Method4'7
t Note: Table prepared in accordance with CARB Fact Sheet 38 (revised 7/88).
t California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 hour and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, and PMto suspended
particulate matter are values that are not to be exceeded.
2 National standards, other than ozone and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means, are not to be exceeded more than once a year.
The ozone standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above the standard
is equal to or less than one.
3 Concentration expressed first in units In which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given In parentheses are based on a reference temperature of 25°
C and a reference concentration of 760 mm of mercury (1,013.2 millibar); ppm in this table refers to parts per million by volume, or micromoles of
pollutant per mole of gas.
4 Any equivalent procedure that can be shown to the satisfaction of the Air Resources 002rd to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality
standard may be used.
s National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. Each state must attain the
primary standards no later than three years after that state's implementation plan is approved by the EPA.
6 National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a
pollutant. Each state must attain the secondary standards within a "reasonable time' after the implementation plan is approved by the EPA.
7 Reference method as described by the EPA. An "equivalent method" of measurement may be used but must have a "consistent relationship to the
reference method" and must be approved by the EPA.
6 At locations where the State standards for ozone and/or suspended particulate matter are violated. National standards apply elsewhere.
9 Prevailing visibility is defined as the greatest visibility attained or surpassed around at least half of the horizon circle, but not necessarily in continuous
sectors.
7/19A6«1.Vtsc630\II secT4-$.ViWPD*
4.5-4
Table 4.5.8 -Air Pollutant Descriptions and Effects
Pollutant
Deiwtl_on
Source w
Associated Damage
Suspended Particu-
Solid and liquid particulates of
Combustion sources, cars, Industry
Aggravates chronic lung disease,
lates
soot, dust, aerosols, and fumes
process losses, fugitive dust, field
heart and lung disease symptoms
ranging from 0.01 to 100 microns
and slash burning, and natural
(especially PM,,; the portion less
and averaging about Z microns In
sources, such as ocean spray and
than 10 microns or 0.0004 inches
size (1 micron - 1/2,540 inch)
wind -raised dust
In diameter); causes material dam-
age and visibility reduction
Sulfur Dioxide
A colorless, pungent, irritating
Oil and coal combustion and indus-
Aggravates asthma, heart, and lung
(SO2)
gas
try process losses
disease In the elderly; irritates
lungs, corrosive to metals and Mr-
ble; causes plant damage
Carbon Monoxide
A colorless, odorless gas that Is
Incomplete combustion sources,
Interfere with the blood's ability to
(CO)
highly toxic
mostly cars
carry oxygen, causing heart diffi-
culties In those with chronic dis-
eases; reduces lung capacity; Im-
pairs mental abilities
Photochemical Oxi-
Mostly consists of ozone, which is
Photochemical processes in the
Irritates eyes, causes damage to
dants (ozone)
a toxic gas
atmosphere by reaction between
lung tissue, and impairs lung func-
oxides of nitrogen and hydrocar-
tions; causes material and plant
bons in the presence of sunlight
damage
Nitrogen Dioxide
A reddish -brown gas, toxic in
Conversion of nitric oxide (from
Increases chronic bronchitis and
(NOZ)
high concentrations
autos and combustion sources) and
irritates lungs
industrial sources
Nonmethane Hy- A large family of compounds con- Autos, evaporative fuel and solvent Participates In oxidant formation
drocarbons sisting of hydrogen and carbon losses, and industry and combus- and causes plant damage (methane
tion processes Is produced naturally by decay or
organic matter and Is not signifi-
cant in oxidant formation)
Source; South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Handbook.
Note: In this document, the terms nonmethane hydrocarbons (HC), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), reactive organic com-
pounds (ROC), and reactive organic gases (ROG) are used synonymously.
7A9N6«1oWSG630r1EMECr4-5WPD» 4.5-5
0 0 0
Neither the proposed nor the final FIN relieve the State and local agencies of
their continuing responsibilities to comply with the requirements of the 1990
CAAA, and these agencies were still required to submit their own ozone attain-
ment plans in the form of State implementation Plans (or SIPS) by November,
1994.
State Regul ims/Standards
The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was most recently revised in 1994.
This revision of the AQMP is designed to satisfy the planning requirements of
both the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. Requirements to
meet the federal CAA required the inclusion of the following demonstrations or
plans:
An ozone attainment demonstration,
A post-1996 rate of progress demonstration, and
A PMlo State Implementation Plan that incorporates best available con-
trol measures for fugitive sources.
The 1994 revision is also designed to comply with State requirements. Accord-
ing to the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), districts must design their air quality
attainment plan to achieve a reduction in basinwide emissions of five percent or
more per year (or 15 percent or more in a three year period) for each
nonattainment pollutant (i.e., a criteria pollutant that is out of compliance with
federal or State standards), or its precursors (i.e., those pollutants that undergo
reaction to become criteria pollutants). For emission reduction accounting
purposes, the CARB has established a seven year initial reporting period from
1988 to 1994, with reporting intervals every three years thereafter. Therefore,
the 1994 AQMP must seek to achieve a 35 percent reduction for the initial pe-
riod and a 15 percent reduction for every subsequent interval.
The CCAA also acquires that the 1994 AQMP control measures reduce overall
population exposure to criteria pollutants, with a 40 percent reduction due by
the end of 1997 and a 50 percent reduction in 2000. This provision is applicable
to ozone, CO, and NO, in the Basin.
Baseline Air Quality
Existing levels of air quality near the Merged Project Area are best characterized
from ambient air quality measurements conducted by the SCAQMD at its Los
Alamitos and Costa Mesa monitoring stations. Although there are no known
data resources currently available through which differences can be demon-
strated, those portions of the Merged Project Area located in proximity to the
ocean would be expected to have better air quality than reported. Table 4.5.0
summarizes the SCAQMD data obtained at these two stations from 1990 through
1994.
7n9,96KLvisc630UWEcr4-5.vPD* 4.5-6
Table 4.5.0 - Air Quality Monitoring Summary for the Los Alamitos and
Costa Mesa Air Monitoring Stations
(Number of Daps Standards Were Exceeded and Maximum Levels During
Such Violations)
Pollutant/Standard
1990
1991
1922
1993
1994
Ozone
29
37
30
22
24
1 hour > 0.09 ppm
12
23
21
10
3
Ozone
7
10
9
4
5
1 hour > 0.12 ppm
3
5
3
1
0
Ozone
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.15
0.21
Marc. 1 hour conc. (ppm)
0.15
0.17
0.15
0.13
0.12
Carbon Monoxide
NM2
NM
NM
NM
0
8 hour ? 9.5 ppm
4
0
0
0
0
Carbon Monoxide
NM
NM
NM
NM
0
1 hour > 35 ppm
0
0
0
0
0
Carbon Monoxide
NM
NM
NM
NM
0
8 hour ? 9.1 ppm
5
0
1
0
0
Carbon Monoxide
NM
NM
NM
NM
0
1 hour > 20 ppm
0
0
0
0
0
Carbon Monoxide
NM
NM
NM
NM
12
Max. 1 hour conc. (ppm)
13
10
13
10
to
Carbon Monoxide
NM
NM
NM
NM
8.6
Max. 8 hour conc. (ppm)
10.7
8.1
9.1
7.3
7.9
Nitrogen Dioxide
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
1 hour > 0.25 ppm
0
0
0
0
03
The upper value represents the Los Alamitos station and the lower value
represents the Costa Mesa station. (Note that in 1994 the Los Alamitos
and Anaheim Stations were combined into the Central Orange County
Station.)
2 NM - Not monitored.
3 Does not include the entire 12 months and may not be representative.
7n9A6«1rRsc6-%antMI3Ecr4-5 V?D• 4.5-7
•
•
•
Pollutant/Standard .. _ _
19"
1221:_
1992
123
1994
Nitrogen Dioxide
NM
NM
NM
NM
0.19
Max. 1 hour conc. (ppm)
0.22
0.16
0.23
0.14
0.161
Total Suspended Particulates
103.4
79.6
63.8
56.8
63.5
Annual geometric mean
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Total Suspended Particulates
834
176
122
168
131
Max. 24 hour conc. (ug/m)
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Particulate Sulfate
0
0
0
0
0
24 hour > 25 ug/ml
NM
NM
NM
Nhi
NM
Particulate Sulfate
16.8
16.9
16.0
14.7
14.5
Max. 24 hour conc. (ug/m)
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Particulate lead
NM
NM
NM
0
0
1 Month y 1.5 A;4ntt
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Particulate Lead
NM
NM
NM
0.07
0.06
Max. Monthly (µ$/m)
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
inhalable Particulates (PMto)
NM
NM
NM
NM
11161
(exceedances/# samples)
24 hour > 50 µg/mt
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Inhalable Particulates (PMIO)
NM
NM
NM
NM
0161
(exceedancesr# samples)
24 hour > 150 µg/mt
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Inhalable Particulates (PM,,)
NM
NM
NM
NM
106
X= 24 hour conc. (wgAn )
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Pollution Data Monitor-
ing Summary Cards, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994.
The upper value represents the Los Alamitos station and the lower value
represents the Costa Mesa station. (Note that in 1994 the Los Alamitos
and Anaheim Stations were combined into the Central Orange County
Station)
2 NM - Not monitored.
3 Does not include the entire 12 months and may not be representative.
7/19, 96w1.VtSG630=W]!CF4-s.mr>. 4.5-8
1
As shown in Table 4.5.C, most pollutant species showed a marked reduction in
1993. Ozone IeveLs continue to exceed both the State and federal air quality
standards during portions of the year. Note that the two stations show consider-
able differences for ozone with the more coastal Costa Mesa station exhibiting far
fewer exceedances of both the State and federal standards. Both carbon monox-
ide and nitrogen dioxide exhibit this trend, with the coastal location showing
reduced concentrations. The standard for nitrogen dioxide has not been ex-
ceeded over the last five years. The eight hour State standard for carbon mon-
oxide was violated in both 1"0 and 1992; the federal standards was violated
only in 1990. The State PMIo particulate standard was violated approximately 18
percent of the time in 1994, the only year monitored at the Central Orange
County Station, but no violations of the federal standard were reported. Al-
though no monitoring for PMIo was conducted between 1990 and 1993, it is
reasonable to believe that the Static standard was exceeded during this time.
4.5.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGAMCAIVCE
In accordance With the methodology presented in the SCAQMD's CEQA Air
Quality Handbook (Handbook) (1993), both quantitative and qualitative stan-
dards are used to determine the significance of a project's air quality impacts.
These impacts are considered significant if they.
Result in emissions that exceed daily emission criteria established by the
SCAQMD and contained in the SCAQMD Handbook and presented be-
low:
construction
Pollutant
Daily Criteria
Quarterly Criteria
CO
550 lbs/day
24.75 ton/gtr
NO,
1001bs/d2y
2.5 tons/qtr
ROG
75 lbs/day
2.5 tons/qtr
SO=
150lbs/dap
6.75 tons/qtr
PMIo
150 Ibs/day
6.75 tons/qtr
Operations
Pollutant
Daily Criteria
CO
550 lbs/day
NO=
55 lbs/day
ROG
55 Ibs/day
SOz
150 Ibs/day
PMIo
150 lbs/day
7/19/9&1..Vt5G6301=EC-r4-s.WPQb 4.5-9
• Result in emissions that exceed State or federal air quality standards
(including CO hotspots),
Violate SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) or Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), or
Emission Ievels not in conformance with the Air Quality Management
Plan or other regional or local attainment plans.
4.5.3 PROJECT DfPACTS
Construction
Air quality impacts can be divided into both short term and long term. Short-
term impacts are usually associated with construction and grading activities.
Long-term impacts are typically associated with build out conditions. Although
most long-term emissions are due to increased automotive use, nominal emis-
sions are also associated with on -site combustion involved in both space and
water heating, and the off -site generation of electrical power used on site. Reac-
tive organic emissions ace also associated with the storage and dispensing of fuel.
Exhaust Emissions
Heavy equipment and materials deliveries would produce combustion pollut-
ants and fugitive dust at construction locations slated for redevelopment. ROG
emissions are also generated from the construction and refurbishment of asphalt
roads and from the application of paints and architectural coatings. These are
highly variable and dependant on the type of asphalt/coating used, its thiclmess,
and method of application, Because the level of construction to be performed at
any one time is unknown, the potential for construction impacts is based on a
qualitative analysis. However, to aid the regulatory agencies in the determina-
tion of the potential for significant impacts, quantitative values arc provided for
the construction of various types of land uses.
It is important to note that the Amendment/Merger will not result in any new
development that has not been anaiymd as part of the previous Redevelopment
Plans or the City's General Plan. The following information on construction
emissions is provided to address potential construction emissions of the Merged
Plan that are addressed in this EIiL These potential impacts have been previ-
ously addressed in the General Plan Update EUL
Because the Merged Project Area is to have a small amount of square footage and
number of homes constructed as part of the Amendment/Merger, and it is un-
known what level of construction could occur at any one time, this analysis fo-
cuses on the various emissions associated with the construction of the various
types of land uses. The quantities of emissions released can be estimated from
screening data presented by the SCAQMD in the Handbook and reproduced
here as Table 4.5.D. The daily emissions rate is then calculated as follows:
7n9HaLt:VtSG63UJMSECT4-5.WFD- 4.5-10
Table 4.5-D - Screening Table for Estimating Total Construction
Emissions)
Emission Factors
Unit of
(Lbs/Construction Period)
Land Use
Measure
CO
NO.,,.
ROG
PM,,
Residential
Single Family Housing
1,000 sq. it GFA2
75.62
347.74
23.66
24.69
Apartments
1,000 sq. ft GFA
70.22
322.9
21.97
22.93
Condominiums
1,000 sq. It GFA
68.06
312.97
21.3
22.22
Mobile Homes
1,000 sq. ft GFA
68.06
312.97
21.3
22.22
Education
Schools
1,000 sq. It GFA
150.16
690.52
46.99
49.03
Commercial
Business Park
1,000 sq. ft GFA
177.17
814.72
55.44
57.85
Day Care Center
1,000 sq. ft GFA
101.55
466.97
31.78
33.16
Discount Store
1,000 sq. ft GFA
101.55
466.97
31.78
33.16
Fast Food
1,000 sq. It GFA
101.55
466.97
31.78
33.16
Government Office Complex
1,000 sq. ft GFA
177.17
814.72
55.44
57.85
Hzrdware Store
1,000 sq. ft GFA
101.55
466.97
31.78
33.16
Hotel
1,000 sq. ft GFA
132.87
611.04
41.58
43.39
Medical Office
1,000 sq. It GFA
177.17
814.72
55.44
57.85
Motel
1,000 sq. ft GFA
132.87
611.04
41.59
43.39
Movie Theater
1,000 sq. ft GFA
101.55
466.97
31.78
33.16
Office
1,000 sq. ft GFA
177.17
814.72
55.44
57.85
Resort Hotel
1,000 sq. fit GFA
132.87
611.04
41.58
43.39
Restaurant
1,000 sq. ft GFA
101.55
466.97
31.78
33.16
Shopping Center
1,000 sq. ft GFA
101.55
466.97
31.78
33.16
Supermarket
1,000 sq. ft GFA
101.55
466.97
31.78
33-16
Industrial
All Major Uses
1,000 sq. It GFA
104.79
481.88
32.79
34-22
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Handbook.
I Construction emissions included on -site construction equipment and worker's travel.
2 GFA - Gross floor area.
7n9)9&Kt \RScs3aMtcr4-s -VPU- 4.5-11
•
•
•
•
•
1. The projects square footage is determined.
2. This area is then divided by 1,000.
3. This resultant value is multiplied by the emissions factors presented in
Table 4.5.13.
4. This value is then divided by the number of days necessary to construct
the project.
If this resultant value exceeds the daily emissions criteria, the project is deemed
to have a significant impact for daily emissions. This analysis is based on several
factors for the additional development in the Merged project Area.
With most construction utilizing diesel equipment, NO, is the limiting factor
because it has among the strictest criterion and is produced in the greatest qua-
ntities. Table 4.5.E lists the minimum construction period per 1,000 square feet
for those land uses identified in Table 4.5.D that are projected to remain within
the criteria levels.
Another way to gauge the potential daily impact from construction equipment is
to examine the maximum amount of equipment that can operate on a daily basis
before the daily threshold levels are exceeded. The Handbook presents these
data for screening purposes to determine whether a project is potentially signifi-
cant. 'These data are presented by equipment type in Table 4.5.F. Again, these
data are forsarening purposes, and individual projects should undergo analysis
to determine their emissions' contributions. Additionally, these data do not
include other emissions, such as worker commutes and haul trips, that must also
be considered in the daily threshold levels.
Based on these screening tables, it is noted that construction has the potential to
create short-term significant impacts, especially if more than one area is to un-
dergo construction simultaneously.
Fugft ive Dust
Site clearing, grading, equipment travel on unpaved surfaces, and demolition of
existing improvements will generate considerable quantities of fugitive dust, and
potentially asbestos, during the development of most projects. As with exhaust
emissions, the level of construction to be performed at any one time is un-
known.
AP42 (EPA 1985) estimates that each acre of had disturbed generates 1.2 tons
per month (110 pounds per day) of total suspended solids (or PM30) particulate
matter from dust lofting into the air. This value wdl vary with soil moisture, silt
content, wind speed, and several other factors. The unhealthful, regulated PM1e
fraction typically consists of about 45 percent of the PM30 or about 50 pounds
per acre disturbed per day. Based on these values, the grading of an area of
three acres would produce about 150 pounds of PM10 per day. Typical dust
7J19/9&LNF:SG630gM*ECT4-5 WPD*
4.5-12
Table 4.5-E - Screening Table for Estimating the Construction Period for
Various Land Uses That Will Remain
Within the Significance
Criteria'
Pounds of
NO,, per Unit
Days of
Land Use
Unit of Measure
of Measure
Construction2
Residential
Single Family Housing
1,000 sq. ft GFA3
347.74
3.5
Apartments
1,000 sq. ft GFA
322.90
3.2
Condominiums
1,000 sq. ft GFA
312.97
3.1
Mobile Homes
1,000 sq. ft GFA
312.97
3.1
Education
Schools
1,000 sq. ft GFA
690.52
6.9
Commercial
Business Park
1,000 sq. ft GFA
814.72
8.1
Dap Care
1,000 sq. ft GFA
466.97
4.7
Center
Discount Store
1,000 sq. ft GFA
466.97
4.7
Fast Food
1,000 sq. ft GFA
466.97
4.7
Government Office Complex
1,000 sq. ft GFA
814.72
8.1
Hardware Store
1,000 sq. ft GFA
466.97
4.7
Hotel
1,000 sq. ft GFA
611.04
6.1
Medical Office
1,000 sq. ft GFA
814.72
8.1
Motel
1,000 sq. ft GFA
611.04
6.1
Movie 'Theater
1,000 sq. ft GFA
466.97
4.7
Office
1,000 sq. ft GFA
814.72
8.1
Resort Hotel
1,000 sq. ft GFA
611.04
6.1
Restaurant
1,000 sq. ft GFA
466.97
4.7
Shopping Center
1,000 sq. ft GFA
466.97
4.7
Supermarket
1,000 sq. ft GFA
466.97
4.7
Industrial
All Major Uses
1,000 sq. ft GFA
481.88
4.8
1
2
3
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Handbook-
Construction emissions include on -site construction equipment and worker's travel.
Days of construction per unit of measure that will remain below the 100 pound per
day NO, criterion.
GFA - Gross floor area.
7/19,9&1.)FSCr0ME iti5£Cr4-5.Wrtb►
4.5-13
is
Table 4.5.F - Number of Pieces of Construction Equipment That Can Be
Operated on a Daily Basis
And Will Not Exceed the SCAQMD Daily
Significance
Threshold by Types
Gasoline
Diesel
Equipment Type
Powered
powered
- Determining Factor
Carbon w
Nitrogen
Monoxide Oxides Threshold
Threshold
(1001b/day)
(550 Lb/day)
Wheeled Loader
4
6
Wheeled Tractor
7
9
Roller
5
14
Fork Lift - 50 Hp
4
28
Fork Lift - 175 Hp
4+
8
Trucks (Off -highway)
_
3
Tracked Loader
_
15
Tracked Tractor
_
9
Scraper
_
3
Motor Grader
5+
17
Miscellaneous
4
7
•
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality
Handbook-
(+ - An additional piece of equipment its this category may be operated for four
hours or less per day and remain below the threshoId levels for this equipment
category.)
Based on 8 hours of operation per day at 100 percent load factor.
7/I90C6KL-•\RSC6304MUECT4-5.VTID-
4.5-14
Operations
control measures, as required under SCAQMD Rule 403 (Dust) will reduce
these values by about 50 percent, allowing the grading of an area of up to about
sbc acres per day. However, PMIO associated with equipment and vehicle travel
must also be considered, and the area that may be worked is reduced to about
five acres per day. Grading on a larger area would be expected to produce a
Significant impact.
In addition to degradation of the air quality, this dust creates a soiling nuisance
as it settles out on parked cars, landscaping, and other horizontal surfaces.
Regular watering and adherence to SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) and other
dust abatement procedures, typically implemented as a normal part of construc-
tion activity, will aide in the control of this nuisance; and any dust settlement
will result in an adverse, but not significant, air quality impact.
Contaminated Sails and Dusts
Another area of potential concern relates to the material contained within any
dust raised during construction activities. Although most dust created through
construction is inert, some of the Main -Pier and Yorktown areas has been used
to - Y, - ct crude oil. Petroleum residue, if present in the soil, could be stirred up
during grading operations. This residue acts as a binder to trap fine soil particles
that might otherwise escape into the air during handling. 'These larger particles
settle out of the air much more rapidly than unagglomerated particles, creating
a potentially, significant, localized health impact.
Along with contaminated soils, there is the potential to raise dust contaminated
with asbestos from any structures to be razed. This asbestos may occur in pipe
and -wall insulation, roofing and floor tiles, and acoustic ceiling treatment
Uncontrolled demolition of such a structure could release friable asbestos and
produce a localized health impact.
It is important to note that the Amendment/Merger will not result in any new
development that has not been analyzed as part of the previous Redevelopment
Plans or the City's General Plan. The following information on construction
emissions is provided to address potential construction emissions of the Merged
Project. These potential impacts have been previously addressed in the General
Plan Update EiR The Agency has not established firm development plans for the
Merged Project Area at this time; thus, this analysis is founded on projections
included in the General Plan. This analysis is based on the following additional
development in the Merged Project Area: 530 single family residential units, 80
multifimily units, 600 timesham/hotel rooms, 260,000 square feet of commercial
space, and 3,000 square feet of industrial uses.
7/19i9&L\R5G63ME=ECr4-5.VFD* 4.5-15
•
0 Fraject Vehicle Trips
Operational emissions impacts stem mainly from the use of motor vehicles;
nominal emissions are also associated with on -site combustion involved in both
space and water heating, and the off -site generation of electrical power used on -
site. Reactive organic emissions are also associated with the storage and dispen-
sation of fuel used in the operation of project related vehicles.
The Merged Project Area totals 619 acres, or approximately 3.5 percent of the
City's acreage. As with the City in general, proposed redevelopment will include
low, medium, and high density residential, commercial, and general industrial
land uses. The analysis is based on general factors for the various land uses; no
design details are available. Projected vehicle trips and associated mileage for
the project areas are included in Table 4.5.G.
Exbaust Emissions
Using vehicle trips and mileage predicted in Table 4.5.G, vehicle emissions were
developed using data included in the Handbook This analysis considers emis-
sions produced from vehicle travel, cold and hot starts and, for residential land
uses, diurnal emissions. Trucks are proportioned in accordance with ratios
projected in the Handbook. Emissions projected for vehicle use are included in
Table 4.5.H.
0 Secondary lmpacts
•
Other air quality impacts will also occur indirectly because of Merged Project
implementation. These indirect impacts, although individually small, can make
a substantial contribution to regional air quality when totaled for the County
overall. These secondary, impacts include:
Increased fossil fuel combustion in County power plants to produce
electrical energy used at the project site,
On -site combustion of natural gas used for heating, hot water, and cook-
ing, and
Increased evaporative emissions from storage and dispensation of fuel
for project related vehicles.
Each of these emissions sources is addressed below, and their daily contributions
are contained in Table 4.5.H.
7/3MOW] :1I-1063d1-MICI4.s WPD- 4.5-16
Table 4.5.G - Approximate Land Uses, Densities, and Dade Trips
from Estimated Projects Within the Amendment/Merger' 0
Trips per
Miles per
Total Miles
Land Use
Number
Trips
Dap
Trip
per Day
Single Family
530 units
12.0/unit
6,360
8.6
54,696
Residential
multifamily
80 units
84Amit
688
8.6
5,917
Residential
Tmaeshare/Hotel
600 rooms
3.16/unit
1,896
6.5
12,324
Commercial
260 ksg2
70/laq
18,200
6.8
123,760
Industrial
3Isq
13/ksq
39
11.3
441
Totals
---
--
27,183
197,138
Source: 1SA Associates, Inc-, 1996.
1 Based on best available information on potential projects that may be
related to or assisted by Agency activities.
2 ksq -1,000 square feet.
7/19R6-L-1RSG630MWECT4-5.WPD►
4.5-17
•
•
Table 4.5.H - Operational Emissions from Estimated Projects
Within the Amendment/Merger
c a -Site
Passenger
Electrical
Combustion of
Fuel
'Tout
F=issioa
Vehicles
Trucks
Generation
Natnral Gas
Dispensation
Emissions
Source
(Wdav)t
(Iblday]2
(Lb /dav)s
(Lb/dxvl�
(lb/day)
(Ibldav)
Carbon
2,311.3
410.3
7.0
4.6
NAS
2,733.2
Monoxide
Nitrogen
149.9
188.6
40.2
22.2
NA
400,9
Oxides (NOx
as NO2)
Reactive
60.2
50.0
0.3
1.2
14.7
126.4
Organics
Sulfur
19.3
13.4
4.2
NEG6
NA
36.9
Oxides (SOx
as SO.)
PM10
40.6
17.0
1.4
NEG
NA
71.6
Particulate
Matter
Source. LSAAssociates, Inc_, 1996.
1 Based upon 2009 emissions data. Emissions ate bused on the SCAQMD run of EMFAC7EP. Passenger
vehicles include 24,549 a" generting 175,453 miles per day -with 53.00 percent cold and 47.00 pez nt
hot starts and 100 percent hot soaps. Passenger vehicle etnissioas also include diurnal emissions for tovv
vehicles for each of the 610 residential units.
2 Based upon 2009 emissions data. Emissions am based on the SCAQMD run of EMFAC7EP. Truck
emissions include 3,034 trips generating 21,685 miles per dayvvith 51.73 percent cold and 48.27 percent
hot starts and 100 percent hot soaks. All vehicles arc assumed to navel at an average speed of 25 mph.
3 Includes the generation of 34.984 kilowatt-hours per day and emission factors presented in Table A9-11-B
of the Handbook.
4 Includes the combustion of 227,994 cubic feet of natural gas per day and emission factors presented in
Table A9-12-B of the Handbook
5 NA - Not applicable.
6 NEG - Negligible, value is less than 0.05 pound per day.
7n9)96xL4tS0630Mf ECr4-5.VFD- 4.5-18
Off -Site Electricity Generation Emissions
Each dwelling unit (including timeshare units) is anticipated to use
5,626.5 kilowatt-hours (kwh) per unit per year (SCAQMD, 1993). Based on the
occupancy of 610 units, annual electrical consumption is calculated at 3,432,165
kwh per year or 9,403 kwh per day.
The Handbook indicates that hotels consume 9.95 kwh per square foot per year.
This analysis assumes that each of the 600 timeshare/hotel rooms is 750 square
feet. The electrical use is then calculated at 4,477,500 kwh per year or 12,228
kwh per day.
Commercial and industrial land uses are more difficult to determine, as use
factors are dependent on the actual proposed land use as well as the square
footage developed. However, in accordance with current land uses described in
the General Plan, for the purposes of this analysis, commercial was divided into
the following:
Office
- 10.6 percent @ 12.95 kwh/sq ft year
Retail
- 67.4 percent @ 13.55 kwh/sq fttyear
Dining
- 4.8 percent @ 47.45 kwh/sq "ear
Food Sales
- 9.3 percent @ 53.30 kwh/sq "ear
Misc.
- 7.9 percent @ 10.50 kwb/sq Wye"
Based on the above, the average electrical consumption for commercial applica-
tions is 18.57 kwh per square foot per year. Using SCAQMD electrical use rates
presented in the Handbook, the approximately 260,000 square feet of new
commercial land uses are estimated to use 4,828,200 kwh per year or 13,228
kwh per day.
New industrial Land uses are estimated to occupy approximately 3,000 square
feet. While the Handbook does not give electrical use factors for industrial land
uses, it does present Factors for both warehousing and miscellaneous Land uses.
Because Warehousing makes up Iess than one percent of the total land use in the
City of Huntington Beach, all industrial uses are assigned the higher use rate for
miscellaneous land uses (Le.,10.5 kwh per square foot per year). Industrial land
uses are projected to Use 34,984 kwh per year or 86 kwh per day.
Total daily electrical consumption is estimated at 34,984 kwh per day. Emissions
produced in the generation of electrical energy are included in Table 4.5.H.
On -Site Gas Combustion Emissions
Per the SCAQMD, the consumption of natural gas is dependent on the type of
structure. According to the Handbook, each of the 530 projected single bmily
and 80 multifamily dwellings will use 6,665 and 4,011.5 cubic feet per month
per unit, respectively. If the 250 timeshare units art considered as multifimily
dwellings and the hotel units are also included, total residential natural gas use
is calculated at 6,013,370 cubic feet per month. Commercial applications are
estimated to use 2.9 cubic feet of natural gas per square foot of structure per
7n9/96rLVSG630MSECr4-5.VPD* 4.5-19
month for an additional 754,000 cubic feet per month or 25,133 cubic feet per
day. The Handbook estimates that industrial operations use 241,611 cubic feet
of natural gas per customer. No explanation is given as to the size or type of
customer. Assuming an average industrial customer at 10,000 square feet, the
3,000 square feet of projected industrial use would then use 72,483 cubic feet
per month or 2,416 cubic feet per day. Total natural gas consumption is esti-
mated at 227,994 cubic feet per day. Emissions for the combustion of this gas
are included in Table 4.5.H.
Increased Evaporative Emissions from the Storage and Dispensing of
Gasoline for Project Related Vehicles
As previously demonstrated, vehicle trips from the Merged Project are antici-
pated to generate 197,138 smiles per day. Of this travel, approximately 89 per-
cent (i.e., 175,453 miles) is projected to be passenger vehicles while the remain-
ing 11 percent (i.e., 21,685 miles) would be from trucks. Based 0112 projected
fuel consumption of 30 miles per gallon for passenger vehicles, 5,848 gallons of
gasoline would be consumed daily. Per AP-42, Section 4.4-14, the combined
vapor loss for underground tank filling, breathing, and fuel dispensing (includ-
ing spillage) is presented as 3.1 pounds per 1,000 gallons throughput. Using the
value of 5,848 gallons per day, volatile losses due to service station operations
are then calculated to be 14.6 pounds per day. This loss is shown in Table
4.5.H.
Heavy trucks typically require diesel fuel. These trucks are estimated at 6.7 miles
per gallon. Based on a total distance of 21,685 miles, 3,237 gallons of diesel
would be consumed on a daily basis. The storage and transfer of diesel are not
expected to add substantially to air emissions. AP42 lists transfer operations for
diesel loading from tank trucks as 0.03 pound per 1,000 gallons transferred.
Due to the low Reid vapor pressure of diesel, evaporative losses from on -site and
off -site diesel storage are even lower. However, the transfer of this fuel into
storage tanks will produce an additional 0.014 pound of ROG per 1,000 gallons.
Total daily diesel emissions are estimated at 0.1 pounds per day. These emis-
sions are also included in Table 4.5.H.
Total Emissions for Project Occupancy
Table 4.5.H presents the totaled emissions for vehicle travel, off -site electrical
power generation, natural gas combustion, and fuel evaporation. Note that
these emissions do not include any augmented vehicle trips associated with the
refurbishment of Huntington Beach Mall As presented in the table, the project
will produce amounts of CO, NO2, and ROG in excess of the SCAQMD signifi-
cance criteria. (Wben Huntington Center is considered, all emissions would be
greater than presented, but SOz and PN%0 zee still projected to remain below
their criteria values) This constitutes a significant adverse impact on air quality.
It is important to note that the Amendment/Merger will not result in any new
development that has not been analyzed as part of the previous redevelopment
plans or the City's General Plan. According to the General Plan Update EIR,
7/19196dcL-%MG630=8 SECTr4-5.VPry)� 4.5-20
future development allowed under the General Plan would generate an addi-
tional 151,775 pounds of carbon monoxide, 8,612 pounds of reactive organic
gases, 12,221 pounds of nitrogen oxides, 933 pounds of sulfur oxides and 2,200
pounds of fine particulate matter per day over current emission rates in the City.
These General Plan emission increases at General Plan build out exceed
SCAQMD's quantitative thresholds and therefore are considered to be significant.
Carbon Monoxide Mwroscale Analysts
As mentioned in Section 4.5.2, air quality impacts are significant if generated
emissions cause an excee&mce of any ambient air quality standards promulgated
at the State and the federal levels. This is demonstrated through a CO analysis.
Because CO does not readily dissipate into the air, it has the potential to stag-
nate, especially at congested intersections. Areas of localized CO concentrations
in excess of State or federal ambient air quality, levels am called botspots.
The General Plan Update predicts hotspotS at the five intersections reviewed.
These include Beach Boulevard at Ellis Avenue, Bohsa Avenue at Golden West
Street, Brookhurst Street at Hamilton Avenue, Golden West Street at Garfield
Avenue, and Warner Avenue at Bolsa Chica Street. Each of these intersections is
projected to operate at LOS E at build out, in the year 2010. Because traffic
originating from the Merged Project Arras is distributed throughout the City
circulation network, all intersections are relevant to the Merged Project Area.
Based on this premise, it is projected that any intersection operating at LOS E or
worse (and perhaps some major intersections that are projected to operate at
LOS D) would have the potential to create CO hotspots. These hotspots are
significant if they expose local receptors to concentrations in excess of either
State or federal ambient air quality standard levels. This potential for exposure is
ultimately dependant on the locations of proximate sensitive receptor locations.
Without accurate data as to the placement of redevelopment structures, it is not
possible to determine whether relocated residents would be exposed to
exceedances of the CO standards. Therefore, at this time the potential to expose
receptors to CO concentrations in excess of criteria levels is considered as a
potentially significant impact. Further analysis will be required as individual
projects undergo CEQA review prior to their construction. Those intersections
containing volumes of traffic sufficient to create significant hotspots in the
Merged Project Area will be mitigated on a project by project basis, potentially
reducing these impacts to a level that is less than significant.
Consistency witb ibe AQ"
CEQA requires that projects be consistent with the AQMP. A consistency deter-
mination plays an essential role in local agency project review by linking local
planning and unique individual projects to the AQMP in the following ways. It
fulfills the CEQA goal of fully informing local agency decision makers of the
environmental costs of the project under consideration at a stage early enough
to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It provides the local
agency with ongoing information assuring local decision makers that they are
making real contributions to clean air goals contained in the 1994 AQMP and
7/19/96RL• UJMMECT4-S VPr* 4.5-21
PMW Plan. Only new or amended General Plan Elements, Specific Plans, and
significantly unique projects need to undergo a consistency review. The reason
is that the AQMP strategy is based on projections from local General Plans.
Therefore, projects that are consistent with the local General Plan are considered
consistent with the air quality related regional plan.
The AmendmenVMerger will not require a General Plan update. Such an update
was recently completed (Envicom, 1995) and the updated General Plan was
found to be consistent with the AQMP. Because the recent update of the Gen-
eral Plan included the build out of the City, the build out of the Merged Project
Area was included in the analysis and is also consistent with the AQMP.
4.5.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The City's General Plan Update EIR, which assesses the build out of the City, of
which the Merged Project Area is a part, made the finding (page 5.4-16) that
future growth in the Northwest Orange County Subregion would result in fur-
ther increases in short-term construction, as well as long-term stationary and
non -stationary emissions. The General Plan Update E1R further stated that if this
growth is not accommodated within SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan or
adequately addressed by other jurisdictions' General Plans, attainment of State
and federal standards could be delayed and could result in a cumulatively signifi-
cant impact
The City's General Plan Update EIR made the following finding, which is re-
peated for this AmendmenT/Merger since the development is within the overall
General Plan build out: -
The level of development permitted under the Draft General Plan would
inevitably result in an increase in emissions concentrations that already
exceed State and federal standards. Although implementation of the
Draft General Plan's air quality element would serve to minimize this
increase, the presence of CO hotspots at busy traffic intersections may
never be fully mitigated. Consequently, air quality impacts are consid-
ered to be significant and unavoidable (Class 1), requiring a Statement of
Overriding Considerations to adopt the General Plan.
4.5.5 GEIVF.RAL PLAN POLICES
The General Plan Update EIR identifies several policies contained in the Air
Quality Element of the General Plan that will lessen air quality impacts resulting
from vehicle trips and reduce ambient CO concentrations.
In addition, the applicant shall provide mitigation for secondary source emis-
sions (Le., emissions associated with stationary sources within the development)
through the General Plan policies listed below. During development review and
prior to issuance of building permits, the City will assure confirmation that the
applicable General Plan Air Quality Element policies have been incorporated
into the redevelopment projects to the maximum extent feasible.
7/19A?6xl:\RSC-630\ZMSECT45.WPD- 4.5-22
These key policies provide a well rounded approach to reducing the potential
secondary impacts to air quality generated by the implementation of the Rede-
velopment Plan and subsequent build out of the redevelopment area. imple-
mentation of these policies serves to reduce the number of vehicle trips and
reduce ambient CO concentrations. The applicable policies are as follows:
• Encouragement of alternate work schedules (Policy AQ 1.1.1).
• Require all businesses and multiple tenant centers with 100 or more
employees to participate in a Transit Management Association or Organi-
zation (Policy AQ 1.I A.
• Encourage funding, research, implementation and evaluation of
telecommuting and teleconferencing (Policy AQ 1.1.,4).
• Encourage on -site day care facilities, on -site automated teller machines,
telecommuting and/or teleconferencing facilities (Policy AQ 1.1.5)
• Work with OCTA to expand the local transit service area and provide
more frequent service (Policy AQ 2.1.1).
• Require developers and encourage existing property owners of employ-
ment centers with 100 or more employees and major activity centers to
include transit amenities and access as an integrated part of their projects
(PolicyAQ 2.1.2).
• Encourage major commercial and industrial development projects lo-
cated along transit routes to include integrated transit access points in
the project design (Policy AQ 2.1.4).
• Require that employment centers with 100 or more employees increase
the availability and attractiveness of parlang spaces for vans and carpools
(Policy AQ 3.1.2).
• Encourage firms to offer alternative schedule work weeks to employees
who carpool (Policy AQ 3.1.3)•
• Encourage residential and commercial growth to occur in and around
existing activity centers and transportation corridors (PolicyAQ 5.1.1).
• Encourage commercial -residential mixed use development (Policy AQ
5.1.3)•
• Encourage dap care facilities to be located at work sites with 100 or more
employees (Policy AQ 5.1.4).
• Investigate the feasibility of providing new CLus 11 bike Lanes (Policy AQ
61.1).
• Continue to improve existing Class 11 bike lanes for bicycle travel (Policy
AQ 61-2). 0
7/i9A&Kt\i*G6w=,sEcT4-5.vFr• 4.5-23
• Encourage all new residential developments to incorporate pedestrian
paths to link the projects with adjacent developments and transit access
points (Policy AQ 6.1.3).
• Encourage commercial developments to provide facilities for employees
and patrons who bicycle to the sites (Policy AQ 6.1.4).
• Continue to implement the Traffic Signal Management Program and
synchronize all ocher traffic signals, when such technology becomes
economically feasible (Policy AQ 7.1.1 and 7.1.2).
• Encourage the provision of dedicated parking space with electrical out-
lets for electrical vehicles (Policy AQ 7.1..5).
• Convert city owned vehicles to alternative fuels as it becomes economi-
cally and technically feasible (Policy AQ 7.1.6).
• Require installation of temporary construction facilities and implementa-
tion of construction practices that minimize dirt and soil transfer onto
public roadways (PolicyAQ 8.1.2).
• Assure that sufficient buffer areas exist between a sensitive use and a
potential toxic emission source (Policy AQ 9.1.1).
• Require design features, operating procedures, preventative mainte-
nance, operator training and emergency response, planning to prevent
the release of toxic pollutants for applicable uses in all business park,
industrial parks and industrial designated areas (Policy AQ 91-2).
• Encourage retrofitting of energy conservation devices in existing devel-
opments (Policy AQ 10.1.2).
4.5.6 MMGA77ON KEASURES
The following recommendations will assist in reducing air quality impacts result-
ing from future development and redevelopment within the Merged Project
Area. The recommended mitigation measures are as follows:
Constractum Exbaust Emisnam
4.5-A Mitigation for both heavy equipment and vehicle travel is limited. How-
ever, exhaust emissions from construction equipment shall be controlled
by the applicant's contractor in a manner that is consistent with standard
mitigation measures provided within the AQMP, to the extent feasible.
The measures to be implemented are as follows:
• Use low emission on -site mobile construction equipment;
• Maintain equipment in tune, per manufacturer's specifications;
7n9/9&LWG63V=SEC 4-5 VPD- 4.5-24
• Use catalytic converters on gasoline powered equipment; 0
• Use reformulated, low -emissions diesel fuel;
• Substitute electric and gasoline powered equipment for diesel
powered equipment, where feasible;
Where applicable, do not leave equipment idling for prolonged
periods (i.e., more than fine minutes); and
• Curtail (cease or reduce) construction during periods of high
ambient pollutant concentrations (i.e., Stage 2 smog alerts).
The City shall verify use of the above measures during normal construc-
tion site inspections.
Fug ifive Drest
4.5-B The applicant shall implement standard mitigation measures in accor-
dance with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, to control fugitive dust emis-
sions and ensure that nuisance dust conditions do not occur during
construction. These measures may include the following:
• Spread soil binders on site, unpaved roads, and in parking areas;
• Water the site and equipment in the morning and evening;
• Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seed-
ing and watering;
• Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to ero-
sion over extended periods of time;
• Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed exca-
vated soil during and after the end of work periods;
• Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local
ordinances and use sound engineering practices;
• Restore landscaping and irrigation removed during construction,
in coordination with local public agencies;
• Sweep streets on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent
public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling;
• Suspend grading operations during high winds in accordance
with Rule 403 requirements;
• Wish off trucks leaving site;
L
7/19/96-I %xsc.63oER�sfCT4-s wrrn• 4.5-25
0 0 Maintain a minimum 12 inch freeboard ratio on haul trucks; and
Cover payloads on haul trucks using tarps or other suitable
means.
Volatile Organic Emiwions
4.5-C The application of paints and coatings and asphalt paving material will
raise significant quantities of VOC emissions during their application.
Where feasible, emulsified asphalt or asphaltic cement shall be
utilized. The use of rapid and medium cure cutback asphalt
should be avoided whenever possible.
Where feasible, low VOC paints, primers, and coatings, as well as
precoated materials, shall be specified.
Contaminated Soils and Dusts
4.5-D In larger areas of both surface and subsurface contamination, a site as-
sessment will be conducted before any construction takes place at that
locale. At locations where spillage of fluids from the petroleum extrac-
tion process has occurred, the soils will be remediated using appropriate
techniques. Removal of petroleum contamination will also alleviate the
generation of hydrogen sulfide and its attendant odor. These activities
would fall under the direction of both local and State agencies, which
would "sign off' on the remediation effort upon completion. If unfor-
seen areas of subsurface contamination are encountered during excava-
tion activities, these activities would be curtailed in this area until the
area could be evaluated and remediated as appropriate.
4.5-E Any structures to be demolished will have an asbestos survey performed
by personnel trained and certified in asbestos abatement. Any existing
asbestos will be removed and disposed in accordance with sound engi-
neering practice and federal regulations. implementation of these mea-
sures will reduce potentially significant contamination issues to a level
that is less than significant.
4.5.7 LEVEL OF ZNPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFM NITIGA770N
Implementation of the above mitigation measures will reduce the construction
air emission impacts to a level below significance. The measure with the greatest
potential to mitigate construction emissions to a level that is less than significant
will result from the phasing of construction such that major portions of the
Merged Project do riot overlap. Therefore, because all construction efforts
(including the refurbishment of the Huntington Beach Mall) are unlikely to
occur during the same time period and because the construction impacts will be
7n9,96«t)RSG630%VMEcr;-s Wrm. 4.5-26
temporary, it is anticipated that construction related impacts will be mitigated to
below a level of significance. 0
As stated in Section 4.5.4, Cumulatrve Impacts, cumulative impacts were de-
scribed in the General Plan Update EM. Because the AmendmenVMerger does
not change General Plan land uses or increase development intensity, there are
no additional impacts not previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EHL
'With implementation of required General Plan policies and the mitigation mea-
sures included in this section above, impacts are reduced to a Ievel that is less
than significant.
•
•
7l19/96ALAR5G6WMSECr4-5.WPDo► 4.5-27
0 4.6 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCUTATION
This Transportation and Circulation section is based on the analysis prepared for
the Huntington Beach General Plan Update EIR. Technical data for the General
Plan Update EIR are taken from a traffic report (dated October 24, 1994;
amended March 21, 1995) prepared by DKS Associates, on file with the City of
Huntington Beach Community Development Department. Major findings of the
study are summarized in this section of the EIR for the Amendment/Merger.
4.6.2 EXISTING FNMONMFIVTAL SE7I7NG
This section summarizes the circulation system infrastructure and its operating
conditions within the Merged project Area of the City of Huntington Beach. The
components of the circulation system in the Merged Project Area include the
following:
• Streets and Highways
• Transit Service
• Rail Systems
• Bicycle Routes.
The basic components of the Huntington Beach circulation system are described
below.
Streets and Hi
gbways
The roadways of the circulation system are classified according to their design
and operation. The roadways have been grouped into the following categories:
Freeway, Principal Arterial Street, Major Arterial Street, Primary Arterial Sweet,
Secondary Arterial Street and Collectors.
Figure 4.6.1- displays the City's eldsting circulation network and the Merged
Project Area. Table 4.6.A provides the existing design and capacity criteria for
the Citys network.
Table 4.6A - City of Huntington Beach
Design Criteria for Arterial Streets and Highways
unreal=UJn
Mc[imnm
Width
Maximum
Etfght of Wp
Car&tod�tsb
Number of
Medina width
Capaiiry at
a:ssifiation
(fact)
(feety
Lalaw
� (feed
LOS C (Ayn
Freewvy
Variable
Variable
4
Variable
55.000
Variable
Variable
6
Variable
100,000
Variable
Variable
a
Variable
135,000
prWidpal
NIA
IVA
a
14
60,000
Major
120
104
6
14
45,000
Primary
100
64
4
14
30.000
Secvx>darr
so
64
0
20,000
80
64
2
2
0
51000
Source: City of Huntington Beac]i. GPML July, 1995: Bruce Gilmer, Department of Public Worla.
7/1&96•F VS"3a+ EUMECT".Wrl)0• 4.6-1
a
2f ~
g W
m N
r—• W
I CH
Pacific
5`
jL'eg�en�d
• City Boundary
». q
Principal Arterial Street^
Major Arterial Street
�rr
� Primary Arterial Street
0
y'�
.•' Secondary Arterial Street
23 Collector Street
Santa Ana River Bridge Crossing
Redevelopment Project Areas
owor CGry of Iiatsbagton Bead Ducat of Convzoz ity Dawlopa rnt Geacral Plan
15196(RSG630)
1
WESTMWSTER
UC
.;. ®WWA
-----
HEIL
1
WARM
FOIJ
rM
LAIN
— — SLATER
'05
— w TALBfRT
—•�-Wus;
g
E34 ]Gay 1995.
1
• low,
� I
r
w i � T0�1'OyyN
AT1ANTA
COSTA
MESA
•
Is
Figure 4.6.1 •
/� scale in B Siles
p — Existing Network of
-J 1 1 0 os 1 4.6-2 Arterial Streets and Highways
0 Roadway Segment Cbaracteristics and Capacity
•
Table 4.6.B provides roadway characteristics for all arterial highways within the
study area relevant or proximate to the Merged Project Area. Characteristics are
for both directions of a roadway unless otherwise noted.
Roadway traffic operation is generally evaluated by the ratio of existing daily
traffic volumes to the daily roadway capacity. Capacity is measured in terms of
the ability of the street system to meet and serve the demands placed on it.
Average daily capacity is the theoretical maximum number of vehicles that can
pass over a segment of roadway in 24 hours. The rapacity of a roadway is af-
fected by a number of factors, including roadway type, street and lane widths,
the number of travel lanes, the number of crossing roadways, signal cycle length,
the absence or presence of on -street parking, the number of driveways, pave-
ment conditions and roadway design.
The County of Orange Growth Management Plan (GMP) Element of the General
Plan contains policies on the planning and provision of traffic improvements
necessary for orderly growth and development. The Traffic Level of Service
Policy sets, as general criteria, an operating Level of Service (LOS) of D for signal-
ized intersections, which would be a volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio of 0.90 or
less. The City of Huntington Beach accepted level of service value for arterial
lima is LOS C (a V/C ratio of 0.80 to 0.89). For signalized intersections, it is LOS
D. These values will be used to assess the adequacy of the circulation system.
Existing Parking Conditions
Parking in Huntington Beach consists of on -street parking, public lots, private
driveways, and private lots. Table 4.6.B identifies the on -street parking supply
for those streets in the Merged Project Area. Parking deficiencies have been a
controversy for many years in Main -Pier, especially in the downtown area near
Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway. However, several parking structures have
been added in the downtown area in recent years that have alleviated this prob-
lem. The City has adopted the Downtown Parking Master Plan, which includes
research and data showing that there is adequate parking in the downtown/pier
area for the development allowed in the Downtown Specific Plan.
Existing Daily Traffic Capacity Analysis
Exatiug daily traffic volumes along arterial streets are shown on Figure 4.6.2. An
analysis of daily operating conditions on the selected roadway segments was
conducted for the General Plan Update EIR, using the County of Orange and the
City of Huntington Beach Arterial ADT Capacities and Level of Service Assump-
tions. Table 4.6.0 includes a summary of existing roadway level of service (LOS).
7/1&96K1:VtSG630%EX%SEGT".WPD ► 4.6-3
Table 4.6.13- Existing Merged Project Area Roadway Characteristics
Existing Number
of Travel Lanes
Ultimate
Curb
Right
to -Curb
Median
N11 SB
Dike
Roadway Name From
To
of -Way
Width
Width
or ED or WB
Parking
lane
WarnerAve. Gothard St.
Beach Blvd.
12V
104'
14'
3
3
NP
N
Beach Blvd.
Newland St.
12V
104'
14'
3
3
NP
N
Atlanta Ave. Lake St.
1st St.
100'
84'
1
1
P
N
lot St.
Delaware St,
100'
84'
-
1
1
PN
N
Delaware St.
Beach Blvd.
100'
84'
-
2
2
P
N
Beach Blvd. 1.405
EdingerAve.
120
104'
14'
3
3
NP
N
Edinger Ave.
Hell Ave.
12W
104'
14'
3
3
NP
N
Hell Ave.
WarnerAve.
120'
w4'
14'
3
3
NP
N
WarnerAve.
Sister Ave.
12V
104'
14'
3
3
NP
N
Slater Ave.
Talbert Ave.
120'
I04'
14'
3
3
NP
N
Talbert Ave.
Lillis Ave.
120'
104'
14'
3
3
NP
N
Ellis Ave.
Garfield Ave.
12V
104'
14'
3
3
NP
N
Garfield Ave.
Yorktown Ave,
12W
104'
14'
3
3
NP
N
Yorktown Ave.
Adams Ave.
120
104'
14'
3
3
NP
N
Adams Ave.
Indianapolis Ave. 12W
104'
14'
3
3
NP
N
Indianapolis Ave.
Atlanta Ave.
120
104'
14'
3
3
NP
N
Atlanta Ave.
PCH
120'
104'
14'
3
3
PE
N
SIP ter Ave. Gothard St.
Beach Blvd.
80'
64'
14'
2
2
NP
Y
N/A - not available due to construction
PS - parallel
parking on south side of street only
Np - no parking
PE . parallel parking on cast side of street only
P • parallel parking on both sides allowed
PW - parallel
parking on west side
of street only
PN - parallel parking on north side of street only
AP - angle
parking on
both sides
7/1"6 1:1R.SG6341B1MECT4-6.WPD»
4.6-4
Table 4.6.191 (Continued)
Existing Number
of Trnvel Unes
Uilimate Curb
Right
to -Curb
Median
ND
SD
Me
Roadway Name
From
To
of -Way
Width
Width
or ED
or WI!
Parking
Irene
Talbert Ave.
Gothard St.
Beach Blvd.
100,
84'
-
2
2
P
Y
Yorktown Ave.
Golden West St.
Main St.
100'
84'
14'
2
2
P
Y
Main St.
lake St.
100'
84'
14'
2
2
NP
Y
Lake St.
Delaware St.
1W
84'
14'
2
2
PN
Y
Delaware St.
Beach Blvd.
100'
84'
2
2
NP
Y
6th. St.
PCH
Orange Ave.
loop
84'
-
1
1
P
N
1st St.
PCH
Atlants Ave.
1W
84'
1
1
P
Y
Orange Ave.
6th St.
Lake St.
loop
84'
-
1
12
P
N
PCH
17th St.
6th St.
120'
104'
14'
2
2
P
Y
6th St.
1st St.
120'
104'
I4'
2
2
P
Y
tat St.
Beach Blvd.
I20'
104'
I4'
2
2
P
Y
N/A - not available due to construction
NP- no parking
P - parallel parking on both sides allowed
PN . parallel parking on north side of street only
7/1%96«LARSG63t kZ=ECT4.6.WPD»
PS - parallel parking on south side of street only
PP - parallel parking on cast side of street only
PW - parallel parking on west side of street only
AP - angle parking on both sides
4.6-5
Table 4AH (Continued)
Existing Number
of Travel lanes
Ultimate Curb
Right
to -Curb
Media»
NIl
S11
(like
Roadway Name From
To
of -Way
Width
Width
or ED or VVB
Parking
Lane
Edinger Ave. Golden West St.
Gothard St.
100'
84'
14'
3
3
NP
Y
Gothard St.
Beach Blvd.
1W
84,
14,
3
3
NP
N
171h St. PC"
Orange Ave.
100'
84,
14,
1
1
P
Y
Palm Ave.
Main St.
100'
84'
14'
2
1
NP
Y
Main St. PCH
Walnut Ave.
100,
84'
-
1
1
AP
N
Walnut Ave.
Orange Ave.
100'
84'
-
1
1
AP
N
Orange Ave.
Palm Ave.
100'
84'
-
1
1
P
N
Palm Ave,
Adams Ave.
100,
84,
14'
1
1
P
N
Adams Ave.
17th St.
low
84,
14'
1
I
P
N
17th St.
Yorktown Ave.
100'
84,
14'
2
2
P
N
Yorktown Ave.
Garfield Ave.
100,
84,
14'
2
2
NP
N
k
i
Lake St. Orange Ave.
6th St.
100'
84'
1
1
P
Y
6th St.
Indianapolis Ave.
100'
84,
1
1
P
Y
Indianapolis Ave.
Adams Ave.
1W
84,
14,
1
1
P
Y
Adams Ave.
Yorktown Ave.
1W
84'
14,
1
1
P
Y
Source: City of Huntington peach, General flan Update M July, IM.
N/A - not available due to construction
PS -
parallel parking on south side of street only
NP- no parking
PB -
parallel parking on east side of street only
P - parallel parking on both sides allowed
PW -
parallel parking on west side of street only
PN - parallel parking on north side of street only AP -
angle
parking on both sides
7/1$96«1.\RSG630\EIMECT4.6.WPDL*
4 .G-6
y�
y
9.
U4
�j
N
Table 4.6.0 - Summary of Existing Roadway Level of Service
Roadway Capacities
Average
Daily
Roadway Segment
LOS A
LOS B
LOS C
LOS D
1.05 R
Traffic
LOS
Wsmer Avenue
Gothard St. - Beach Blvd.
33.900
39,400
45,000
50,600
56.300
34.000
R
Beach Blvd. - Newland St.
33,900
39,400
45,000
50,600
56.300
21,000
A
Slater Avenue
Gothard St. - Beach Blvd.
22,500
26,300
30,000
33,800
37,500
16.000
A
Beach Boulevard
PCH -Atlanta Ave.
33,900
39,400
45,0D0
50.600
56,300
28,000
A
Atlanta Ave. - Indianapolis Ave.
33,900
39.400
45,000
50,600
56,300
32,000
A
Indianapolis Ave. -Adams Ave.
33,900
39,400
45,000
50,600
56,300
40,000
C
Ads ins Ave. - Yorktown Ave.
33,900
39,400
45,000
50,600
56,300
44,000
C
Yorktown Ave. - Garfield Ave.
33,900
39,400
45,000
50,600
56.300
48,000
D
Garfield Ave. - Ellis Ave.
33.900
39.400
45.000
50,600
56,30D
58,000
F
Ellis Ave. - Talbert Ave.
33.900
39,400
45,OD0
50,600
56.300
60,000
F
Talbert Ave. - Slater Ave.
33,900
39,400
45,000
50,600
56.300
60,000
F
Slater Ave. - WamerAve.
33,900
39,400
45,000
50,600
56,300
62,000
F
Warner Ave. - Hell Ave.
33,900
39,400
45,000
50,600
56,300
62,000
F
Hell Ave. - Edinger Ave.
33,900
39,400
45,000
50,600
56,300
65,000
F
PCH
Golden West St. - Brookhurat St. 22,500 26,300 30,000 33.800 37,500 34,000 E
Edinger Avenue
Edwards St. - Golden West St.
33,900
39,400
45.000
50,600
56,300
24,000 A
Golden West St. - Gothard St.
33,900
39,400
45,000
50,600
56,300
39,000 B
Gothard St. - Beach Blvd.
33.900
39.400
45,000
50,600
56,300
39,000 B
Beach Blvd. - Newland St,
15,000
17,500
20,000
22,500
25,000
23,000 B
Talbert Ave.
Golden West St.-Gothard St.
15,000
17,500
20,000
22,500
25,000
5,000 A
Gothard St. - Beach Blvd.
15,000
17,500
20.000
22,500
25,000
10,000 A
17th Street
PCH - Orange Ave.
7,500
8,800
10,000
11,300
12,500
1,000 A
Palm Ave. - Main St.
11,250
13,150
15,000
16,900
18,750
11,000 A
7/19&6ul,1RSG6301EMSECT4.6.wPpa
4.6-8
•
0 0 0
Table 4AC (Continued)
Roadway Capacities
Average
Daily
Roadway Segment
LOS A
LOS 13
LOS C
1.03 D
I)OS B
Traffic
LOS
Main Street
PCH - Walnut Ave.
3,000
4,800
6,000
7,500
9,000
3.000
A
Walnut Ave. -Orange Ave.
3,000
4.800
6,000
7,500
9,000
4,000
B
Orange Ave, - 6th St.
3,000
4,800
6,000
7,500
9,000
4,000
A
6th St. -Adams Ave.
7,500
8,800
10,000
11.300
12,500
12,000
r
Ado msAve. - 17th,St.
7,500
8,800
10,000
11,300
12,500
15,000
F
17th St. - Yorktown Ave.
22,500
26,300
30,000
33.800
37,500
15,000
A
Yorktown Ave. - Garfield Ave.
22,500
26,300
30,000
33,800
37,500
12,000
A
Yorktown Avenue
Golden West St. - Beach Blvd.
15,000
17,500
20,000
22.500
25,000
15,000
A
Beach Blvd. - Magnolia St.
18,750
21,900
25,000
28,150
31,250
14,000
A
Magnolia St. - Bushsrd St.
22,500
26,300
30,000
33,800
37,500
11,000
A
Bush" St. - Ward St.
18,750
21,900
25,000
28,150
31,250
13,000
A
Orange Avenue
6th St. - lot St.
3,000
4,500
6,000
7,500
9,000
31000
A
Atlanta Avenue
lot St. - Besch Blvd.
7,500
8,800
10,000
11,300
12,500
10,000
C
Sources City of Huntington Beach, General Plan Update ElP, July, 1995.
7/1&"* i\RSG63d\RWECT4-6.WPD» 4,6-9
The rapid dispersement of traffic actually originating or ending in the Merged
Project Area allows focus on roadway conditions that serve the Merged Project
Area and roadways/mtersections immediately adjacent to the Merged Project
Area. Roadways relevant or proximate to the Merged Project Area are shown in
the tables. Existing daily volumes were compared to their roadway capacities to
arrive at the existing LOS of operation for these roadways. The following Merged
Project Area roadway segments are currently carrying traffic volumes in excess of
existing LOS C capacity:
• Beacb Boulevard: Yorktown Avenue to GarfreldAvenue (LOS D)
• Beach Boulevard Ga>feld Avenue to Ellis Avenue (ZOS F)
• Beach Boulevard. • Ellis Avenue to Talbert Avenue (LOS F)
• Beacb Boulevard Talbert Avenue to Slater Avenue (ZOS 19
• Beach Boulevard. Slater Avenue to Warner Avenue (LOS 1)
• Beach Boulevard.- Warner Avenue to Heil Avenue (ZOS F)
• Beach Boulevard: Heil Avenue to Edinger Avenue (LOS F)
• Pacific CoastHighway: Golden West Street to Brookburst Street (ZOS E)
• Main Street: 61b Street to Adams Avenue (ZOS E) .
• Main Street: Adams Avenue to 17tb Street (LOS F)
These roadway segments, which are operating at u.nsstisfactory levels of service,
are shown on Figure 4.6.3.
ExiWxg Intersection Capacity Analysis
Traffic volumes for each intersection were collected on a typical weekday during
a.m. and p.m. peak periods or obtained from the City's count program, County
of Orange's count program, Fuel Efficient Traffic Signal Management Program
(FETSIM) studies, or prior traffic analysis from other E VEIS reports.
The intersection capacity utilization (ICU) is the methodology employed to
determine operating Ievels of service (LOS) at the signalized intersections (see
Table T-5 from the General Plan Update EM). The ICU methodology is dis-
cussed in greater detail in Appendix D of the General Plan Update EIiL
Table 4.6.D displays the results of the LOS analysis for the intersections relevant
or proximate to the Merged Project Area for both a.m. and p.m. peak traffic
periods. Figure 4.6.3 also shows existing intersections operating at unsatisfac-
tory levels.
•
7/1&96-1:Vt5"SOgOt15ECT"' WPD- 4.6-10
yy
iLL5
wv38 pzl
1S3MN30M
SUklYM03'74i.
•
•
•
3gt�
83
/is8niom
a ativm
e
a!)YHSfiB ;
1
g V110MYN1,1,sso lose
to
•
[E=li>C
•
•
� 1
3 YOi)FAtldS l — -Y' •�
Dc
z
toDo
•••
J
*al
pp
[U
u. lit
in
N
Table 4.6.D - Existing A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS at Signalized
Intetsectfaas
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
r�
Intersect -ion
V/C Ratio
LOS
V/C Ratio
LOS
Edinger Ave. - Beath Blvd.
0.68
B
0.97
E
Warner Ave. -Beads Blvd.
0.81
D
1.02
F
Slater Ave. -Beach Blvd.
0.72
C
0.57
D
Ta lbert Ave. - Beads Blvd.
0.65
B
0.77
C
Adams Ave. - Beach Bhrd.
0.53
A
0.75
C
Adams Ave. - Bnaokhurst St.
0.74
C
0.89
D
PCH - Goldenwest St.
0.78
C
0.64
B
PCH - Beach Blvd
0.51
A
0.47
A
Source: City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Elk July. 1995.
•
7/18/9 _L RSG63vEw5XCT"-VPDa 4.6-12
•
Existing Transit and Nora -Motorized .Service
The General Plan Update EIR describes the various transit options available
throughout the City (see General Plan Update EIR, Appendix D), including bus
service by the Orange County Transportation Authority (formerly OCTD).
Congestion Management Program (CMP) and Transportation Demand
Management (72W)
In June of 1990, voters approved Proposition 111, which was a component of
the sic -bill Transportation and Rail Bond Fund package. Proposition 111 gener-
ated funds through a gasoline tax to fund various transportation improvements
throughout the State. Orange CounWs share of these gas tax subventions is
estimated at $1.7 billion over a ten-year period.
The Orange County Congestion Management Program has designated all State
Highways within Orange County and a set of principal arterials (SMART Streets)
as the CMP's system of highways. Beach Boulevard is benefitting from these
funding expenditures. Warner Avenue is planned for improvements under this
program. The CMP network within the City of Huntington Beach includes:
• Beach Boulevard
• WarnerAvenue
• Adams Avenue: Beach Boulevard to Harbor Boulevard
• Pacific Coast Highway: Warner Avenue to Interstate 405
• Bolsa Avenue
• Bolsa China Stint
In accordance with the CMP, the City has adopted a Transportation Demand
Management (MM) ordinance, established a Capital Improvement Program
(CIP), and a level of service (LOS) deficiency plan. The City's TDM regulations
apply to any discretionary permit for commercial, industrial, institutionaI, or
other uses that are determined to employ 100 or more persons. A description of
the full program is provided in the General Plan Update EIR, pages 5-3 to 5-35.
4.6.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The City's accepted level of service for arterial links is LOS C. Therefore, a signif-
icant adverse traffic impact would result if implementation of the Amendment/
Merger would result in level of service conditions of D or worse at any of the
study roadway links.
The City's accepted level of service for traffic signal controlled intersections is
LOS D. Therefare, a significant adverse traffic impact would occur if implemen-
tation of the Amendment/Merger would result in level of service conditions of E
or worse at any of the study intersections.
7/1"6KLWc63o,FW5fcT4-6.WPD► 4.6-13
4.6.3 PROJECT IMPACTS
This section addresses the future circulation system requirements, year 2010, for
the Merged Project Area based upon build out of the General Phu. Because the
project is an Amendment/Merger of existing Redevelopment Projects/Plans, and
the Amendment/Merger does not include any new development, there is no
analysis provided beyond reporting conditions crated at General Plan build out.
As stated in the Project Description, Section 3.0, all uses permitted in the Merged
Project Area are identical to those allowed by the General Plan. Therefore,
projected traffic conditions within and adjacent to the Merged Project have been
analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR, and impacts are identical to those
reported in the General Plan Update EM
Year 2010 Daily Traffic Capacity Analysis
Year 2010 daily traffic volume projections obtained from the General Plan Up.
date EIR arc based on the Santa Ana River Area (SARA) model.' Model results
have been compared to the anticipated future roadway capacities to determine
the volume to capacity ratios and the corresponding Ievel of service.
Review of Table 4.6.E shows that many of the roadway facilities within Hunting-
ton Beach are expected to operate better than LOS C. However, the following
roadway segments serving the Merged Project Area are expected to operate
worse than LOS C:
• Beacb Boulevard: Yorktown Avenue to Garfield Avenue (IOS D)
• Gotbard Street: Heil to Edinger Avenue (LOS F)
• Gotbard Street Edinger Avenue to Center Avenue (LOS E)
• Gotbard Street: Center Avenue to McFadden Avenue (LOS F)
• Orange Avenue: I7tb Street to 6tb Street (LOS D)
• Padfrc Coast HigbuM Warner Avenue to Golden West Street (LOS F)
• Pacific Coast Highway. Delaware Street to Beacb Boulevard (LOS D) .
Year 2010 Intersection Capacity Analyses
Intersection capacity analysis was conducted for the year 2010 scenario for 32
key intersections within the City. Year 2010 turning movement counts were
extracted bom the SARA model and were refined by Robert Kahn, John Bain and
Associates. Table 4.6.F shows the results of the level of service analyses and
Figure 4.6.4 shows the intersection locations that are operating worse than LOS
D, which are outside of the Merged Project. Intersections directly adjacent to or
within the Merged Project Area are projected to operate at LOS C or better.
The Santa Ana River Area (SARA) traffic model developed and refined by
Robert Satin, John gain and Associates was used to determine the future
baseline daily traffic forecasts. •
7/la 96-LNFSG63oaMt�SECr4 6'WPII• 4.6-14
•
Table 4.6.E - 2010 Merged Project Area Roadway Level of Service Summary'
Average
Dnily Roadway
Roadway Segment VJC Ratio LOS Traffic classification
Atlanta Avenue
1st St. - Beach Blvd.
0.64 B 24000 4-lane primary arterial
Beach Boulevard
0.48
A
27,000
642ne major arterial
PCH - Hamilton Ave.
0.53
A
30,000
6-lane major arterial
Ellis Ave. - Talbert Ave.
0.65
B
49,000
842ne major arterial
Slater Ave. - Warner Ave.
0.67
B
50,000
8-12ne major arterial
Delaware Street
PCH - Hamilton Ave.
0.28
A
10,000
4-lane secondary arterial
Hamilton Ave. - Atlanta Ave.
0.28
A
10,000
4-lane secondary arterial
Atlanta Ave. - Indianapolis Ave.
0.14
A
5,000
4-12ne secondary arterial
Edinger Avenue
Golden West St. - Gothard St.
0.78
C
44,000
6-lane major arterial
Gothard St. - Beach Blvd.
0.75
C
42,000
6-12ne major arterial
Beach Blvd. - Newland St.
0.71
C
40,000
6-lane major arterial
Gothard Street
Ellis Ave. - Talbert Ave.
0.36 A
13,000
4-lane secondary arterial
Heil Ave. - Edinger Ave.
1.12 r
40,000
4-lane secondary arterial
Edinger Ave. - Center Ave.
0.93 E
33,000
4-lane secondary arterial
Center Ave. - McFadden Ave.
1.35 P
48,000
4-lane secondary arterial
Without Garfield and Banning Bridges, with Cross Gap Connector.
VtM6«tNM63avetWECT4-6.WPD» 4.6-15
Table 4.6.E - 2010 r . Project �!. Roadway Level of Service Summary -continued
Average
Daily
Roadway
Roadway Segment
V/C Ratio
LOS
TraMc
Classification -
Lake Street
PCH - Atlanta Ave.
0.35
A
13,000
4-lane primary arterial
Atlanta Ave. - Adams Ave.
0.29
A
11,000
4-lane primary arterial
Adams Ave. - Yorktown Ave.
0.37
A
14,000
4-lane primary arterial
Main Street
Yorktown Ave. - Garfield Ave.
0.69
B
26,000
6-12ne major arterial
Garfield Ave. - Delaware St.
0.77
C
29,000
4-lane primary arterial
Delaware St. - Beach Blvd.
0.66
B
37,000
4-lane primary arterial
McFadden Avenue
Golden West St. - Gothard St.
0.70
C
25,000
4-lane secondary arterial
Gothard St. - Beach Blvd.
0.53
A
19,000
4-lane secondary arterial
Orange Avenue
0.20
A
7,000
4-lane secondary arterial
Golden West St. - 17th St.
0.81
D
29,000
4-lane secondary arterial
17th St. - 6th St.
PCH
Golden West St. - 17th St.
0.78
C
44,000
6 lane major arterial
17th St. - 6th St.
0.69
B
39,000
6 lane major arterial
6th St. - lake St.
0.76
C
43,000
6 lane major arterial
Lake St. - Delaware St.
0.80
C
45,000
6 lane major arterial
Delaware St. - Beach Blvd.
0.85
D
48,000
6 lane major arterial
Without Garfield and Banning Bridges, with Cross Gap Connector.
7/IW6aINRSG630NR=ECT4-6.WPD»
4.6.16
.10
•
Table 4.6.E-2010"� �}` �e►rg; ;..Project =Roadway Level of Service Summary - continued
Average
Daily
Roadway
Roadway Settment _
VAC Ratio
LOS
Traffic
Classification
Stater Avenue
Gothard St. - Beach Blvd.
0.48
A
17,000
4 lane secondary arterial
Talbert Avenue
Gothard St. - Beach Blvd.
0.32
A
12000
4 lane primary arterial
Yorktown Avenue
Golden West St. - Main St.
0.77
C
29,000
4 lane primary arterial
Main St. - lake St.
0.56
A
20,000
4 lane secondary arterial
lake St. - Delaware St.
0.36
A
13,000
4 lane secondary arterial
Delaware St. - Beach Blvd.
0.31
A
11,000
4 lane secondary arterial
17th Street
PCH - Orange Ave.
0.29
A
11,000
4 lane primary arterial
Palm Ave. - Main St.
0.48
A
18,000
4 lane primary arterial
Source; City of Huntington Beach, General Plan Update EIR, July, 1995.
Without Garfield and Banning Bridges, with Cross Gap Connector.
7/IW644I:VLSG63ftIWECT4.6.WPD0 4.6.17
Table 4.6.F - Year 2010 A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS
at Signalized Intersections
AM Peak How
PM Peak
Hour
Intersection
ViC Ratio LOS
V)C Ratio
LOS
Edinger Ave. - Beach Blvd.
0.88 D
0.82
D
Warner Ave. - Beach Blvd.
0.80 C
0.81
D
Slater Ave. - Beach Blvd.
0.90 D
0.91,
Cl
Talbert Ave. - Beach Blvd.
0.72 C
0.82
D
Yorlaown Ave. - Golden West St.
0.61 B
0-77
C
PCH - Golden West St_
0.70 B
0.70
B
PCH- Beach Blvd.
0.58 A
0.80
C
PCH - Brookhurst St
0.68 B
0.66
B
Source: City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update MZ July 1995; DKS Associates,
March 21,1995
t LOS was determined using the intersection operational analysis methodology as
described in Chapter 9 of the 1985 Higbway Capacity Manual.
7!1&9&1ARSC63OkEW5ECT"-VFVw 4.6-18
7
1
z
a
GUM
lsummotfs
cc
y�*
� aurxsng
d �
�
�
�1
YI7DNDYMI
♦ i
� �
l M�uw
Qnl ��1
i-
•�
y"
H3Y3e
MWHIOfl
IS3MN30)W
'
SOUYMo3
3 Y00N1U's
'
k
I'IYI hRlD '�'
•�
��
o
�
•�./
Yoli{oYS10H -•�•�•
-�----
•/• "'
mnoNoviv
t� i
x00 aAYs
/`
;.
N'�•' ` • •> �' �y�'� 2,+;.'w�y�itr` ry•i�'+fir'
tA
U�
•O ro o
QI
LL
+b
General Plan Update
The General Plan Update FIR describes how the General Plan reduces environ-
mental impacts on the City circulation network. This is accomplished through
the use of two basic tools: I) improve roadway facilities, and 2) control land use
growth. Generally, it will be necessary for the City to coordinate With regional
agencies such as Caltrans and OCTA in an effort to control impacts. Because the
Amendment/Merger calls for a program of roadway improvements, including
those in the City's Seven Year Capital Improvement Program and those listed in
Chapter 3.0, it implements improvements consistent with the City's General
Plan and lessens traffic congestion, especially at Center Avenue and I-405.
A key component of the General Plan's Circulation Element is that roadway
geometries and lane widths ate proposed to change in order to accommodate
future traffic volumes. As Table 4.6.G indicates, there are five Merged Project
Area roadway segments that may require an increase in the number of lanes.
Based upon the threshold of significance of LOS C, all potential traffic impacts
on roadway segments would be mitigated to acceptable levels of service by these
improvements, except for one: Pacific Coast Highway from north of Beach
Boulevard to south of Brookhurst Street, a roadway segment serving, but outside
of, the Merged Project Area.
Table 4.6.G - Merged Project Area General Play Roadway Segments
Change in Roadway Classification
Fzisting
Proposed
Roadway-
Classification
Classification
Gothard Street: Heil Avenue to
4 lane secondary
6 lane major
McFadden Avenue
Orange Avenue: Golden West Street
4 lane secondary
2 lane collector
to Sixth Street
Pacific Coast Highway: NIO Beach
6 lane major
8 lane major
Boulevard to S/O Broolchurst Sueet
Warner Avenue: Gothard Street to
6 lane major
8 lane major
Magnolia Street .
Yorktown Avenue: Golden West
4 lane secondary
4 lane primary
Street to Main Street
• None of the identified roadways requite right -of --way acquisition.
Source: City of Huntington Beach, Community Development Department.
AMFNVJffi1'T/3fERGER INFRA=UCI[1RE LKPROVEUZNTS
The Amendment/Merger includes Agency assistance and/or participation in a num-
ber of transportation improvements. In many of the cases, these improvements are
to alleviate congestion, remedy design problems, or offset anticipated growth in
background traffic combined with Merged Project Area development and economic
7/la96r1:VSCr63O\EWECT4-6.VP1* 4.6-20
growth. Specific roadway improvements are noted in this EIR in Section 3.5, and are
repeated below:
Qakview Area
Complete improvements to streets,
street lights, alleys, and landscape.
Talbert -Beach
Monitor maintenance requirements
of public infrastructure.
Center Avenue
Complete construction of Center
Avenue street improvements and
traffic signal, and improvements to
signage and landscaping at the Hun-
tington Beach Mall.
interstate 405
Improve I-405 off-raflap access to
Huntington Center. Improve I-405
cloverleaf landscaping and widen
McFadden/1-405 overpass.
Edinger Avenue Street Alignment
Seek adoption of the specific plan
and construction of street improve-
ments, including consolidation of
ingress/egress points, unified signage
and landscaping.
Gothard Street and Hoover Street
Construct street improvements to
Connection
connect Gothard and Hoover Streets
to create another north -south arte-
rial to alleviate traffic congestion on
other north -south arterials.
These improvements include minor widenings, within the existing right -of --way,
restriping of streets, additional turn lanes and neighborhood protection measures
(cul-de-sac at Keelson and Elm). The exceptions to these minor improvements are:
1) McFadden Bridge widening, which requires additional non-CityAriorr Agency
funding to be constructed; and 2) the improvements to Center Avenue at Hunting-
ton Beach Mall.
Details of CenterAvenue improvements include a new driveway into the Huntington
Beach Mall. This driveway would be located directly across from the 1405 south -
bound off -ramp at Center Drive.
The proposed driveway will consist of one lane (14 feet wide) and will be restricted
to inbound traffic only. No exits or left turns into the driveway will be permitted. In
1993, the owners of Huntington Beach Mall approached the City of Huntington
Beach with plans to change the tenants and uses for a portion of the shopping
center. Because of the changes of uses, which are still being &nalbzd, the City
requested that the owners investigate the possibility of providing an additional,
direct access to the center from the I405 off -ramps.
7na�t:NFSG630\MM r".wFD* 4.6-21
It is proposed that the new driveway be designated for inbound traffic only and be
restricted to direct access from the I405 southbound off -ramp and right -turn only
from Center Avenue. Construction of this project will have no impact on mainte-
nance of the u-affic signal or improvements at this interchange. A minimal amount
of landscaping will be removed from the westerly side of Center Avenue due to
construction of the proposed driveway fill. This driveway was proposed by the City
of Huntington Beach to assist in promoting business to the center by means of
providing a direct access from the freeway, making the plaza more of a regional than
a local shopping center.
The improvements included in the Amendment/Merger, as described above, will
provide general benefits to the Merged Project Area and to the City's roadway net-
work consistent with the circulation element of the General Plan.
Although circulation benefits are forecast as a result of the General Plan improve-
ments, the General Plan Update EIR traffic analysis concluded that a significant
unmitigable impact would occur along Pacific Coast Highway in the future build out
condition. The segment of Pacific Coast Highway north of Beach Boulevard to south
of Brookhurst Street is forecasst to operate at unsatisfactory levels of service in the
General Plan build out scenario. This forecast condition is partially a function of
implementation of the General Plan, but is largely due to regional through traffic
along Pacific Coast Highway. Overriding considerations were adopted as part of the
General Plan Update EIR acknowledging the immitigable impact.
As the Amendment/Merger maintains the same land use designations and intensities
as the General Plan, the Amendment/Merger is consistent with the findings of the
General Plan Update EM including the General Plan impacts, mitigation measures
and overriding considerations. The Amendment/Merger traffic setting and forecasts
are the same as those in the General Plan. Therefore, no circulation impacts are
forecast that were not considered in the General Plan Update EIR. Furthermore, no
additional mitigation is required, and the overriding considerations adopted as part
of the General Plan are unaffected by the Amendment/Merger project
4.6.4 CUMV ATIVE LKPACTS
Further growth and development allowed by the General Plan would result in an
increase in vehicle trips to and from the City of Huntington Beach, as well as genera-
tion of pass through vehicle trips. The impact of this regional "background" growth
was incorporated into the traffic model utilized in the General Plan analysis. There-
fore, all projected traffic levels and the LOS reported for the segments and intersec-
tions include cumulative conditions.
Several factors contribute to the conclusion that the Amendment/Merger will not be
locally or cumulatively significant_ The land uses included in the Merged Plan are
identical to those designated in the City's General Plan. Therefore, the Amend-
ment/Merger does not result in land use changes, and traffic generation wr71 not be
affected by the Amendment/Merger. With no increase in traffic, the Amend-
ment/Merger will not affect traffic levels of service or intersection capacity. The
cumulative impacts associated with the General Plan build out that are considered
significant and unavoidable are only PCH north of Beach Boulevard to south of
7/1&9br1:NYtSG630XRSECr" V7D* 4.6r22
Brookhurst Street. There are other similar impacts that were identified as significant,
but mitigatible. These impacts have been previously acknowledged by the City in
adopting the City's General Plan and certifying the General Plan Update EIR. There-
fore, the Amendment/Merger has no effect on that prior finding. Future projects
within the Merged Project Area, when implemented, represent a very small percent-
age of the total future traffic generated in the City.
Finally, the Merged Project Area is currently built out, with few opportunities for
new infill development. While future redevelopment projects may result in some
intensification of uses (and, therefore, increase in traffic). The intensifica-
tionAncrease will be a small increment of existing background traffic increases. In
addition, because it is an objective of redevelopment to resolve infrastructure prob-
lems, future redevelopment projects have the means to resolve traffic impacts in
conjunction with the implementation of the project. This is demonstrated by the
circulation improvements already included in the list of infrastructure improvements
to be assisted by the Agency.
As previously discussed, the Amendment/Merger traffic setting and forecasts are the
same as the General PIan. Therefore, cumulative General Plan impacts, mitigation
measures to address these impacts, and overriding considerations for those cumula-
tive General Plan impacts deemed unmitigable are unaffected by the Amendment/
Merger. The Amendment/Merger project is consistent with the findings of the
General Plan Update £Ut including the overriding considerations for the forecast
conditions along Pacific Coast Highway.
0 4.6.5 GF 7W.Ar_ PLAN POIIOTS
The General Plan Update EIR identifies several policies contained in the Circulation
Element of the General Plan that will serve to lessen the impacts to traffic and circu-
htion resulting from the Amendment/Merger. The policies that are applicable to the
proposed Project are listed below:
• Maintain primary trick routes that sustain an effective transport of commodi-
ties while mitigating the negative impacts on local circulation and on noise
sensitive land uses as shown in Figure CE-7 of the Circulation Element and
Figure N-1 of the Noise Element in the General Plan (Policy CE 1.23).
• Ut&ze Caltrans and City design criteria for any future truck routes within the
City (Policy CE 12.4).
• Maintain a city-wide level of service (LOS) for linla not to exceed LOS "C' for
daily traffic with the exception of Pacific Coast H*,hway south of Brookhurst
Street (Policy CE
• Identify and improve roadways and intersections that are approaching, or
have reached, unacceptable levels of services (Policy CE 2.13).
• Encourage and support the various public transit agencies and companies,
ride sharing programs, and other incentive programs, that allow residents to
7l1sr96wLVt!(',G30\EWECT".WPD* 4.6-23
utilize forms of transportation other than the private automobile (Policy CE
3.1.1).
• Augment the existing bus routes with any new bus routes designated in the
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Future Transit Needs Study
as shown in Figure CE-8 in the General Plan (Policy CE3.1.2).
• Explore the possibility of a transportation center located in the vicinity of the
downtown commercial area (Policy CE3.1.4).
• Work with OCTA in pursuing a future urban trail transit system that services
the City of Huntington Beach (Policy CE3.1.5)•
• Provide for future use of water borne passenger services along ocean front-
ages'and harbor waterways (Policy CE3.1.7).
• Require developers to include transit facilities, such as park -and -ride sites,
bus benches, shelters, pads or turn -outs in their development plans, where
feasible as specified in the City's TDM Ordinance (Policy 3.2.1).
• Maintain an adequate supply of parking that supports the present level of
demand and allow for the expected increase in private transportation use
(Policy CE5.1.1).
• Provide safe and convenient parking that has minimal impacts on the natural
environment, the community image, or quality of life (Policy CE5.1.2).
• Encourage the utilization of easements and/or rights -of -way along flood
control channels, public utilities, railroads and streets, wherever possible, for
the use of bicycles and/or pedestrians (Policy CE 6.1.5).
• Maintain existing pedestrian facilities and require new development to pro-
vide pedestrian walkways and bicycle routes between developments, schools
and public facilities (Policy CE 6.1.6).
• Require new development to provide accessible facilities for the elderly and
disabled (Policy CE 61.7).
• Encourage non-residential development to provide employee incentives for
utM&ng alternatives to the conventional automobile, i.e., carpools, vanpools,
buses, bicycles and walking (Policy CE 4.1.1).
• Encourage employers to use flex -time, staggered working hours and other
means, such as but not limited to the following,' to lessen commuter traffic
during peak hours (Policy CE 4.1.2):
' Includes 'Mitigation Measure T-1 as specified in EFR No. 94-1, Table EX-1.
711M6«1:XYSG6 anxtmstcr".VPDW 4.6-24
• - Sus passes that can be purchased on a monthly basis and sold to
employees at a reduced rate with proof that they consistently used
the transit system to commute.
•
Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) Parking Fees or a monthly parking
fee for SOV's using parking facilities.
Commuter Rideshare Matching Service or a database containing
employees zip codes and commuting preferences to be provided to
interested participants.
Guaranteed ride home (GRH) program that provides a ride home to
employees.
• Encourage the use of multiple -occupancy vehicle programs for shopping and
other uses to reduce midday traffic (Policy CE 4.13).
• Support national, state and regional legislation directed at encouraging the
use of carpools and vanpools (Policy CE 41.4).
• Promote ride sharing through publicity and provision of information to the
public (Policy CE 4.2.5).
• Restriction or elimination of curb -side parking along congested arterials
(Policy CE 4.1.8).
4.6.6 3=GA770NMFASVKES
None required.
4.6. 7 LEVEL OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFIEIR KMGAi70N
There are no significant project impacts on the circulation system that result from
the Amendment/Merger.
7na9s«1:vc54563&JU"Ecr".VPD- 4.6-25
4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section provides an overview of the biological resources present within the
City of Huntington Beach and in the Merged Project Area, and discusses poten-
tial impacts to those biological resources resulting from the proposed project.
The information presented here is taken primarily from the EIR for the City of
Huntington Beach General Plan Update prepared by Envicom Corporation (July
5, 1995), which is herewith incorporated by reference.
4.7.I EUSIIIYG ENVIRONafEATAL SETTING
Biological resources within the City of Huntington Beach include marine open
waters, coastal dunes, coastal saltmarsh, freshwater marsh, and grassland. The
majority of these habitats is concentrated in a few areas, since most of the laird
within the City has been converted to residential, commercial, industrial, and
public park uses. The Merged Project Area is primarily built out with urban uses,
except for sandy beaches and a small wetland area at Beach Boulevard and PCH
(see Figure 4.7.1, Area E, where a small wetland extends west of Beach Boule-
vard). Urbanized arras and small municipal parks provide little or no habitat for
native plants and animals. The exception is Huntington Beach Central Park,
which is not within the Merged Project Area.
Sigmfscant Biological Resource Areas
Arens within the City, as described in the General Plan Update EM that continue ,
to provide important biological resource values are described below and shown
on Figure 4.7.1. The Talbert Marsh (Area G) and least tern nesting colony (Area
1) are located more than two miles south of Main -Pier. The Huntington Mesa is
located about one-half mile west of Yorktown -Lake. 'There are a few vacant lots
in the City that have biological resource value. Those of interest include larger
lots with some large trees (e.g., Euwlyptus spp.) adjacent to open fields that
support California ground squirrels, Botta's pocket gopher, mice, and other
small animals. The important vacant lands are shown on Figure 4.7-1, and are
not in the Merged Project Area and would not be affected by any redevelopment
activity in the Merged Project. The Newland Avenue Marsh (Area E) and Hun-
tington Beach Central Paris (Area D) are located directly to the west of the
Talbert -Beach and southwest of Oakview.
The City's corporate boundary includes Bolsa Chica Beach State Park, Hunting-
ton Beach Municipal Beach, and Huntington Beach State Pak. These areas arc
mostly devoid of vegetation, and are subject to intense human presence, and
periodic removal of drift algae and debris. Nonetheless, the beach surf zones
provide habitat for sand dwelling invertebrates, which are important food for
shorebirds such as the sandeding, willet, and western sandpiper. These shore-
birds, in turn, are prey for raptors, possibly including peregrine falcons. One
interesting species found along sandy beaches is the California grunion
(,Leurestbes tenuis), a fish that leaves the ocean in spring, during high tides on
nights following the full moon, to lay its eggs in the sand. 0
�n9r:3amc�sEcr�-�� 4.7-1
1
-C
_ \\\
SEAL
B EAC8 SMSAj
1--T ;ADDEN
mr
A
2
WESTMI-STER
ED NGER
WARWHA FOIJNTAJN
VALLEY
SLATF7i
COUNTY OF
TA-SEAT
ORANGE
(U)LSA CHCA)
LJ
ELL CS
C
4
LEGEND
City Boundary
5
Redevelopment Project Areas
E
Open Space with
Biological Resource Value:
A
Vacant Land (Wbiwmiled Kite observed)
B
Vacant Land (Bolsa ChLica Mesa)
C
Huntington Beach Central Park
D
Vacant Land (Huntington Beach Mesa)
E
Newland Avenue Marsh
F
Vacant Land
untington
H Talbert Marsh
I California Least Tern Nesting Colony
Source: City of Huntington Beach Creneral Plan Update EIFL 7195.
4 AXOSG630)
N
LSAScale in Miles
. 0 0-5 1 4.7-2
in vFRrti
Im
o 2
o
GAR: F-Lr,
YORKTOWN
ADAMS
1 /D A0
PMW
MIXNAPULS
A-IAXTA
KWUCN
F
"Vm4
COSTA
VESA
x H
Figure 4.7.1
Huntington Beach Natural Open Space
With Biological Resource Value
Sandy beaches are located directly across PCH from ?Hain -Pier.
The Newland Avenue Marsh is located in the northeast corner of the junction at
PCH and Beach Boulevard, west of Newland Avenue. A portion of this comer
along PCH, and at the junction of PCH and Newland Avenue, has been deveI-
oped, and the entire area is subject to human intrusion (e.g., beach parking,
off -road vehicles, pedestrians, etc.). The marsh supports vegetation characteris-
tics of a wetland, despite its history of disturbance and isolation from tidal influx.
Moisture to support the existing pickleweed saltmarsh habitat is either through
groundwater inflow, accumulated rainfall, or occasional overflows of the Hun-
tington Beach Channel. A small snip of wetland habitat, which supports cattails,
is located on the west side of Beach Boulevard, separated from the Newland
Avenue Marsh by Beach Boulevard. This small patch, less than an acre, is in the
Waterfront development site, which has had previous environmental review in
Supplemental FIR 82-2.
Several bird species have been recorded as nesting in the Newland Avenue
Marsh, including black -necked stilt, American avocet, and killdeer (CNDDB,
1994). In addition, sensitive bird species have been recorded nesting at the site:
the western snowy plover and Belding's Savannah sparrow (CNDDB, 1994).
The Newland Avenue Marsh is directly adjacent to the southern end of Main -Pier.
Based on findings from Supplemental EIR 82-2, certified for the Waterfront
project, there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the
redevelopment of the Waterfront site.
Sensitive Biological Resources
Sensitive biological resources are associated with most of the important resource
areas described above. Sensitive resources include wetlands, coastal dune and
scrub habitats, and a number of plant and wildlife species associated with these
habitats. Appendix C of this EIR provides a complete listing of the sensitive
biological elements known from or expected to occur within the City. None of
the sensitive biological elements identified in Appendix C exist within the
Merged Project Area.
4.7.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The thresholds for findings of significance for impacts to biological resources are
taken from Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
guidelines. According to these guidelines, a project will normally have a signifi-
cant effect on biological resources if it would:
Conflict with the adopted environmental plans and goals of the commu-
nity where it is located;
7119j96«t:\RSCv63o1EI MECT4-7 .VPD- 4.7-3
•
• Substantially effect at axe or endangered species of plant or animal or the
habitat of the species;'
Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species; or
Substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife, or plants.
4.7.3 PROJECT LKPACTS
Impacts to biological resources can be either direct or indirect. Direct impacts
involve the removal of habitat for plants and animals for conversion to some
other use. Habitat removal results in the displacement or mortality of plants and
animals occupying a project area, both during site preparation and throughout
the life of a project. Indirect impacts generally involve the effects of disturbance
and cumulative impacts, including:
• Noise and night lighting that interrupts normal daily cycles;
• Predation by cats and dogs;
• Introduction of non-native plant and animal species that out compete or
prey upon native species;
0 Human collection or killing of animals; and
• General human activity in open space that, because it is not easily con-
trolled, can create trails, disrupt breeding activities, and generally de-
grades habitat quality for plants and animals.
In order for direct or indirect impacts to be considered significant, they must
result in impacts that exceed thresholds defined in Section 4.7.2, above.
Direct impacts to important biological resources resulting from the Amendment/
Merger could occur only where those resources are found within the Merged
Project Area. Based on the discussion above and on field windshield surveys,
there are no important biological resources within the Merged Project Area,
except for the small strip of wetland habitat across Beach Boulevard from the
Newland Marsh. As mentioned above, the effect on this strip has had previous
environmental review is discussed in Supplemental EIR 82-2 for the Waterfront
Project, and mitigation to offset project impacts has been required in the EHL
' Section 15380 of CEQA indicates that plants or animals listed by a gov-
ernment agency as rare or endangered are presumed rare or endangered
for the purposes of CEQA analysis, without the need for further proof.
In addition, Section 15380 (d) states that a plant or animal species can
be treated as rare or endangered even if not placed on an official list,
provided the status of the species meets the definitions of rare or endan-
gered in Section 15380(b).
7n996aI:NFSG630\FORSEcr4-7.W4tA 4.7-4
Any future discretionary actions associated with the Newland Avenue Marsh and
the small strip of wetland habitat will be subject to further environmental re-
view.
Indirect impacts may occur where important biological resources are located
adjacent to or nearby the Merged Project Area and the proposed redevelopment
would result in changed or intensified uses, causing greater indirect effects than
existing conditions.
Although sandy beaches are in close proximity to Main -Pier, the existing intense
use of the beaches would mask any additional impact associated with the
Amendment/Merger.
Huntington Beach Central Park receives intensive public use. Important biologi-
cal resource area are located in relatively protected, interior areas of the park.
Existing uses within the park have a greater effect on the park's biological re-
sources than any uses proposed for the Merged Project Area adjacent to the
park. The streets surrounding the park act as a buffer between the park and
adjacent uses. In addition, the more developed perimeter park space serves as a
buffer between sensitive biological resources in the interior of the park and
activities outside the park. For these reasons, indirect impacts to the park's
biological resources resulting from the Amendment/Merger are not expected to
be significant.
As indicated in Section 4.7.1 above, the Newland Avenue Marsh is located di-
rectly adjacent to the southern end of Main -Pier. Newland Avenue Marsh may be
indirectly impacted by changed or intensified uses at the southern end of Main -
Pier, which is adjacent to the marsh. As noted previously, the marsh is disturbed
and degraded, but still provides important resource values. Indirect iuxpacts
may include increased human intrusion and related activities such as noise and
night lighting associated with higher intensity/higher scale uses_ The degree of
potential indirect impacts would depend on the uses proposed and their scale.
None of the other designated biological resource areas is closer than one-half
mile to the Merged Project Area, and are too far from the Merged Project Area to
be affected by direct or indirect impacts. Furthermore, the Merged Project is
located in an urban setting and will not adversely impact any rare or endangered
species of plant, animal or any habitat of the species; interfere with the move-
ment of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species; or diminish habitat for
fish, wildlife and/or plants. Therefore, the Merged Project will not significantly
impact biological resources in the area.
4.7.4, CEW ATIVE IMPACTS
General Plan land uses within the Merged Project Area will not change with the
Amendment/Merger. Consequently, the effects on biological resources with the
Merge Project Area will be identical to the potential impacts that would occur
without it. In addition, the Merged Project Area land use designations are identi-
cal to the City's General Plan designations. In addition, the Merged Project is
not proposing any development or the change of any land use designations.
7/i9/96-ct:1RSG630'+ERSECi4-7.WPIDO 4.7-5
•
•
Therefore, the potential impacts are no different from those contemplated in the
General Plan and reported in the General Plan Update EUL For these reasons, it
is not expected that there would be significant direct or indirect impacts to the
significant biological resource areas identified in the General Plan or the sensi-
tive biological resources identified earlier in this section.
4.7.5 GENERAL PLAN POLICES
None apply to the Merged Project.
4.7.6 MI77GA7ION MEASURES
Mitigation measures are not warranted.
4.7.7 LEVEL OF IMPACT SIGNMCANCE AFTER 3fMGATTON
The Merged Project is located in an urban setting and is not near any sensitive
biological resource areas. Therefore, the Merged Project will not result in signifi-
cant direct or indirect impacts on any rare or endangered plant or animal species
or their habitats, interfere with the movements of any migratory fish or wildlife
species, or dimin h the habitat for fish, wildlife and/or plants.
7n9)9&L F-SWm£:=Ecr4-7 .WFD* 4.7-6
4.8 PUBLIC HEALTH
4.8.1 EUS7ZVGENVM0A?WFWAL SETTING
The public health issues and hazards identified in the Merged Project include the
following: hazardous waste materials (generation, collection, treatment, trans-
port), and emergency response time/capabilities.
Regulatory Background
Hazardous waste is defined as: "a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes,
which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious
characteristics may:
Cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an in-
crease in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness; or
Pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the
environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed
of, or otherwise managed."'
Beginning in 1987, the Orange County Board of Supervisors directed the prepa-
ration of a County Plan under AP 2948. The Orange County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan (HWNT), completed is January, 1989, and amended in June
1991, established a city and County action program for managing hazardous
waste through the year 2000. The City of Huntington Beach has incorporated
applicable portions of the HWMP into their Genen►l Plan. A description of the
implementation programs for existing and future actions and activities of the
County, cities, and special districts for the management of hazardous waste in
Orange County contained in the HWMP is included in the General Plan Update
EHL
County and City Requirements
A permit is required by the Orange County Health Department if a business
creates or disposes barardous waste. Businesses that handle hazardous materials
are also required by County ordinance to disclose the amounts and the types of
materials to local fire departments.
In addition to County requirements, the City of Huntington Beach requires that
any business storing or handling hazardous materials secure a City permit.
The City of Huntington Beach has approximately 690 facilities registered as
hazardous materials operations within its boundaries (General Plan Update Ml,
page 5.11-2). The majority of these facilities are small—scale generators such as
auto body and repair garages, gas stations, dry cleaners, and light industry.
1 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, § 1004(5) 0
7/149&LIRSCG SeCrS-B-VM* 4.8-1
These facilities are spread throughout the City, including the Merged Project
Area.
Hazardous Waste GeneraticmlTreatment
Relative to Larger scale hazardous waste generators, the Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCIA) established
the federal means for hazardous waste dump sites "cleanup," and identified the
methods to Finance cleanup operations of so called "Superfund" sites. Two
"Superfund" sites are located (Ascon Landfill and AMF Tobo Scope Inc.) within
Huntington Beach. In addition, the Huntington Beach Fire Department has
identified 19 hazardous materials operations (including the two "Superfund"
sites) in the City that they feel are of special concern (see Figure HH-1 in the
General Plan EIR, page 5.11-4). None of the "Superfund' sites or the 19 hazard-
ous materials operations are located in the Merged Project Area; however, the
Aso D'art Inc. operation is looted adjacent to Huntington Center.
Hazardous Waste Collection
The Hazardous Materials Program at the Grange County Fire Department is
responsible for planning, coordination, and management of a countywide collec-
tion and disposal of household hazardous waste. The City of Huntington Beach
Fine Department, in conjunction with the Change County Fire Department,
. operates a facility called the Orange County Household Hazardous Waste Collec-
tion Center at the Rainbow Disposal Company transfer station, looted at 17121
Nichols Avenue in Huntington Beach. This transfer station serves the Merged
Project Area, but is not located within the Merged Project Area.
Hazardous Waste Transport
The transport of hazardous materials by truck or rail is regulated by the United
States Department of Transportation through National Safety Standards. The
federal safety standards are also included in the California Admini-trative Code,
Environmental Health Division.
There are no designated routes or travel time restrictions for hazardous material
transporters on City streets; however, the local police department must be
notified of the trnspom in addition, transport of acutely toxic/hazardous mate-
rials must be reported to the California Highway Patrol.
The Huntington Beach Police Department has reported that most of the Ci y's
hazardous waste transport occurs along the City's truck routes.
Tpical cast -west corridors used to transport hazardous waste within the Merged
Project Area include Warner and Edinger Avenues. Beach Boulevard is often
used as the primary route when transporting hazardous waste from the Ascon
Landfill to disposal sites outside of the City. Hazardous waste transport also
7/IM6- : oXsFcr".VPD • 4.8-2
occurs along the I405 Freeway, 'which abuts several residential and commercial
Lind uses in Huntington Center. 0
Emergency Response
The Huntington Beach Fire Department initially responds to all Ioral reports
involving hazardous waste. if they determine a need for special expertise and
equipment, they may request assistance from the Orange County Hazardous
Materials (Haz=t) Team. The Hazmat Team provides hazard identification, risk
assessment, and actual control measures. The Hazmat Team is a cooperative
organization structure intended to bring the maximum available equipment and
special expertise to any given emergency situation. Huntington Beach also
maintains a Multi -Hazard Function Plan, should a hazardous waste accident
create the need to evacuate all or a portion of the City.
4.8.2 7ILUSHOIDS OF SIGAIUCANCE
The following thresholds of significance are used to determine potentially signifi-
cant public health impacts:
Project construction that mould interfere with emergency response plans
or emergency evacuation plans.
Increased exposure to the general public or environment due to a haz-
ardous material release or improper ha.n ous materials disposal prac-
tices. 0
Degradation of water quality or contamination of a public water supply
by release of hazardous waste or materials.
4.8.3 PROJECT IMPACTS
With the Amendment/Merger, there will be no change in the Merged Project Area
boundaries. The Amendment/Merger does not add property to, or delete prop-
erty from, the Merged Project Area. The Amendment/Merger is a reorganization
of the redevelopment process and authority.
None of the 19 hazardous waste material operations identified by the City of
Huntington Beach Fire Department are located within the Merged Project Area;
however, the Ano D'art Inc. operation is located adjacent to Huntington Center.
Safe and proper operation of hazardous material at existing and future land sites,
including the Ano D'Art Inc. operation, requires that these operations continue
to be subject to local, State, and federal regulations regarding the use, genera-
tion, storage, transportation, treatment and disposal of toxic and hazardous
material Ante. All hazardous waste material sites would continue to be identi-
fied, monitored, and controlled by the Huntington Beach Fire Department.
Therefore, any effects to public health and safety would be considered minimal
and less than significant. 0
7n3/96,Kt:\FSc63oJU"ECT".VPlb 4.8-3
• 4.8 4 CUMULATIVE ItirrPACTS
0
The General Plan Update EIR (page 5.11-10) discusses the cumulative impacts of
implementing the General Plan from existing and reasonably foreseeable future
sources of toxic or hazardous materials/wastes. Although future populations will
be subject to impacts from existing and seasonable foreseeable sources of toxic
or hazardous materials/wastes, implementation of existing County and State
criteria and guidelines for toxic and hazardous materials handling, storage,
transport, and location of new uses that include toxic or hazardous materials will
reduce the adverse cumulative impacts to a level below significance.
4.8.5 GFNF_P L PLAN POLICIES
The General Plan identifies several policies in the Hazardous Materials Element
that reduce potential effects in the Merged Project Area. The applicable policies
are identified below:
• Facilitate proper disposal of hazardous waste by providing means for safe
disposal (Policy HM 1.1.1).
• Implement federal, State and local regulations for the handling, storage
and disposal of hazardous materials (Policy HM 1.1.4).
• Support land use patterns that avoid development of hazardous waste
generators adjacent to sensitive uses (Policy HM 1.2.1) .
• Identify and map all existing hazardous waste sites (Policy HM 1.4.1).
• Require that owners of contaminated sites develop a remediation plan
with the assistance of the Orange County Environmental Management
Agency (EMA) (Policy HM I.44).
These policies, combined with the current regulatory practices of the Hunting-
ton Beach Fire Department and the permitting review necessary to maintain an
existing hazardous materials site or to open a new site, fully regulate the poten-
tial safety hazards to a level of impact that is less than significant.
• J_rf Cef. W !' COM0J, .Kilt _J
Mitigation measures are not warranted.
4.8.7 LEVEL OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFnM MITIGATION
With implementation of the General Plan policies, the effects of the Amend-
ment/Merger to public health will be reduced to a level below significance.
7/18,9&L-\J C,6309�INSECT".WPr * 4.8-4
4.9 NOISE 0
This section is based on the analysis in the General Plan Update EIR and on field
observation by iSA in May, 1996.
4.9.1 EXISTING ENVDZON3lEN7AL SETTING
Noise Sources
Noise is generated from a variety of sources, including mobile and stationary
sources. Exterior noise applicable to the study area is generated by motor vehi.
cles, aircraft operations, construction work, and industrial operations. Noise is
often defined as "unwanted sound" because of its potential to disrupt sleep,
interfere with verbal communication, and damage hearing.
The primary noise source within and adjacent to the Merged Project Area is
vehicular traffic. Secondary noise sources include aircraft operations and petro-
leum extraction activities.
Vehicular traffic noise is the most pervasive source of noise in the Merged Project
Area. This can be attributed to the extensive network of arterial roadways and
the large number of vehicle trips on those roadways.
There are no airports located within Huntington Beach. In addition, no airplane
flight patterns for either the Long Beach Municipal Airport or the Orange County •
Airport (John Wayne Airport) exist over the City of Huntington Beach (Federal
Aviation Administration, Burgen, 1992). However, it is not uncommon for
airplanes to fly over the Merged Project Area displaying advertisement banners,
primarily during summer months, and during airrrift approach to either of the
two aforementioned airports. During approach flights to the Long Beach Munic-
ipal Airport, airplanes typically fly several times daily over downtown Hunting-
ton Beach, areas east of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, and the Huntington Harbour,
at altitudes ranging from 1,500 to 4,000 feet. For similar approach flights to the
Orange County Airport, airplanes occasionally fly over the southeastern most
portion of the City at an altitude of approximately 5,000 fleet (Burger, 1992).
Two heliports and three helistops are located within the City. A heliport is
defined as an airport that serves helicopters, whereas a helistop is a landing take-
off pad that is primarily used to pick up and drop off passengers. The heliports
are located on Gothard Street (10301 Gothard) and the Signal Oil Fields. ire
helistops are located at the Guardian Center, the McDonnell -Douglas Space
Center, and the Civic Center. With the exception of the Huntington Beach
Police Department's helicopters, helicopter flight routes within the City are
typically located above major and primary arterials, as well as the 405 Freeway.
Although single event noise exposure resulting from airplane and helicopter
operations are potentially annoying, the relatively low frequency and short
duration of these operations do not significantly affect average daily noise levels
within the City.
•
7n9)96■I-\W"30\EIIi\5ECr".W7Dw 4.9-1
Petroleum extraction from the Huntington Beach Oil Field is a source of noise
within the City. Various independent oil companies also maintain several "oil
islands" (isolated oil extraction areas) near Downtown Huntington Beach. Main -
Pier has several "oil islands" disbursed throughout the project area.
Noise Measurement
Environmental noise is usually measured in A -weighted decibels (dB). A decibel
is a logarithmic unit of sound energy intensity. Sound waves, traveling outward
from a source exert a sound pressure (commonly called "sound level") mea-
sured in decibels. The dBA is a decibel corrected for the variation in frequency
response of the typical human ear at commonly encountered noise levels. In
general, a three dBA increase in sound level represents a doubling in sound
energy but it will not be experienced as a doubling of loudness. A one dBA
fluctuation in sound requires close attention to notice a change in Ioudness,
whereas a three dBA change is clearly noticeable and a ten dBA change is nearly
twice as loud. A noise level of 70 dBA is approximately twice as loud as 60 dBA
and four times as loud as 50 dBA. The average range of sounds that hum2m are
commonly exposed to generally falls within the 30-100 dBA range (Table 4.9.A).
Environmental noise levels typically fluctuate over time. Different types of noise
descriptors are used to account for this variability. These descriptors include
Leq, which is the actual time -averaged noise level, and Ldn, which is the
day -night average noise level. Ldn is a 24 hour noise measurement, which ac-
counts for people's greater sensitivity to nighttime noise. Using the Ldn
descriptor, noise between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. is weighted by adding ten
dBA to noise readings taken during that period to account for the greater annoy-
ance of nighttime noises. For planning purposes, the 24 hour Ldn is roughly
equivalent to the peak hour Leq for noise environments dominated by traffic
noise minus five dBA (Office of Noise Control, 1976). This System of Calculating
noise exposure has been recommended as the uniformly accepted index by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Noise Regulations
The State Office of Noise Control has established guidelines to provide a com-
munity with a noise environment that it deems to be generally acceptable.
Figure 4.9.1 depicts ranges of noise exposure levels that are considered compati-
ble with types of land uses. Where a land use is denoted as "normally accept-
able" for the given L In noise environment, the highest noise level in that range
should be considered the maximum desirable for conventional construction that
does not incorporate any spedal acoustic treatment. The acceptability of noise
environments classified as "conditionally acceptable" or "normally unacceptable"
will depend on the anticipated amount of time that will normally be spent
outside the structure and the acoustic treatment to be incorporated in the struc-
ture's design.
7/19196ir:%RSG630\EM5ECr0.WPD - 4.9-2
0
Table 4.9A - Sound bevels and Human Responses 0
Sound
Level
dBA
Example
Human Response
0
Threshold of hearing
10
Just audible
20
Broadcasting Studio
30
Whisper
Very quiet
40
Library
Quiet
50
Light auto traffic at 100 feet
60
Conversation
70
Freew2y traffic at 50 feet
Telephone use difficult
80
Alarm clock
Annoying
90
Heavy truck
Very annoying; heating
damage after 8 hours
100 Jet Flyover (1000 ft.)
110
120 Jet flyover (200 fL) Initial discomfort; maxi-
mum vocal effort
130
140 Initial pain threshold
150 Carrier deck jet operation
Source: General Plan Update ERJuly 1995.
7/19,96NIAFtsw gMrSECT".VPD-
4.9-3
•
LAND USE CATAGORY
COMMUNT17Y NOISEF•
Ldn OR CNEL..:
55 .1 65 70 75 :1
RESIDENTIAL• DENSITY
SINGLE FAMELY. DUPLEX,
MOBILE 1• r
I////Z
////�-�
ME
EMMM
Emrllulurrrt
1. 11
OEM==
■.
1un11�
• r •, l
■�--Illllli�lilllll
SCHOOLS, LEBRARMS.%//////.////////,%//////.wwwoo
CHURCHES, • NURSING HOMES
IIIIIfillEllllllllllllllllllllll.
AUDITORIUMS, CONCERTSPECTATOR
IIIf�
SPORTS ARENA, OUTDOOR
SPORTS
NEIGHBORHOOD •
%/////i%/////
%/////
%l////
Illllllllllllllllllllul
WATERGOLF COURSES, RIDING STABLES,
•
era 1 a• r
...■Illlllllllllll
•i r ra• t • 1 • • • 1 •
//////,%//////.%//////.%///-a-
..��-IIIIIIIlllllEl
r•IAJ—
r• 1 . 1
/////I.U//////.%//////.%!/////.
.mwm=����j1IllllllllllllE
® NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE
Specified land use is sarisfacsary, based upon the
asnanpaon tba my buildings involved am of normal
conventional construction, witbout any special noise
insulation requirements.
CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE
New oonsmiction or development sbould be undertaken
only afrsr a detailed analysis of the noise reduction
requirements is made and needed noise insuluion
feanaes included in the design. Conventional
construction• but with closed windows and fresh air
supply systems or air 000didaning will normally suffice.
Source: Office of Noise Control. California Department of Health.
4U96{RS0630)
® NORMALLY UNACCE'TAB.LE
New o suuctioo or development sbould generally be
discoura ed. If oca+ consuuction or de—kTtuent does
proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise re&xtion
requirements must be made and needed noise insulation
features included in the design.
_ CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE
New construction or development should generally not
be undertaken.
Figure 4.9.1
LSD
Land Use Compatibility for
4.9-4 Community Noise Environments
Federal and State regulations provide for certain controls on noise sources, such
as motor vehicles. in addition, the City has adopted provisions that restrict the
generation of noise within the community. The City of Huntington Beach Noise
Ordinance is described in detail in the City's Municipal Code, Chapter 8.40,
Noise Control. The noise level standards that have been adopted by the City are
more stringent than State Office of Noise Control guidelines for residential and
commercial noise levels. Furthermore, the City's noise ordinance places limita-
tions on noise produced by equipment operation, human activities, and con-
struction. As stated in the City's Noise Ordinance, the Orange County health
officer has primary responsibility for the enforcement of these regulations. The
exterior and interior noise standards of the City's Noise Ordinance are presented
below in Tables 4.9.B and 4.9.C.
Erishing Noise Conslitiorrs
As discussed previously, the primary source of noise affecting the Merged Project
Area is motor vehicles. Avenge daily traffic flows along primary roadway corri-
dors within the City were utilized to model noise levels (Table 4.9.13).
In addition to the Noise Prediction Model, which is based on existing traffic
volumes on primary roadways in the City, noise measurements were also taken
at various locations throughout the City to validate the accuracy of the model
calculation, to determine existing ambient noise levels on secondary or less
traveled residential streets, and to account for point sources of noise. These are
reported in the General Plan Update in their entirety (see General Plan Update
EIR Figure N-2). Noise measurements in specific residential areas throughout
the City were taken to assess existing ambient noise levels. Noise Ievels in these
areas generally range from 50-65 dBA Ldn. Residential uses at various locations
throughout the City are exposed to noise levels exceeding 55 dBA Ldn, the
normally acceptable level according to Chapter 8.40 (Noise Control) of the CiWs.
Municipal Code. However, many of these uses are provided with noise attenua-
tion measures (e.g., walls, double glazed windows).
Noise measurements were also taken near selected point sources of noise,
including the Huntington Beach Oil Field, Orange County Sanitation Treatment
Plant, and Southern California Edison Company Generating Plant. All of these
locations registicnd noise levels below 66 dBA Ldn; the main source of noise was
generated by motor vehicles operating in the vicinity of the point sources (see
Appendix F of the General Plan Update EiR Technical Appendices). There are no
known noise point sources within the Merged Project Area bused on a review of
the General Plan Update EIR and visual inspection of the Merged Project Area in
May,1996.
•
7n996 LVC 630�FMECT4. VPD■ 4.9-5
•
•
Table 4.9.B - City of Huntington Beach Exterior Noise Standards
Noise
Zone Land Use Noise Level Time Period
I All residential properties 55 dBA 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
50 dBA 10:00 p.m. to 7:00
a.m.
2 All professional office 55 dBA Anytime
and public institutional
properties
3 All other commercial 60 dBA Anytime
properties
4 All industrial properties 70 dRA Anytime
Source; City of Huntington Beach, General Platt Update EIit, J*, 1995.
Table 4:.9.0 - Interior Noise Standards
Noise Zone Noise Level Time Period
1 55 MA 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
1 45 dBA 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 am.
2,3,4 55 dBA Anytime
Sour : City of Huntington Beach, General Plan Update EM July, 1995.
7/19/960I:\RSG630MRSECT" VPD-
4.9-6
Table 4.9.D - Existing and Future Noise Levels (Ldm) at 50 Feet from Centerlines of Major
Traffic Corridors 0
Average Daily Traffic
Noise Level dBA
Roadway Segment
Existing (1992)
Future (2010)
Existing
Future
A.
Warner Avenue (between)
1)
Gothard St - Beach Blvd.
34,000
46,000
65.27
65.40
2)
Bach Blvd. - Newland St.
21.000
47,000
65.o6
68.56
B.
Adams Avenue (between)
1)
Main St. - Bath Blvd
8.000
17,000
64.64
67.91
C.
Beach Boulevard (between)
1)
PCH -Atlanta Ave.
28,000
30,000
65.19
65.22
2)
lndianapolisAve.,AdanzAve.
40,000
40.000
65.34
65.34
3)
Adarns Ave. -Yorktown Ave.
44,000
38,000
65.38
65.32
4)
Ellis Ave. - Talbert Ave.
60,0o0
54,000
65.52
65.47
5)
Talbert Ave. - Slater Ave.
60,000
49,000
65.52
65.43
6)
Slater Ave. - Warner Ave.
62,000
49,000
65.53
65.43
7)
Warner Ave. - Heil Ave.
62,000
50,000
65-53
65.44
D.
PCH (between)
1)
Golden West St. - Brooirhurst St.
34,000
49,000
65.27
65.43
E.
Main Street (between)
1)
Yorktown Ave. - Garfield Ave.
12,000
26,000
64.82
68.18
F.
Edinger Avenue (between)
1)
Golden West Sc - Gothard St.
39,E
44,000
65.33
65.38
G.
Talbert Ave. (between)
1)
Golden West St. - Gothard St.
5,000
9,000
64.44
66.99
2)
Gothard St. - Bach Blvd.
10,000
12,000
64.82
64.90
3)
Beach Blvd. - Newland St.
14,000
15,000
64.97
65.08
H.
Yorktown Avenue (between)
1)
Bach Blvd. - Magnolia St.
14000
17000
64.89
64.97
Source: City of Huntington Bead%, General Plan update EIR. July, 1995.
7/19/96«1:VW63NEi MECr0-WYD* 4.9-7
4.9.2 77DZESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
As identified above, ambient noise levels exceed City standards along major
arterial roadways within the Merged Project Area. The following thresholds of
significance are used to determine potentially significant noise. impacts.
Future ambient noise levels exceed 70 dBA Ldn in Noise Zone 4 (Indus-
trial);
An audible (three dBA) increase in exterior 24 hour ambient noise levels
occurs in Noise Zones 1, 2 or 3 (see Table 4.9.0 for interior noise stan-
dard noise zones).
No additional CEQA Guidelines thresholds of significance criteria apply.
4.9.3 PROJECT IMPACTS
This section addresses future noise effects for the Merged Project Area based
upon cumulative build out of all areas within the City boundaries, as presented
in the General Plan Update EIR. Implementation of the General Plan would
generate an increase in vehicular trips throughout the City that would, in turn,
generate an increase in ambient noise levels throughout the City. This includes
increased vehicle trips originating from, and ending in, the Merged Project Area.
Future ambient noise levels were estimated using fixture traffic data as presented
in Section 5.3, Transportation/Circulation of the General Plan Update EIR.
Table 4.9.13 includes modeling results for existing as well as future ambient
noise levels at build out conditions along the arterial roadways of the City near
the Merged Project Area. As the table indicates, there are no areas within the
Merged, Project Area that would experience an audible (three dB or greater)
change in ambient noise levels.
None of the above roadway links are within the Merged Project Area; however,
they are adjacent (Main Street between Yorktown Avenue and Garfield Avenue;
WarnerAvenue between Beach Boulevard and Newland Street). Nonetheless, at
build out of the City, including the Merged Project Area, traffic from and through
the Merged Project Area will contribute to the overall increase in noise levels
reported in the General Plan Update EM
Significant noise impacts on existing sensitive uses may also be generated during
the construction of infrastructure improvements and future uses permitted in
the Merged Project Area. Construction noise is controlled through the City's
Noise Ordinance. General Plan Policy N 1.6.1 ensures that construction activi-
ties are regulated and are in conformance with City ordinances. Adherence to
the City's policies and noise ordinance will reduce the effects of construction
noise on sensitive receptors to a level that is less than significant.
7/19i9&1-\3tSG63o\En; `sECi'4-�9.WPI>), 4.9-8
4.9.4 CLMV A77VE IMPACTS
As reported in the General Plan Update E1R, local and regional vehicular traffic,
as well as increases in rail and air traffic, will contribute to cumulative increases
in ambient noise levels, both within and outside of the boundaries of the Merged
Project Area. Because there is no specific development proposed as part of the
Amendment/Merger, and there is no additional traffic or aircraft trips associated
with the Amendment/Merger (see Transportation and Circulation, Section 4.6
for a description of traffic effects), there will be no increase in ambient noise
levels. Therefore, there is no exceedance of the thresholds of significance.
4.9.5 GENERAL PLAN POI.IC ES
The General Flan includes several relevant polices in the Noise Element. The
policies that are applicable to the Amendment/Merger are identified below.
Require, in areas where existing or future noise levels exceed an Ldn of
50 dB(A) exterior and an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior, all new development
of "noise sensitive" land uses such as housing, health care facilities,
schools, libraries, religious facilities include appropriate buffering and/or
construction mitigation measures that will reduce noise exposure to
levels within acceptable limits (Policy N12.1).
Require new industrial and new commercial land uses or the major
expansion of existing laid uses to demonstrate that the new or ex-
panded use would not be directly responsible for causing ambient noise
levels to exceed an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior on areas containing 'noise
sensitive" land uses as depicted on Figure N-1 in the General Plan (Policy
N1- 22).
• Require development, in all areas where the ambient noise Ievel exceeds
an Ldn of 60 dB(A), to conduct an acoustical analysis and incorporate
special design measures in their construction, thereby, reducing interior
noise levels to the 45 dB(A) Ldn level (PolicyN1-23).
• Encourage existing "noise sensitive uses, ' including schools, libraries,
health care facilities, and residential uses to incorporate fences, walls,
landscaping, and/or other noise buffers and barriers, where appropriate
and feasible to mitigate noise impacts (Policy N 12.4).
• Require development that generates increased traffic and subsequent
increases in the ambient noise levels adjacent to noise sensitive land uses
to provide for appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with the
acceptable limits of the City noise ordinance (Policy N1.2,5).
• Require all new non-residential development to design and configure
on -sac ingress and egress points diverting traffic away from nearby 'noise
sensitive" land uses to the greatest degree practicable (Policy N13.1).
•
7/19/96"I:\FSC.630\FIIt%$ECT".V?])* 4.9-9
• Provide for the development of alternate transportation modes such as
bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways to minimize the number of noise
generating automobile trips (Policy N 13.7).
• Require that mechanical equipment, such as air conditioning units or
pool equipment, comply with the City's noise ordinance and Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance (Policy N 13.10).
• Requirecommercial and industrial land uses' loading and shipping fadli-
ties which abut residential parcels to be located and designed to mini-
mize the potential noise impacts upon residential parcels (Policy
N 1.4.2).
• Require all commercial and industrial land uses' parking areas which
abut residential areas to be buffered and shielded by walls, fences, or
adequate landscaping (Policy N 1.4.3).
• Require commercial or industrial truck delivery hours to land uses abut-
ting residential uses to be limited unless there is no feasible alternative
or there are overriding transportation benefits (Policy N 1.4.5).
• Require that commercial and residential mined -use structures minimize
the transfer or transmission of noise and vibration from the commercial
land use to the residential land use. The design measure used may in-
clude: (1) the use of materials which mitigate sound transmission; or (2)
the configuration of interior spaces to minitni7P soused amplification and
transmission (Policy N 1.5.1).
• Ensure that construction activities be regulated to establish hours of
operation, to prevent and/or mitigate the generation of excess or adverse
noise impacts through the implementation of the existing Noise Ordi-
nance and/or any future revisions to the Noise Ordinance (Policy
N1.61).
• Require that entertainment and restauranvbar uses take appropriate
steps to control the activities of their patrons on -site, as well as within a
reasonable and kWJly justified distance or proximity, to minimize poten-
tial noise -related impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods (Policy
N1.8.1).
• Require new oil or residential development to include noise mitigation
measures (PolicyN1.I1.1).
• Require detailed and independent acoustical studies be conducted for
any new or renovated land uses or structures determined to be potential
major stationary noise sources. Recommended mitigation measures
must be successfully implemented and tested, prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the land use or structure (Policy N 1.12.1).
• Encourage major stationary noise generating sources throughout the City
of Huntington Beach to install additional noise buffering or reduction
7/r9j96KIATSG63oIM0SECT".VPD ► 4.9-10
mechanisms within their facilities to reduce noise generation levels to
the lowest extent practicable prior to the renewal of Conditional Use
Permits or business licenses or prior to the approval and/or issuance of
new Conditional Use Permits for said facilities (Policy N 1.122).
4.9.6 MH7GA77ON MEASURES
None required.
4.9.7IEVEL OFLIYIPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Genets Plan Noise Element policies and City noise ordinances will be imple-
mented for the Amendment/Merger, resulting in lower ambient noise levels than
reported in the General Plus Update EM Because the Amendment/Merger does
not change land use intensities from those reported in the General Plan, and
there is no specific new development proposed by the Amendment/Merger,
there are no significant impacts.
•
•
7/19A O6WI:VtSG6301FMECr" VPD■ 4.9-11
4.10 PUBLIC SERVICES AND ILMLMES
Questionnaires were sent with the Notice of Preparation for the Huntington
Beach Redevelopment EIR to the public service utilities and other service provid-
ers requesting information on current service levels in the Merged Project Area,
whether demand exceeds supply, and whether there would be an impact as a
result of the project. Information from the questionnaire responses is used as a
basis for the analysis, and is included throughout the chapter. Information from
the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update EIR is also used in the analy-
sis in this section.
4. Z0.I EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Police Services
The City of Huntington Beach is served by one central police station and four
substations. The main station is located at 2000 Main Stint, within Yorktown -
lake. The Oakview Center Substation, located at 17261 Oak Lane, is located
within Oakview. The Downtown Substation, at 204 5th Street, is located within
Main -Pier. Huntington Center Substation, at 7777 Edinger, is located within
Huntington Center. Figure P-1 in the General Plan Update EIR (page 5.13.1-2)
identifies the locations of the central police station and substations.
The General Plan Update EIR reports that the Downtown and beach areas con-
tinue to require extensive police coverage, particularly during the warmer
months of the year when crowds increase. Although the Koledo Paris-Oakview
area requires extra police coverage, the police substation in that area has helped
to stabilize reported crimes.
Fire and EmeMencyMedical Services
The City of Huntington Beach Fire Department provides fire protection services
to the Merged Project Area. The Fire Department has seven fire stations, three of
which are located adjacent to or within the Merged Project Area. The station
number, name, location, and equipment assigned to the three stations are iden-
tified in Table 4.10A. Table 4.10.B lists the necessary staff levels to operate the
fire protection equipment_
The Fire Department operates on a 24 hour shift basis, with one command unit
staffed with two persons, five engine companies staffed with three persons each,
two paramedic engine companies staffed with four persons each, three para-
medic vans staffed with two persons each, two ladder truck companies staffed
with four persons each, three ambulance units staffed with two persons each,
and a combination engine, h27in2vlight air company staffed with three persons.
This provides a total of 36 firefighters each day, supported by three dispatchers
and administrative staff. Staffing levels are increased when fire risk Ievels are
increased (e.g., high winds, active fire conditions, natural disasters).
7n9A6«L\csc.6WZM\SEcr4-10VPD- 4.10-1
Table 4.10A - Fire Stations Servicing the Merged Project Area
Station No./Name Station Location Equipment Assignedt
1- Gothard Station
18311 Gothard
Ambulance Unit HA 41
Street
Fire Paramedic Engine HME 41
Fire Engine Squad HE 241
HAZ-MAT Unit HMH 41
Air dr Mobile light Plant HIA 41
Command Unit HB 4
2 - Mundy Station
16221 Gothard
Eire Ambulance HA 41
Street
Fire Engine HE 42
Ladder Truck HQ 42
Paramedic Unit HM 42
Reserve Engine HE 242
Ambulance Unit HA 42
5 - Lake Station
530lake Street
Fire Engine HE 45
Ladder Truck HQ45
Paramedic Unit HN 45
Reserve Engine HE 245
Ambulance Unit HA 45
Table 4.10.B - Fire
Operations Staffing Levels
Hazardous
Engine
Truck
Materials Paramedic Engine
1 Captain
1 Captain
I Captain 1 Captain (Paramedic)
1 Engine
1 Engine
1 Engineer 1 Engineer (Paramedic)
1 Firefighter
2 Firefighters
I Firefighter 1 Firefighter
1 Firefighter Paramedic
3 Total
4 Total
3 Total 4 Total (Requires a total
of trio paramedics)
Dispatch
Medic Van
Battalion Chief
3 Dispatch2
2 Paramedics
1 Battalion Chief
i Engineer/tide
3 Total
2 Total
2 Total
SOURCE: CityofHuntington Beach, General Plan Update EIR, July, 1995.
1 HA - Huntington Ambulance
HE - Huntington Engine
HM - Huntington Medic
HHM - Huntington Hazardous Materials
HIA - Huntington Light Air
HB - Huntington Battalion
2 Operated under a Joint Powers Authority that includes the cities of Foun-
tain Valley, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and Westminster.
7/19/96«LVt4G630\MMECT4-10.WFD» 4.10-2
Currently, a response time of five minutes or less exists for the Merged Project
Area. (Source: General Plan Update EIR).
Eristsng Parks and Recreation Facilities
The City of Huntington Beach has several parks, and offers a wide variety of
recreational programs and facilities, primarily through the City's Department of
Community Services. Park facilities include community centers, senior Centers,
a golf course, clubhouses, a gym and pool, bikeways and equestrian trail systems,
a historic structure, campgrounds, and marine based amenities such as the
beaches and the pier.
The City contains 1,165.7 acres of parka and recreational facilities, including
beach parks, a City owned golf course, and other parks currently planned or
under development. Parke facilities in the City include mini, neighborhood,
community, and regional parka.
Terry Park is located within Talbert -Beach. Facilities at Terry Park include an
activities building, basketball courts, children's play area, open grass play area,
picnic tables and softball diamonds. The Huntington City Beach is located
within Main -Pier. Facilities include a public beach, basketball courts, a bicycle
path, and camping. There are no park facilities located within Yorktown -Lake,
Huntington Center and Oakview.
IsRecreational facilities other than parks in the City include the Municipal Pier,
recreational vehicle camping, Huntington Harbour, community centers, Seniors'
Center, golf courses, City Gym and Pool, clubhouses, bikeways, equestrian trail
system, Newland House, Golden West College, and private recreational facilities.
These facilities are described in further detail in the General Plan Update EIR
(pages 5.13.4-5 through 5.13.4-8).
•
Road Maintenance
Road maintenance includes the general care of roads and landscaping within all
public rights -of -way. This work is primarily handled by the City's Public Works
Department through the Street and Sewer Maintenance Division and the Parke,
Tree, and Landscape Division.
The Street and Sewer Maintenance Division is responsible for maintaining the
City's streets. The Division also conducts preventative road maintenance ser-
vices.
The Park, Tree and Landscape Division is responsible for landscape and tree
maintenance of all public right-of-way property within the City. In addition, the
Division maintains landscape and trees on Beach Boulevard (Sit 39) and Pacific
Coast Highway (SR-1).
7/19/96KI:VtSG63OJ9Xt SECr4-lO.V7D* 4.10-3
The above road maintenance programs and departments cover the entire City of
Huntington Beach. Therefore, the Merged Project Area is served by road mainte-
nance in the City of Huntington Beach.
Other GvvernmenW Services
Library Service
There are five public libraries within the City, which serve the Merged Project
Area and are identified in Table 4.10.C. The Oakview Branch library is the only
library within the Merged Project Area.
Table 4.10.0 - City of Huntington Beach Public Libraries
Visitors Per
Name Location Day No. of Vohxmes
Central Library 7111 Talbert Ave.
and Cultural
Center
Graham Branch 15882 Graham
Street
Oakview Branch
Banning Branch
Main Street
Branch
17251 Oak lane
9281 Banning Ave-
nue
525 Main Street
3,000 350,000 volume3, 12,000
genealogy items & 5,700
media items
240 19,850
100 6,540
214 24,197
160 26,670
SOURCE: City of Huntington Beach, General Plan Update EI& July, 1995; Personal
Communication with Oakview Branch Library Stiff
The Banning and Graham branches are operating beyond capacity. In addition,
the Main Street branch library requires facility rehabilitation. The 02k-view
branch library is a new facility, and is located in Oakview. This facility has been
in operation for approzixwately one year.
Public Heap% Care Service
Public health care is provided to City residents through two governmental orga-
nizations: the County of Orange Health Care Agency and the University of Cali-
fomia at Irvine, Medical Center.
7/19/9&I: O1£IRSECTS-t0.VFD*
4.10-4
•
0 Utility Serl ces
Water
The Huntington Beach Water Department currently supplies an annual average
of 33 million gallons per day (MGD) to 48,000 water meters. Typically, the
majority of the City's water is supplied by groundwater wells, while the remain-
der is supplied through imported sources. Varying rainfall amounts and import
water availability make these amounts vary from year to year.
The City has two water pressure zones: Zone Nos. 1 and 2. Zone No. 1 covers
the majority of the City and includes the Merged Project Area. The water pres-
sure is Zone No. 1 is approximately 50 to 60 pounds per square inch (psi).
Other sources of crater for the City of Huntington Beach include water supplied
by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and 14 underground water wells.
One of the wells is located within the Merged Project Area, within Huntington
Center.
The City's water storage system consists of the Overmyer Reservoir Complex and
the Peck Reservoir. The Peck Reservoir has a capacity of 16 million gallons, the
Overmyer Reservoir Complex has a capacity of 24.5 million gallons. Currently,
the storage facilities are inadequate to serve the water demands of the City. A
new nine million gallon reservoir is being considered.
Under the Master Plan for the City's water system designed to accommodate new
growth and development, including the following facilities to be constructed:
Three new underground waterwells,
One nine million gallon reservoir, and
Reclaimed water distribution line to connect with the Orange County
Water District's Green Acres Project.
Other planned improvements include increasing the water system rapacity for
water distribution relative to boosters and groundwater well sources.
Sewerage
Sewerage services for the City of Huntington Beach are provided by the Sanita-
tion Districts of Or-mW County and the City of Huntington Beach. Currently, 98
percent of the residents of the City are connected to the existing sewer system,
while the r►maiaing two percent use septic tanks.
The Sanitation Districts of Orange County has two wastewater treatment plants
that serve the City. Both wastewater treatment plants perform pri==T and
secondary treatment. Plant No. 1 has an operating rapacity of 60 million gallons
per day (mgd). Plant No. 2 has an operating capacity of 200 mgd for primary
treatment and 96 mgd for secondary treatment. Plant No. 2 currently operates
at 170 mgd. Currently, the Sanitation Districts of Orange County is experiencing
a 14 percent decrease in wastewater treatment demand due to conservation
7n9A6rt\sc.63O\ER\SECT4-10-corm 4.10-5
practices and City/County imposed regulations. Neither of these wastewater
treatment plans is Iocated within the Merged Project Area. However, these is
plants serve the Merged Project Area.
Solid Waste
The City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department reports that the City
currently generates approximately 1,845 tons of solid waste per day. Rainbow
Disposal, the provider of waste collection service to the City, transports waste to
a transfer station and then to the City's materials recovery facility (MRF). The
MRF is Iocated at 17121 Nichols Avenue, and is not within the Merged Project
Area. Solid waste is sorted at the MRF, and all recyclables are separated. Approx-
imately 16 percent of the solid waste accepted by the MRF is diverted to recy-
cling.
Solid waste that is not recycled is transported to the Frank Bowerman Landfill in
Bee Canyon in the City of Leine. The lifespan of the Landfill is 30 years, begin-
ning in 1995.
On January 1, 1990, the California State Legislature enacted the California Inte-
grated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939). Under AB939, cities and
counties must identify and implement a solid waste reduction schedule to divert
25 percent from the solid waste stream by 1995, increasing to 50 percent by
2000. In response to AB939, the City of Huntington Beach adopted a Source
Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and a Household Hazardous Waste
Element (HHWE) in April, 1992. If AB939 (discussed below) solid waste reduc-
tion requirements are met, the Frank Bowerman Landfill has a potential lifespan
of 50 years.
Storm Drainageg%Doding
Storm Drainage
The storm drainage system for the Redevelopment Project Area is a combination
of the Orange County Flood Control District and the City of Huntington Beach
Public Works Department. Figure SD-1 in the General Plan Update EIR (page
5.12.3-2) illustrates the existing storm drain channels within the City.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has identified locations in
the City that are susceptible to flooding. Figure 4.10.1 identifies the potential
FEMA flood event locations in the City. The Merged Project Area is also shown
on the map. Project specific flooding information is identified below.
The Santa Ana River Mainstem Project, a storm water project of the United States
Army Corps of Engineers, is expected to be completed in the year 2000. The
purpose of the project is to decrease storm drainage impacts on the Santa Ana
River and its basin by increasing the storage capacity of dams located along the
river and improving the river's channels from the San Bernardino Mountains to
7n9)9&L-N tSG630fWECT4-1o.Vn)* 4.10-6
CA
co 67
SEAL
BEACH
SCLSA.
8
7-
LEGEND Elev. 13"---m%;
City Boundary Elev. 1Z.
A - No Base Flood Elevation
A99 - Protected by federal Project
Under Construction -- -----
Elev. 12'
VE - Coastal Flood with Velocity Hazard
4
X - Areas of 500 Year Floods;
Areas of 100 Year Floods with Average Depth
< I Ft. and Protected by 100 Year Flood Levels
Area Outside of 500 Year Flood
Redevelopment Arm
Sotuvr- Cirf of H=tingwn Bead. Gcocral Phn Uom EIR. 7M.
7/1&96(RSG630)
&--I'
N
LSD Scale in MAM
0 0-5 1 4.10-7
AAC
FADDEN
Elev. I I'
WESTMMTER
I
HEIL
WARNER FOUNTAIN
VALLEY
SLATS
TALBERT
Eum
Figure 4. 10.1
Flood Hazard Areas
demands are being met and that additional demand for natural gas can be pro.
vided if necessary. 9
Telecommunications
Telepbone
General Telephone and Electric (GTE,) provides telephone service to the Merged
Project Area. Five GTE offices are located in the City of Huntington Beach,
providing Loral service coverage for all of the Merged Project Area.
Cable Television
Time Warner Communications provides cable television service to the Merged
Project Area.
4.10.2 77 RESHOLDS OF SIGArMCANCE
Impacts to public services and utilities arc considered significant if they result in
the following. -
Police Services
Results in increased demands that significantly exceed the Huntington
Beach Police Department's capabilities to the extent that they pose a
serious health and safety risk.
Fire and Emergency Medical Services
Results in demands that significantly exceed the Huntington Beach Fire
Department's capabilities to the extent that they pose a serious health
and safety risk.
Oilier Services and Uhbties
Results in demands for services that significantly exceed available service
or utility capacity.
4.10.3 PROJECT IMPACTS
Police Services
The Merged Project Area is nearly built out at this time, and future build out will
not substantially increase the need for police service. Therefore, it is anticipated
7/1906«LAY SG63UJM*EC r4-10.WPtw 4.10-9
L�
that police service facilities would not be significantly impacted due to the im-
plementation of the Amendment/Merger. Future redevelopment and new
construction projects will need to be analyzed on a project by project basis to
determine potential police service needs in the Merged Project Area. Therefore,
the Merged Project will not result in asignificant impact on police services.
Fire and Emergency Medical Services
Build out of the Merged Project Area would result in additional incremental
demands for fire and emergency medical services.
Due to the nature of the redevelopment activities to implement infrastructure
improvements, and to assist in affordable housing and economic development
activities, additional demand for fire and emergency medical services would be
small. The potential Agency actions do not change any land uses, and potential
development is consistent with anticipated growth in the City s General Plan.
Future redevelopment and construction projects associated with the implemen-
tation of the Amendment/Merger will need to be analyzed on a project by pro-
ject basis to determine potential new demand for fire and emergency medical
services. Therefore, the Merged Project will not result in a significant impact on
fire and emergency medical services.
Parks and Reereatian
The General Plan Update EIR indicates that existing parks and recreation facili-
ties are adequate under build out of the General Plan Update. The growth
within the Merged Project Area is consistent with that anticipated at build out of
the General Plan; therefore, the Amendment/Merger will not result in significant
impacts to parks and recreation located in the Merged Project Area. Therefore,
the Merged Project will not result in significant impacts to the demand for parks
and recreation services.
Road Mafntenanre
Build out of the General Plan Update will create an increased demand on road
maintenance services beyond existing provision of services. Construction of new
roadways will add to the demand for road maintenance service, as well as land-
smpe maintenance services. The General Plan Update EiR reports that without
increases in funding. level of service provided by road maintenance crews will
decrease due to increased demand on existing staff, equipment and facilities.
One of the functions of the Amendment/Merger is to provide additional funding
for such projects within the Merged Project Area. Therefore, the Merged Project
will offset new demand for road maintenance and landscape maintenance ser-
vices by providing funding for such programs,
7/19i96-t1.1RSG63v=SECT4to.VPD» 4.10-10
Other Governmental Services
Library
The General Plan Update ELR identifies the need for additional library space on a
citywide basis. The Oakview Branch Library, which has been in service for ap-
proximately one year, provides services to the Merged Project Area. One of the
programs that could be funded by Redevelopment Agency tax increment financ-
ing is expansion of the Oakview Branch Library. This could more than offset any
impacts resulting from implementation of the Amendment/Merger.
Public Health Care
Due to the nature of the redevelopment activities to increase commercial reha-
bilitation and provide economic and infrastructure incentives to aid in economic
revitalization, the overall effect will be to add job opportunities and reduce
dependance on social programs. The redevelopment activities programmed in
the Amendment/Merger will not displace or physically effect any public health
care provider. Therefore, there is no significant effect on public health rare.
Utility Services
•
water
Because of the nature of typical redevelopment investment into infrastructure S
and resolving service deficiencies as a means of promoting area economic devel-
opment, and the additions] financing available by the Amendment/Merger,
beneficial effects on inh-Astructure are anticipated, including water services.
Redevelopment activities that are primarily infrastructure projects and economic
development assistance will not significantly affect existing water service. How-
ever, future redevelopment and new construction projects will need to be ana-
ly� on a specific project level basis to determine the future water service need
for the Merged Project Area.
Sewerage
The Amendment/Merger will not change the redevelopment area boundaries or
the land uses that were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR Therefore, the
conclusion that sewage capacities at nearby plants was adequate to ensure that
sewage service could be provided is still valid for the AmendmentlMerger. The
Amendment/Merger will not change the amount of sewage and, therefore, will
not adversely impact the ability of the Sanitation Districts of Orange County to
provide service to the area.
•
7A9N6■LVt5*63VZMECf410.V?t) ► 4.10-11
•
Solid Waste
Although the Merged Project Area is included in the General Plan, the square
footage and ultimate build out of the Merged Project Area are unknown at this
time. In addition, it is anticipated that the potential increase in capacity needed
under the General Plan build out would not be significant, and could be re-
duced through implementation of solid waste reduction policies. Therefore, it is
anticipated that redevelopment activities will not significantly affect existing
solid waste facilities or generate a significant amount of solid waste.
Storm Drainage/Flooding
Because the Merged Project Area is nearty built out, with a small number of
vacant parcels yet to develop, the additional development potential would not
substantially increase the amount of impermeable surfaces, i.e., it would have
virtually no effect on runoff amounts and velocity.
Potential runoff increases resulting from new projects will need to be analyzed
on a project by project basis to determine any potential storm drain impacts on
the storm drain channels in the immediate vicinity. The Orange County Environ-
mental Management Agency (OCEMA) has indicated that it will not accept any
new connections to the County's storm drainage system until existing facilities
have been expanded to accommodate additional capacity. Several of the pro-
jects that could be funded by Redevelopment Agency tax increment financing
could include improvements to storm dramas and surface drainage. However,
the Merged Project will not result in increased stormwater runoff and will not
impact the storm drain system.
Tsuaami/seiche hazards are also considered to be potentially significant due to
the City's proximity to the Pacific Ocean. When a tsunami reaches shallow
coastal areas, the rapid incoming tide "runs up" onto beaches, harbors and other
narrow inlets, damaging light weight and poorly constructed structures. Main-
Pierwould experience the most severe tsunami/seiching damage; the remainder
of the Merged Project Area would not be affected. These conditions currently
exist at the Main -Pier, and are not a direct result of the Merged Project..
Flooding hazards to the City and to the Merged Project Area are considered to be
potentially significant. As previously identified, portions of the Merged Project
Area are located in areas of potential flood depths of up to three feet. Future
redevelopment sponsored activities and new construction projects will need to
be analyzed on a project level basis to determine future storm drainage and
flooding avoidance needs. Projected construction of stormwater runoff drainage
systems using Redevelopment Agency tax increment financing could be a major
benefit of the adoption of the Amendment/Merger (see the list of projects
funded by the Redevelopment Agency in Chapter 3.0).
7/r9/96 l..\ftSC,OU%UWECs'4-ro.Vn)* 4.10-12
Electricity 0
The square footage and ultimate build out of the Merged Project Area are un-
known at this time. Based on SCE's continued provision of electrical service to
the Merged Project Area and the City as a whole, it is anticipated that the Merged
Project will nor significantly affect existing electrical facilities and demands.
Therefore, the Merged Project will not result in a significant impact on the de-
mand for electricity in the area.
Na tcral Gars
The potential Merged Project programs and ultimate build out of the Merged
Project Area are consistent with the General Plan. As indicated in the General
Plan Update EIR, there are adequate services available or planned to accommo-
date the planned growth. It is anticipated that redevelopment activities will not
significantly affect existing natural gas service and demands.
Telecommunscatans
As indicated in responses to a questionnaire, GTE will continue to provide its
current level or expanded levels of stationary telephone service. In addition,
Time Warner Communications will be able to accommodate increased demands
for cable television associated with implementation of the project. Therefore, no
significant effects to telecommunications service will result with build out of the
General Plan or the implementation of the Merged Project
4.10.4 CUMULAT7 T ZNPAC7S
Due to the nature of the proposed projects of the Redevelopment Agency,
including street, landscaping and storm drainage improvements (see Chapter
3.0), the anticipated benefits to the Merged Project Area from these infrastruc-
ture and facilities improvements will lessen service and facility cumulative de-
mand.
The General Plan Update E R indicates that build out of the General Plata Update
will bring an additional. 48,470 persons to the City's population base. The Police
Department has indicated that, using its current facilities and staffing levels, an
adequate level of service cannot be provided with build out of the General Plan.
However, the Amendment/Merger is not proposing to build any project. There-
fore, the proposed Merger Project will not contribute to this cumulative impact.
4.10.5 G N2 u,a t_ PLAN POLICIES
With implementation of the policies contained in the Utilities Element of the
General Plan, effects resulting from increased demand on police aad fire ser-
vices, public service, and utilities and facility improvements will be substantially
reduced. 0
7/19i96KL•\PSG6301EIIaSEC'T4-lO.WK)- 4.10-13
• Identify tsunami and seiche susceptible areas, and requite that specific
measures be taken by the developer, builder or property owner, as nec-
essary, to prevent or reduce damage from these hazards and the risks
upon human safety (Policy EM 5.1.1).
Participate in the National Weather Service or other system for local
tsunami and/or seiche warnings (Policy EH 5.1.2).
implementation Programs
Standards for tsunami/seiche studies to be completed for harbor areas,
breakwaters and dikes, and coastal arras of concern. The City shall up-
date its evaluation of the tsunami hazard, stake its standard more spe-
cific, and disseminate available inforrmation on tsunarni warnings and on
procedural steps to prepare the populace for such an event. Mitigation
measures shall be suggested for new construction (Program I-EH2).
4.10.6 M177GA77ON MEASURES
There are no potentially significant or significant impacts to public services and
utilities resulting from the implementation of the Amendment/Merger. There-
fore, no additional mitigation measures are required.
i
410.7 LEVEL OFIMPACTSIGNMYCANCEAF7E2ZAf=GATTON
is
Provided that the mitigation measures identified above and the General Plan
policies are implemented and monitored, the impacts to public services and
utilities are considered to be less than significant.
7/19)96*ci:\SG630�ERSEcr4-20.VPD* 4.10-14
4.11 AESTHETICS
This section is based on a field survey by LSA in May, 1996, and on information
in the City's General Plan Update EUL
411.1 EXISTING PNM0A3iENTAL SETTING
Urban Fora:
The Merged Project Area is located in portions of the City of Huntington Beach
that have flat or near level topographic expression. As a result, there are no
significant identifiable landform features relevant to these areas. Main -Pier has
some minor landforms where the beach area gradually slopes down to the Pacific
Ocean. Elevation differences in this area are minor.
The General Plan divides the City into component urban forms. These include
principal districts, nodes and key entry points, paths, landmarks and edges.
Principal visual assets are also identified. The Merged Project Area includes
many of these urban forms, as illustrated in Table 4.11JL
The City of Huntington Beach's urban form has been determined by residential,
commercial, and industrial subdivisions that have occurred in a piecemeal and
inconsistent maauer since before the Cites founding. Generally, the design and
configuration of lots and uses reflected planning styles that Were typically used
at the time the subdivisions were platted. As the City is comparatively flat, the
patterns of development have occurred with little regard to natural topography,
creating relatively uniform grid patterns. The only significant natural element
influencing the urban pattern in the Merged Project Ares is the Pacific Ocean,
which establishes a clear edge on the City's western boundary.
An exception to the standard subdivision development pattern occurs in the
City's downtown area. This unique pattern of development formed very early in
the City's history; this follows the old "town lot" pattern, consisting of small lots
and short blocks that have been developed in a consistent grid pattern. Devel-
opment and lots were configured to form a distinct "coastal village" character,
which was representative of many communities along the Southern California
coastline.
Older Urban Condition
The Merged Project Area contains a mixture of residential, commercial and
industrial land uses. Although some new development has occurred, most
development is at least 20 years old or older. With the aging process, there are
notable visual issues regarding lack of routine maintenance, including exterior
building paint and repair, and deterioration of landscape materials. Improve-
ments needed to address these issues generally range from general maintenance,
such as paint and minor exterior remodeling, to major exterior upgrading, and
modernization of signage.
7/19)96,Ktc\1SCr&3W i kNSECr4-1t.VPm 4.11-1
•
Table 4.11A - Relevant Urban Forms in Merged Project Area
Location
Primary District
Node/Entry point
Path
Landmark
Edge
Visual Asset
Main -Pier
Downtown Commercial
Secondary entries along
Beach (primary);
Pier/Pierside
Pacific
Pacific Ocean
(�
PCH; internal node at Main
PCH (primary); Main
Pavillion/Maxwell's; We-
Ocean/Beac
do PCH
(secondary)
terfront Hilton
hes
Huntington Cen-
Edinger Commercial
Primary entry node at Bench
Beach (primary);
None
San Diego
!None
ter
Corridor (9)
Boulevard; internal nodes at
Edinger (primary)
Preemy
Edinger/Golden West do
(405)
Edinger/Beach
Oak View
Beach Cornmercfal Cor-
Intemal node at Warner A
Beach (primary);
Guardian Tower
None
None
ridor (8); Gothard In-
Beach
Warner (primary)
dustrial Corridor (14)
Talbert -Beach
Beach Commercial Cor-
None
Beach (primary)
None
None
None
ridor (8); Gothard In-
dustrial Corridor (14)
Yorktown -{aloe
`Old Town" District (1)
internal node at Yorktown &
Main (secondary)
City ball & High School
None
Mature Land -
Lake '
scaping
Sources City of fiuntlngton Reach, General Plan !Update 811t, July, 1995.
7/19/961:1RSG630BIR ECT4.11.WPD* 4.11-2
Visual Liabilities
Visual elements exist within the City that confuse and weaken the communitys
aesthetic resources and overall visual appearance. These visual liabilities inter-
fere with development of a cohesive City image. The nature of community
development can, in and of itself, be a visual liability if it inhibits the observer's
ability to gain orientation or a sense of place.
The EIR for the General Plan describes the types and locations of Huntington
Beach's visual liabilities that contribute negatively to the visual quality of the
community. These liabilities are classified in three categories: 1) confusions, 2)
obstructions, and 3) discontinuities. Briefly "confusions" arc locations that do
not provide orientation or a sense of direction to either pedestrians or vehicular
traffic. Obstructions are natural or man-made elements that limit visual access
within a community. Discontinuities are developments where there is no appar-
ent order or harmony in the overall scale or character of the built environment.
All three types of these visual liabilities were identified in the General Plan Up-
date EIR as being found within the Merged Project Area. Within Huntington
Center, the Beach Boulevard off -ramp of the southbound I405 is identified as an
area of "confusion,' primarily as a result of the convergence of traffic onto Center
Avenue from various directions.
Huntington Center, Oakview and Talbert -Beach are all characterized predomi-
nately as containing "obstructions' such as fencing/landscaping signage or de-
tracting urban activities (i.e., oil production facilities or large buildings), which
block views and create visual clutter. One example of this is vegetation that
blocks views from the I-405 Freeway, creating visual obstruction to Huntington
Beach Mall.
Yorktown Lake and Main -Pier include areas of identified "discontinuuties,' where
the pattern of urban development has resulted is a lack of a cohesive urban
design or visual character.
Through identification of these visual liabilities, the City identified specific poli-
cies within the General Plan to guide the urban design and aesthetic character of
new development and identify other means for improving the overall visual
appearance of the City as a whole.
Visual Amenities
The primary visual amenity within the Merged Project Area is the view of the
ocean and beach frontage on the southerly side of PCH. Adding to the shoreline
identity of the community is a significant landmark, the Huntington Beach Pier.
This landmark is a major identifying element of the community, and is also an
historic landmark. The pier was demolished after being severely weakened by
heavy storms, and was rebuilt according to original plans, thus preserving its
place as an important visual and historical element of the City of Huntington
Beach. 0
7/19/96r1.1RSG630JMUECr4-11 VPDIP 4.113
4.11.2 T BRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines includes a definition of a significant aes-
theticAisual impact as having a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect on the environment. The General Plan Update EIR applies this broad
definition to the City of Huntington Beach, in two ways. Significant aesthetic
impacts would be generated if the Amendment/Merger.
Results in a substantial disruption or loss of public mews, including
those of the ocean and shoreline, natural bluffs, wetlands, or mature
vegetation.
Allows development or intensification of development which is substan-
tially out of character or scale with the existing development of a dis-
trict, node, path, landmark, or edge area of the City.
4.11.3 PROJECT IMPACTS
Since implementation of the Amendment/Merger will allow land uses consistent
with the land uses identified in the General Plain, this impact analysis is based on
the analysis conducted for the EIR for the General Plan.
As concluded in the EIR for the General Plan, intensification of residential, com-
mercial and industrial land uses within the City will result in opportunities to
remedy existing visual liabilities or enhance the visual strengths of existing
districts, nodes, paths, landmarks and edges. Although intensification has the
potential to create visual liabilities, such as obstruction of existing views and
introduction of land uses that are out of character/scale with existing land uses,
implementation of the policies of the General Plan will foster development of
unifying visual themes and result in a net improvement of the visual image of the
City of Huntington Beach, reducing potential impacts to below the level of
significance.
In relationship to the Merged Project Area, the primary visual effects of the
proposed land use intensification would occur along the Beach Boulevard and
Edinger Avenue commercial corridors. Huntington Center, Oakview and
Talbert -Beach are located adjacent to or in proximity to Beach Boulevard, and
would be affected by General Plan policies developed to enhance the economic
viability of this corridor. General commercial expansion would be allowed from
the I405 to Warner Avenue, between Talbert and Garfield Avenues and between
Yorktown and Adams Avenues.
The Edinger Avenue commercial corridor, from Golden West Street to Bach
Boulevard (within Huntington Center), is characterized by intermittent "Large
box" retail centers. The proximity to freeway transportation, which can more
easily access larger market areas, favors locations along Edinger Avenue for such
commercial cues rather than more southerly locations in the City.
In addition, the Downtown commercial district includes an area covering two
isblocks on each side of Main Street, between the pier or Pacific Cost Highway
7/19)96wU)R5G630=SECT4-11.Vr1)- 4.11-4
and Palm Street. The General Plan Update indicates that this district will likely
continue to experience growth in the form of mixed -use developments, such as
those recently constructed with a neo-Mediterranean design (within the Main -
Pier).
The encouragement of commercial growth to selected segments of Beach Boule-
vard and Edinger Avenue is designed to complement existing conditions, to
enhance commercial themes, and to permit distinct locations and identities
along existing commercial corridors. The overall visual image characteristics of
the commercial corridors would only slightly change over the short term, at an
incremental, fairly slow pace as business owners' decisions to build new business
and/or expand existing ones occur. Most of the increased commercial develop-
ment would be along the Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue corridors, which
are outside of the Merged Project Area.
General Plan Policies
The General Plan sets forth a number of goals, objectives, and policies that are
intended to enhance and better coordinate the visual character of Huntington
Beach's natural and built environments. These policies are, for the most part,
applicable to the Amendment/Merger. Goals presented in the Environmental
Resources/Conservation (ERC) Element address issues relating to Scenic High-
ways, Aesthetic Resources, and Open Space. Goals contained in the Urban
Design (UD) Element focus on issues related to the enhancement of the City's
visual image. Goals and objectives established for both of these elements are
also designed to remedy, repair, or improve the visual character of visual liability
areas of the City.
Several of the stated goals, objectives, and policies contained in the General Plan
are intended to foster the creation of identifiable visual themes for the 15 urban
districts and for the corridors and nodes that link them physically and function-
ally (see Section 5.9, Aesthetic/Vssual Resources, Figures VR-2, VR-3 and VR-4 in
the General Plan Update EIR).
ImpUcations of the Amendment/Merger
The adoption and implementation of the Amendment/Merger will allow the
,Agency to collect additional to increment revenue. The increased = revenues
will, in part, be applied to upgrading the Merged Project Area aesthetics, thus
improving the visual appearance and reducing or eliminating negative visual
images. Revenues can be used to renovate buildings, provide public landscap-
ing, demolish blighted, dilapidated and unsafe buildings, among other uses. The
use of tax increment revenue to eliminate blight, and to upgrade and improve
eadsting buildings, will result in positive aesthetic impacts to the Merged Project
Area and the City of Huntington Beach.
The Amendment/Merger does not include any specific development projects.
The only projects associated with the Amendment/Merger include capital public
improvements such as street, storm drains, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, as well
7n9.9"LUGGOWIRNSECi411.WPIA 4.11-5
as water and sewer utilities. The construction of these improvements will assist
in improving the area's aesthetics and image. It is likely that these types of
improvements will have a positive impact on private investment, thus encourag-
ing local property owners to follow with additional upgrades, improvements,
increased maintenance and new development. All of these efforts are consid-
ered beneficial due to the Amendment/ Merger and, therefore, will result in
positive aesthetic impacts to both the project area and the City in general.
At the time that private projects are proposed, consistent with the Merged Plan
and General Plan, they must be submitted to the City Community Development
Department for review. If there are potential aesthetic impacts associated with a
particular project, the City will, through its normal development review process,
require design changes to reduce aesthetic impacts to acceptable levels. The
Community Development Department reviews all project applications, and the
AmendmenvMerger will have no effect on that process. All future projects
developed with redevelopment assistance must be processed through the City's
development approval process and building permit process.
Overall, the Amendment/Merger is anticipated to have positive and beneficial
aesthetic impacts to the Merged Project Area. The use of tax increment revenue
will allow the Agency to use monies for improving and updating dilapidated and
blighted buildings, ultimately having positive visual impacts.
Within the Merged Project Area, development projects that could negatively
affect or disrupt public views, or could be developed out of character or scale
could occur. However, there are several reasons why such development should
not negatively affect the Merged Project Area's visual resources or adjacent
resources:
I. The Merged Project Area is substantially developed, and future infili
development of vaunt parcels will not be significant. where redevelop-
ment involves substantial demolition and reconstruction, there is a po-
tential for larger scale development and loss of public views, if these
views were previously available. However, in the four inland portions of
the Merged Project Area, there are no locations where existing public
views would be affected, either through development of vacant parcels
or through large-scale redevelopment.
2. Future development requests that are out of character or scale would be
reviewed and modifications recommended to achieve neighborhood
compatibility consistent with the policies of the General Plan. In any
event, as described above, future development projects are submitted for
development review by the City Community Development Depart=ent;
this assists in reducing the negative aesthetic impacts to acceptable lev
els.
3• Main -Pier, Iocated within the coastal resource area, could have future
projects that affect public views, including those of the ocean and shore-
line. Depending upon the location, size and height of these future pro-
jects, views from inland areas to the coastal resources values could be
adversely affected. However, as stated above, all future projects would
7n9/91-cl:\RSG6"\Ent4SEC r4-tt.vPrx- 4.11-6
be submitted to the Community Development Department for develop.
ment review. Any project in Main -Pier submitted for review would have
to be consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan. This review, together
with public disclosure of project impacts during public hearings, will
assist in reducing the potential adverse aesthetic impacts to acceptable
levels.
4. The Amendment/Merger does not involve changes to land use or to
other features of the planning process that were identified to have signifi-
cant visual impacts as part of the analysis for the E1R prepared for the
General Plan Update. The General Plan defines and guides future devel-
opment to achieve land use balance and internal land use compatibility.
Applicable policies that protect views of the beach and ocean area indi-
cated below in Section 4.11.5. These policies provide strong guidance
to protect these important views. The Merged Plan is consistent with the
General Plan land use designations; thus, impacts similar to those identi-
fied in the General Plan Update EIR can be expected. Therefore, future
development projects within the Merged Project Area would attain the
appropriate scale and character within the respective urban district,
node, path, landmark or edge and will not result in new significant visual
impacts. In addition, the Downtown Specific Plan includes development
restrictions that help to maintain the community character and future
beach oriented development, consistent with the downtown/pier/beach
atmosphere of the area.
4.11.4 CUMVL 27VE ZMPAC7S
Implementation of the Amendment/Merger will encourage planned develop-
ment within the Merged Project Area, consistent with the General Plan land use
designations and applicable policies. Given that implementation of the General
Plan was deterred to have less than significant visual impacts, with implemen-
tation of General Plan policies and no additional development intensity permit-
ted by the AmendmenVMerger, no additional cumulative impacts will occur
within the City as a result of project implementation. Any cumulative aesthetic
effects are considered less than significant.
4.11.5 GENERAL PZ" POUCIES
The General Plan identifies several policies contained in the Urban Design Ele-
ment and the Environmental Resources Conservation Element that enhance
aesthetics and views and lessen or mitigate negative impacts of development
The policies that are applicable to the Amendment/Merger arc listed below.
Require public improvements to enhance the existing setting for all key
nodes and pedestrian areas through the consideration of the following
(Policy VD 1.2.1):
•
a. Provide pedestrian connections and visual continuity between
the node and the surrounding neighborhoods; Is
7n9)96wG%xsc.63a=sEc-r4-t1.mPD- 4.11-7
b. Incorporate shade trees to shelter pedestrians;
C. Incorporate the use of enhanced paving materials at the pedes-
trian crosswalks;
f. Incorporate landscaping to mask oil operations and major utili-
ties, such as the Edison generating station.
Require that the nodes indicated in Table UD-1 incorporate the public
improvements specified in Policy UD 1.2.1 of the General Plan and other
elements that may be listed in the table, as feasible (Policy UD 1.22).
Coordinate the design of public and private signs and graphics on a
citywide basis (Policy UD 12,3).
a. Prepare and implement a coordinated public signage program
that fasters a cohesive city image.
b. Develop a major arterials' public signage installation program.
C. Consider developing guidelines for private commercial monu-
ment signage that incorporate a consistent public identification
device such as a City logo or a Iogo for the business's location,
i.e., Bach Boulevard.
• Require a consistent design theme and/or landscape design character
along the community's corridors, reflecting the unique qualities of each
district. Ensure that streetscape standards for the major commercial
corridors, the residential corridors, and primary and secondary image
corridors provide each corridor with its own identity while promoting
visual continuity throughout the City (Policy UD 13.1).
Provide for the implementation of streetscape and landscape improve-
ments along the major commercial corridors, through public capital
improvement programs, business district improvements, or other tech-
niques as funding is available (Policy UD 1.32).
a. Develop or enhance the pedestrian environment in those parts of
the corridors where there is existing or the potential for pedes-
trian activity; this includes the use of:
- Sidewalk furniture;
- Shade trees;
- Shade structures;
- Special paving; and
- Pedestrian, walkways linkages.
b. Consider using special corridor oriented public signage, public
art, or median monuments at prominent intersections.
0
7/19)96mr:VZ+G630\(ISECr4-11.WFDO 4.11-8
Discourage the excessive use of temporary signage including
bunting and commercial banners. 0
Provide for the implementation of additional streetscape and landscape
improvements in the corridors specified in Table UD-2 and shown in
Figure UD-5 and UD-6 in the General Plan, through public capital im-
provement programs, business district improvements, or other tech-
niques as funding is available (Policy VD 1,33)•
Establish visual relief to the monotony of walled "superblock" corridors
and enhance the corridors image through the visual strengths of the
respective residential neighborhoods in which they are located including
(Policy UD 13.4):
For new development, require the use of landscape materials in
the public right-of-way;
For existing development, add tree pockets and/or landscape
planters along arterial tract walls;
For both new and existing development, establish a consistent
pattern of street trees along the corridor using the predominate
tree types of the adjacent residential areas;
Develop a variety of street sections to allow for variation of right-
of-way widths and sidewalk configurations, for example, some of
the walls have a three to four foot planting strip in which plant
materials have been placed outside of the wall while other tracts
have no plantings outside of the wall. Recognize that sidewalk
width on residential district arterial streets is less important than
in other situations as there are few pedestrians and few pedes-
trian destinations (bus stops are a possible exception) along
these arterials. If the sidewalk is narrowed to accommodate tree
wells or wider planting strips, a sidewalk width of three to four '
feet is ample to accommodate the occasional pedestrian and
maintain handicapped access (see Figure UD-7 and Figure UD-8
[in the General Plan);
For new development, increased landscaping area;
Consider reducing street widths to increase landscaping area;
and
Consider establishing a public art ordinance for the placement of
art in public R.O.W.
Establish design standards for walls along the residential "superbiock'
corridors, including (Policy UD 133):
For new development, require that privately developed walls
make a positive visual contribution to the public streetscape
7/19196KG1RSG630QMDSECr4-1 t.WFD+ 4.l l-9
including provisions for plant material enhancements such as
vine pockets or decorative plants, and design features such as
sculptured or textured masonry units;
For existing development, require that any modifications to walls
in the public right-of-way are of quality construction and perma-
nent materials consistent with the design of the wall, and that
any additions to the walls be designed to make a positive visual
contribution to the public streetscape; and
For both the new and existing development, require that the
walls will be maintained over their lifetime, and that future modi-
fications to the walls will not negatively impact the public
streetscape.
• Require that new development be designed to consider coastal views in
its massing, height, and site orientation (Policy UD 2.1.1).
• Require additional landscaping and varying hardsc2pe along the beach
trail and roadway medians, where appropriate (Policy UD 2.1.2).
• Require landscape and architectural buffers and screens around oil pro-
duction facilities and other utilities visible from public rights -of --way
(Policy UD 2Z1).
• Require landscaping to screen flood control channels where visiible to
public view and where there is adequate planting area available (Policy
VD 2.2,3).
• Promote the preservation of public view corridors to the ocean and the
waterfront through strict application of local ordinances, design guide-
lines and related planning efforts, including defined view corridors (Pol-
icy UD 4.1.5).
• Include commercial, residential, industrial, and nanual arras in the bill-
board removal programs (Policy ERC 4.1.7).
• Include comemercial, residential, industrial, and natural arras in the elec-
trical undergrounding program (Policy ERC 4-1.8).
4.11. 6 31l T 7GA T 7ON MEAS URES
None required.
4.11.7 LEVEL OF ZMPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFTER JMGA77ON
Successful implementation of the General Plan Update policies would reduce
potentially significant impacts of the Amendment/Metger relative to aesthet-
ics/visual resources to less than significant levels.
7n9/96d(t:Jsc630XMECT4-1 1 VPi)* 4.11-14
4.12 CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES 9
This section includes a summary of the prehistory of Orange County and of the
historic period from the Mission Period up to the history of settlement of Hun-
tington Beach in the late 1890s and rum of the century. For the full historical
report, including information about the Huntington Beach Ranchos Las Boisas
and Bolsa Chica, early European serdement and the period of prehistory, please
see Appendix B.
This section also includes the results of a historic building survey conducted by
ISA within the Merged Project Area in the City of Huntington Beach. The survey
assessed the presence of historic buildings (defined as any structures 50 or more
years of age) within the Merged Project Area.
In addition to the field survey, a records and literature search was conducted to
assess the presence of prehistoric archaeological resources within the Merged
Project Area. The results of this records search are summarized below; a copy of
the records search is presented in Appendix B.
4.12. I E US77NG F-NVIRONhfENTAL SETTING
The history of the City of Huntington Beach is provided below in its entirety
because of the location of the Merged Project in the City, and the relevance of
the more recent subdivision and construction activities to the structures within
the Merged Project Area. The following sections provide background informa-
tion.
Prebistmy of Orange County
The following, outline, which is based primarily on Wallace's chronology
(1955;1978) as revised for Orange County, provides background information
relevant to the discussion of archaeological sites located within the Merged
Project Area (Koerper 1981; Koerper and Drover 1983).
Early Period (Prior to 6,000 B.C-)
The Early Period (also known as the Hunting Period) covers the interval from the
first presence of humans in Southern California until post -glacial times (6,000 to
3,000 B.C.). Although Early Period sites have seldom been identified in Orange
County, there are two sites in the Upper Newport Bay area. No Early Period sites
have been identified within the Merged Project Area.
HiWng Stone Period (6,000 RC_ to 3,000 B.C-)
The transition from the Early Period to the Milling Stone Period is marked by an
increased emphasis on the processing of seeds and edible plants, and is esti-
mated to have occurred between 6,000 B.C. and 3,000 B.C. lolling Stone
7/1919b«IAFtSG630 0MECT4-27.V7DW 4.12-1
Period settlements were larger and occupied for longer periods of time than
those of the Early Period, and mortuary practices included both flexed and
extended interments as well as reburials.
Several Milling Stone Period sites have been identified in Orange County. The
best known is in Irvine. No Millingstone sites have been identified within the
Merged Project Area.
Intermediate Period (3,000 B.C. to A.D. 500)
By approximately 3,000 B.C., the inhabitants of Southem California were ex-
ploiting a diverse array of food resources, including seeds and edible plants,
shellfish, fish, and mammals.
Intermediate Period sites are characterized by the appearance of the mortar and
pestle (although the nano and metate also continued in use) and small projec-
tile points. At present, at least two Intermediate Horizon site components have
been identified in Upper Newport Bay: ORA-121 (Crownover et al. 1989) and
ORA-287 (Clevenger 1986). Closer to the study area, two field camps (ORA-
221/222 and ORA 226) apparently have small Intermediate Horizon components
(Rosenthal and Padon 1986; Mason et al. 1987). No Intermediate Period sites
have been identified within the Merged Project Area.
Late Period (A.D. 500 to 1769)
The Late Prehistoric Period, which began approximately A.D. 500, saw a number
of important cultural developments in Southern California, including the con-
centration of larger populations in settlements and communities, greater utiliza-
tion of the available food resources, and the development of regional subcul-
tures. Cremation was the preferred method of burial during the Late Period, and
elaborate mortuary customs with abundant grave goods were common. Other
cultural traits diagnostic of the Late Period include increased use of the bow and
arrow, steatite containers, circular shell fishhooks, asphaltum (as an adhesive),
bone tools and personal ornaments of bone, shell and stone (Bean and Smith
1978; Elsasser 1978:56; Moratto 1984:159; Wallace 1955:195).
A number of the cultural elements found in Southem California during the Late
Period have been linked to the migration of Uto-Aztecan-speaking peoples from
the Great Basin; these traits include the manufacture of ceramics, the use of
small triangular arrow points (especially those with side notches and serrations),
and interment by cremation. The Los Angeles -Orange counties region was home
to one Uto-Aztecan speaking group known as the Gabrielino. The City of Hun-
tington Beach is located along the southwestern boundary of coastal Gabrielino
territory.
The Gabrielino practiced a hunter -gatherer lifestyle and lived in permanent
communities located near the intersection of two or more environmental zones .
(habitats); commonly chosen sites included: rivers, streams and inland water-
courses; sheltered coastal bays and estuaries; and the transition zone marking
7/1"6«L•\RSC,63M=II SECT4-12.WPDN 4.12-2
the interface between prairies and foothills. The Gabrielino community of
Lukupa was located in the Huntington Beach area, perhaps in the vicinity of the
Newland House; the name Lukupa reportedly means 'silvery" (McCawley
1996:71).
A record search (Appendix B) conducted at the South Central Coastal Informa-
tion Center, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, iden-
tified one archaeological site, CA-ORA-149, within the Merged Project Area. This
site, which is described as a shell midden with lithic (stone) artifacts, most likely
dates to the Late Prehistoric Period.
The Historic Period
T,be Mission Period
The first recorded contact between the Gabrielino and Europeans occurred in
1542 when the Cabrillo Expedition arrived at Santa Catalina Island (Wagner
1941). On the mainland, the first documented contact between the Gabrielino
and European explorers occurred in 1769 when an expedition led by Caspar de
Portola's crossed present-day Los Angeles and Orange Counties (W. Bean
1968:36-38; Bolton 1927). Two years later, in 1771, Mission San Gabriel was
established in the Gabrielino territory near Whittier Narrows; several years later,
the Whittier Narrows site was abandoned and the mission was moved to its
present location in the City of San Gabriel (Engelhardt 1927a:19). In 1776,
another mission was established in San Juan Capistrano (Engelhardt 1922).
Although this mission lay outside the Gabrielino territory, many of its converts
were drawn from the Gabrielino community.
Ranchos Las Bolsas and Bolza Chica
European patterns of land use in the Orange County region commenced with
the establishment of missions San Gabriel (in 1771) and San Juan Capistrano (in
1776). In addition to the missions, the Spanish also established the pueblo of
Los Angeles (EL Pueblo de la Reim de Los Angeles de Portdunculz) and a number
of private ranchos. One of these, Los Coyotes, was granted to Manuel Perez
Nieto by Governor Pedro Fages in 1790 (Young et al. 1989), and was sub6e-
quendy subdivided into four ranchos, including Las Bolsas.
In 1841, at the request of the Nieto heirs, Las Bolsas was further subdivided to
create the 8,107-acre Rancho Botsa Chica, which was granted to Joaquin Ruiz
(Cowan 1956:19). Ranchos Las Bolsas and Bolsa Chia included the area now
occupied by Huntington Beach.
History of Huntington Beach
Cattle ranching in Southern California reached its peak of prosperity during the
period when Ranchos Las Bolsas and Bolsa China were owned by Abel Stearns.
The Gold Rush and the arrival of massive numbers of immigrants created a huge
7/1&96KL•1RSG630\EM\SEC74-12.WPD* 4.12-3
demand for beef and turned the ranchers into cattle barons. As immigration to
Southern California increased during the late 1860s, Steams began subdividing
his landholdings and selling them in 20 to 60 acre parcels at prices varying from
$5.00 to S 10.00 per acre; the sales were managed through the "Robinson Trust,'
a syndicate comprising Stearns, Alfred Robinson, Sam Brannan, Edward F.
Northam, Charles B. Polhemus and Edward Martin. Although Stearns lived only
a few years after the syndicate was organized, dying in 1871 during a trip to San
Francisco, his widow Arcadia survived him by more than 40 years; when she died
in 1912, her estate was estimated at $15 million (Cleland 1941:106, 109, 134,
135, 203, 204, 207; Wright 1977:97; Huntington Beach General Plan).
One of the individuals who purchased former Rancho Las BoLsas land was Colo-
nel Robert Northam. Northam purchased the area occupied by Huntington
Beach (Meadows 1966:106). In 1901, a syndicate comprising Phillip Stanton,
John N. Anderson and S. H. Finley purchased 1,500 acres from Robert Northam
for 8100,000; the syndicate, known as the West Coast Land Company, subdi-
vided 40 acres of this property to create the communiry of Pacific City. In 1902,
the 'West Coast Land Company was reorganized as the Huntington Beach Com-
pany and included Henry E. Huntington; two years later (in 1904) the new
community (now renamed Huntington Beach) was connected to Long Beach by
a lame of Huntington's Pacific Electric Railway (Macleod and Milkovich 1988). In
1909, the City of Huntington Beach was incorporated as a town with an area of
3.57 acres and a population of 915 (Macleod and Milkovich 1988; Huntington
Beach General Plan).
Agriculture was an important component of the early economy of the Hunting-
ton Beach region; crops included celery, asparagus, peppers, com and potatoes,
and barley was grown on the mesa inland from the town. Huntington Beach
also served as a transportation center for the region. The first railroad in the
region, the Smeltzer branch of the Santa Ana -Newport Railroad, was constructed
in 1897 along the bluff of the Huntington Beach mesa; the line ended five miles
inland from the coast, where peat bogs made further construction impractical
(Macleod and Milkovich 1988).
A number of early industries were located in the Huntington Beach area, includ-
ing: the Rainey Tile Company (which manufactured industrial pipe used to drain
the local farmlands) and La Bolsa (another tile company); the Holly Sugar Com-
pany; the Helm House Furnishing Company (a pre-1910 commercial building
located within the study area, which retains its architectural integrity); a broom
factory; and a linoleum factory (Macleod and Milkovich 1988). However, these
early industries were eclipsed during the 1920s by the discovery of oil. Early
Huntington Beach residents discovered natural gas while drilling water wells,
and in 1919► geologists influenced by the natural gas discoveries started explor-
atory oil drilling. 'These efforts eventually led to the discovery of the Huntington
Beach Field in May, 1920. Standard Oil leased 500 acres of land from the Hun-
tington Beach Company and drilled its first well in the northwest portion of the
City. The first well produced 91 barrels a day and the second well, which was a
much larger find, pumped 2,000 barrels a day. A second oil boom in 1926 was
centered on the region between 8th Street and 23rd Street (Huntington Beach
General Plan).
7l28,96-cI:N]tSc630�EMECT4-12.V?n» 4.124
Although oil was an important factor in the growth and development of the City
of Huntington Beach, the community remained small (3.57 square miles) until
the late 1950s, when 11 farmland annexations expanded its size to 25 square
miles. The arrival of the aerospace industry during the 1960s was another im-
portant factor in the growth of the region. Today, oil production and aerospace
remain important aspects of the local economy. (Huntington Beach General
Plan).
Fxisting Cultural Resources/Results of the Records and Literature Searcb
A record search (Appendix B) conducted at the South Central Coastal Informa-
tion Center, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, on
May 9, 1996, shows one prehistoric site within the Merged Project Area. The
site, CA-ORA-149, was recorded in 1963 and again in 1980 (McKinney 1963;
Douglas 1980); it was described as a shell midden with a "few" artifacts. CA-0RA-
149 had been heavily impacted by road and residential construction, and by oil
production and storage activities. Three additional prehistoric sites have been
identified within one -quarter mile of the Merged Project Area; they are CA-ORA
276, CA-ORA-296, and CA ORA-359• No historic archaeological sites have been
recorded within the Merged Project Area.
As part of previous E1Rs, for other projects, five separate surveys and/or excava-
tions have been conducted within one -quarter mile of the Merged Project Area;
two of these included portions of the Merged Project Area, and are described
below. In 1987, Beth Padon completed a linear survey of a small strip of land
adjacent to Beach Boulevard along the eastem border of Main -Pier (Padon
1987). In 1989, STA Planning Inc. completed a survey of the downtown portion
of the City of Huntington Beach (STA Planning, Inc. 1989) . No new archaeologi-
cal sites were identified as a result of these surveys.
In addition to the California Archaeological Inventory, which houses the perti-
nent information used to determine whether an area has been surveyed and
whether any sites exist within the area, the following sources were reviewed: the
Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for Orange County
(HDPF); the National Register of Historic Places; the California State Historic
Resources Inventory; the California Points of Historical Interest; and the listing
of California Historical Landmarks in the region. The National Register of His-
toric Places lists one property within the Merged Project Area and within one -
quarter mile of Main -Pier (NR#89001203). The California State Historic Re-
sources Inventory lists numerous properties within a one -quarter mile radius of
the Merged Project Area, most of which are located in the downtown Hunting-
ton Beach area; a listing of these properties is included in Appendix B. The
listings of the California Historical Landmarks of the Office of Historic Preser-
vation and the California Points of Historical Interest identifies no properties
within the Merged Project Area or within one -quarter mile of the Merged Project
Area.
7/18N&1.WtsG63GT1K SECT4-12.WPD» 4.12-5
Results of Field Survey
On May 7 and May 8, 1996, a visual survey of the -Merged Project Areas was
completed. This survey was directed toward identifying historic buildings,
defined as any structures appearing to be 50 or more years of age. The survey
methodology consisted of walking or driving the study area and examining
every building visible from the street or sidewalk. The age of each building was
estimated based on visible architectural features including the following: roof
design; window design; type of foundation; exterior wall treatments; building
style or architecture; and setting. Those buildings that were estimated to be 50
years of age or older were recorded by address on the survey forms. In a few
cases, addresses were not visible on the curb, building, or mailbox; these excep-
tions were noted on the survey forms.
The results of the survey were spot-checked for accuracy against several pub-
lished sources, including the Directory of Properties in the Historic Property
Data File for Orange County (California State Historic Resources Inventory),
published by the Office of Historic Preservation, and the listing of local land-
marks in the Huntington Beach General Plan Update EIR. These results are
presented in tabular form in Appendix B. The survey confirms the existence of a
substantial number of historic buildings within the Merged Project Area, espe-
cially within Main -Pier, which includes downtown Huntington Beach. Among
the most prominent of these early buildings are several that have been identified
from earlier studies including: the Helm House Furnishing Company, con-
structed in 1904 and the Heim -Worthy House, constructed in the 1880s; the
Shank House, constructed in 1912; the City Hall and jail, constructed in 1918;
and the Pioneer Feed and Fuel building, constructed in 1904.
PaleonIological Resources
Record searches into the archives of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural
History and the Orange County Natural History Association were conducted for
the Merged Project Area. A single site was recorded within Oakview. This site
(LACM 4018) is a peat bog deposit located near the intersection of Warner Ave-
nue and Golden West Avenue. This site produced an extensive fauna including
invertebrates, reptiles, birds, rodents, horses and deer. Radiocarbon dating
showed the site is very late Holocene in age.
Both record searches indicate that paleontological sites are known within a one
mile radius of the Merged Project Area. Most of these sites are from Late Pleis-
tocene formations of the Palos Verdes Sand, San Pedro Sand and Pleistocene
Terrace deposits.
4.12.2 77DZESHOIDS OFStGNMC4NCE
If the project may cause damage to an important archaeological or historical
resource, the project may have a significant effect on the environment. For the
purposes of CEQA, an 'important archaeological resource" is one that:
7/1e %*L-VMG630IMtA SIECr412 VPD* 4.12-6
A. Is associated with an event or person of:
1. Recognized significance in California or American History, or
2. Recognized scientific importance in history.
B. Can provide information that is both of demonstrable public interest and
useful in addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable or ar-
chaeological research questions;
C. Has a special or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest,
or last surviving example of its kind;
D. Is at least 50 years old (per the California Register of Historical Re-
sources [AB 2881]) and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity; or
E. Involves important research questions that historical research has shown
can be answered only with archaeological methods.
For scientific resources, the proposed project will have a significant effect if
unmonitored construction activities would result in the destruction of scientifi-
cally valuable fossils.
4.22.3 PROJECT IMPACTS
Historical Resources
A complete listing of homes in the Merged Project Area that appear to be ap-
proaching the 50 year threshold is provided in Appendix B. The homes on the
list are approaching or are at the 50 year old criterion and need to be consid-
ered when redevelopment of the land occurs. Future new development and
redevelopment in the Merged Project Area will need to be analyzed on a specific
project level basis to determine the potential impact to historic resources in the
Merged Project Area.
In general, tract style houses were not recorded during the survey, although
some of these structures may date to the Late 1940s and may therefore be ap-
proaching the 50 year threshold for historic structures.
Arrbaeological Resources
According to the axchaeological records search, no historic archaeological sites
have been recorded within the Merged Project Area. However, unknown archae-
ological resources may be encountered during grading activities for new con-
struction and redevelopment within the Merged Project Area.
In particular, the prehistoric reference material suggests that the City of Hunting-
ton Beach, perhaps in the vicinity of the Newland House, may contain artifacts
from the Gribrielino community of Lukupa. It is possible that subsurface distur-
7na;96otL-NFWr630 nstcr4-l2.W?D- 4.12-7
bance within the Merged
archaeological resourcm
unknown resources exists.
Paleontologscal impacts
Project Area may encounter previously unknown
Therefore, the potential for discovery of previously
Based on a review of the Merged Project Area's geology, there is a high potential
for disturbing unknown subsurface paleontological resources during project
greding-
4.12.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Because there is no physical change contemplated for this Amendment/Merger
that would affect any known cultural or scientific resource, there are no cumula-
tive impacts. Future development in accordance with the General Plan has the
Potential to impact historic resources; however, with mitigation, such potential
impacts can be reduced to below a level of significance.
4.12.5 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
The General Plan Update EIR identifies several policies contained in the Historic
and Cultural Resources Element of the General Plan that will lessen the impacts
to historic and prehistoric resources. Policies HCR 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.4, 1.2.1,
12.2, and 12.4 provide mechanisms to identify, record, and preserve significant
archaeological resources. Policies HCR 1.1.4, 1.2.2, and 1.3.7 provide for the
identification and protection of historic resources. The policies relevant to this
Amendment/Merger are listed below:
Establish a historical overlay for the area bounded by Gothard Street,
Warner Avenue, Southern Pacific right-of-wsy, and Cedar Avenue. The
overlay will encourage the adaptive reuse of the existing historic struc-
tures while maintaining the light industrial surrounding uses (Policy
HCR 1.13).
Utilize the Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Rehabilitation and
standards and guidelines as prescribed by the State Office of Historic
Preservation as the architectural and landscape design standards for
rehabilitation, alteration, or additions to sites containing historic re-
sources in order to preserve these structures in a manner consistent with
the sine's architectural and historic integrity (Policy HCR 1.2.1).
Encourage new development to be compatible with adjacent existing
historic structures in terms of scale, zYxassing, building materials and
general architectural treatment (Policy HCR 12.2).
• Explore alternatives that enable a property owner to sensitively add to
the existing structure, or develop an accompanying building on the site
that allows property development rights to be realized. Deviation to
7/1&9&1.\RSG63049R\SECT4-I2.WPr)w 4.12-5
setbacks, heights and packing requirements should be considered to
make the preservation of an existing historic building feasible when no
other reasonable alternative exists (Policy HCR 2.3.7).
4.12.6Mr IGAI70NMFASMES
The following mitigation measures will assist to reduce impacts to cultural
resources in the Merged Project Area. Although specific project level impacts
cannot be identified at this time, future specific development and redevelop-
ment projects will comply with the mitigation measures.
4.12 A Prior to the commencement of new construction that would displace or
require demolition of potentially significant resources, a complete assess-
ment shall be prepared for any of the potentially historic buildings iden-
tified in the present report within the Merged Project Area. At a mini-
mum, this assessment shall include the following documentation:
A) A full description of each building including architectural style,
roof design, window design, type of foundation, exterior wall
treatments, special architectural features, etc.
B) Black and white photographs showing one or more facades of
each building.
C) A determination of construction date from existing records such
as building permit record books on file in the Planning Depart-
ment at the City of Huntington Beach. In the event that records
cannot be located for some of the buildings, interviews should
be conducted with members of the local historical society or
other individuals who may have relevant data to share.
D) A competent architectural historian should be consulted prior to
the demolition of any of the potentially historic buildings identi-
fied in the present study. Additional measures may be imple-
mented as a result, if necessary to prevent an adverse impact.
4.12-B Should any cultural artifacts, archaeological resources or paleontological
resources be uncovered during grading or excavation, a County of Or-
ange certified archaeologist or paleontologist shall be contacted by the
Community Development Director to: 1) ascertain the significance of
the resource, 2) establish protocol with the City to protect such re-
sources, 3) ascertain the presence of additional resources, and 4) provide
additional monitoring of the site, if deemed appropriate.
4.12-C Monitors trained in fossil recognition, fossil recovery and heavy equip-
ment monitoring shall be on site during grading operations.
4.12-D A copy of the present report shall be placed in the collection of historic
documents on file at the Huntington Beach Central Library or another
suitable local archive. 9
7!1&96KLAF SG63U= SECT412_Wn)* 4.12-9
•
•
4.12.7 LEVEL OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
The actions evaluated in this EIR will not directly result in any new develop-
ment. Future projects in the Merged Project Area could impact potentially
historic resources. Implementation of the General Plan Update policies and the
mitigation measures identified above will reduce future impacts to cultural and
historic resources within the Merged Project Area to less than significant.
7na*6aLV sc,63WE=ecr4-12 VTD . 4.12-10
4.13 SCHOOLS
4.13.1 MUST17VG EAVMOAWEATAL SETTING
The Merged Project Area is currently served by one high school district and three
elementary school districts. The Huntington Beach Union High School District
(HBUHSD) includes the entire City of Huntington Beach, as well as portions of
the cities of Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Seal Beach, and Westminster, and
portions of unincorporated territory in Orange County.' The Huntington Beach
City School District (HBCSD), Westminster School District (WSD), and Ocean
View School District (OVSD) also provide educational services to the Merged
Project Area. Figure 4.13.1 identifies the location of the schools that serve the
Merged Project Area. Each site name in Figure 4.13.1 is followed by its school
district designation.
There are no schools located within the Merged Project Area; however, one
elementary school (Oak View Elementary) is located directly adjacent to
Oakview.
High Schools
The HBUHSD operates four high schools serving the Merged Project Area. They
are the Huntington Beach High School, Westminster High School, Marina High
School, and the Ocean View High School. Each facility serves grades 9-12. The
District does not have any schools that are on a year-round schedule. Table
4.13.A provides information on the existing enrollments and capacities for each
of the four high schools that serve the Merged Project Area. The number of
portables indicated is in addition to the number of classrooms identified.
Middle/Elementary Schools
Huntington Beach City School District
The HBCSD has 13 facilities within the City of Huntington Beach, four of which
serve the Merged Project Area. Of the four schools, two are elementary schools
(getder Elementary and Smith Elementary) and two are middle schools (Dwyer
Middle and Sowers Middle). The grades served, capacities, and enrollment for
the schools serving the Merged Project Area arc listed in Table 4.13JL
r1
The school district boundaries were set by the State Department of Edu-
cation prior to the determination of the City boundaries, and were not
changed to coincide with City boundaries. 0
7/19i &LARSG630ZMECr4-13-V )■ 4.13-1
0 �^
\ Westminster High
Stacey Internudiate (HBUHSD)
i •� (WSD) —
:' Clegg EIwLa _=.
(WSD) A ■:
...r.'i: Schroeder
Elem.A
(WSD)
— z � — ' :mil "� 5_ .•�=-.
.. . Marina High
y (HBUHSD) ASunw wwElem. _ -=
Spring View Middle Oak O Elan -
.. (OVSD) ■
a k•tiL Golden ViewEkm.
(OVSD)A i i
:•e'er PI\ ^---
1 `:.�.„� `: ' �•� Marine View Middle ■
�A t♦ Ocean View High
• 'Z Hope View Ekm. ■ (HBUHSD) ^.
`:'• (OVSD) Mesa View Middle
Hunt, ington Beach rf
High
r ' (HBUHSD) rr � +..
fil:
' . , /N?
Dwyer MiddleSmith Ekm.•
(HBCSD) \ (HBCSD) . Sowers Middle
_ . (HBCSD):'
LEGEND
�.•r City Boundary ?`.> ; _ - _ �KettlerElem. i.
(HBCSD)
Redevelopment Areas
■ High School .� —.— . a,.•:.._
■ Middle School , • {
jA Elementary School
1
MSG6M) Figure 4.13.1
N
LOSAScaleinMiks Schools Serving the
. os 1 4.13-2 Redevelopment Project Area
Table 4.13A - Schools Serving the Merged Project Area
Number of
Student Current Aemaunatg Percentage Clusrooms
Name of School Capacity Enrollment Capacity of Capacity (Portables)
High Schools (9-I2)
7
Hunting n Beach High School
2,266
2,145
121
95%
80(0)
(HBUHSD)
Ocean View High School (HBUHSD)
11989
1,640
349
82%
S 16)
Marina High School (HBUHSD)
Z367
2,055
312
37%
75(7)
i
Westminster High School (HBUHSD))
Z563
Z322
241
91%
89(0)
Total
9,185
8,162
1,023
89%
Middle Schools (")
Mesa View Middle School (OVSD)
740
701
39
95%
Spring View Middle School (OVSD)
850
826
24
97%
Marine View Middle School (`V5D)
800
703
97
88%
Stacey Intermediate School (WSD)
764
709
55
93`S
Dwyer Middle School (HBCSD)
1,060
870
210
81%
Sowers Middle School (HECSD)
1,110
1,146
(36)
103%
Total
5,344
4,955
389
93%
Efamentary Srbools (K 5)
Oak View Elementary School (OVSD)
617
617
0
100%
Sun Yew Elementary School (OVSD)
470
440
30
94%
}lope View Elementary School (0V5D)
620
593
27
96%
Golden View Elementary School (OVSD)
620
561
59
90%
Clegg Elementary School (WSD)
420
481
(61)
115%
Schroeder Elementary School (W5D)
420
449
(29)
107%
Settler Elementary School (HBCSD)
690
656
4
99%
Smith Elementary School (i1BCSD)
690
770
(80)
112%
Total
4,547
4,597
(50)
101%
- J J
24 (4)
26(3)
25(7)
30(1)
45(1)
31(10)
19(6)
15(2)
23(3)
22(3)
16(2)
15(2)
22(6)
23(6)
Soracr. Huntington Beach City School District, Dewfopmrnt Fee Findings Raporr, March 14. 1996.; Huntington Beach Union
mgh School District; Dn*AVnwwFee Findings Raporr, February 27, 1996, personal communication with Ocean View School
District and Westminster School District
7/19/9&L-\V 5G63MEMECT4.13.VPm
4.13-3
•
•
0 Ocean View School District
There are approximately 641 residences within the Merged Project Area served
by the OVSD. The District has sir schools that serve the Merged Project Area. Of
the six schools, four are elementary schools (Oak View Elementary, Sun View
Elementary, Hope View Elementary, and Golden View Elementary) and two are
middle schools (Mesa View Middle and Spring View Middle). Table 4.13.A iden-
tifies the schools' capacities and enrollment numbers.
Westminster School District
There are no residences within the Merged Project Area served by the WSD. The
District has three schools that serve the Merged Project Area. Of the three
schools, two are elementary schools (Clegg Elementary and Schroeder Elemen-
tary) and one is an intermediate school (Stacey intermediate). Table 4.13.A
identifies the schools' capacities and enrollment numbers.
4.13.2 7ID?ESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
A significant impact to public schools would occur if the anticipated future
student population generated by the AmendmenvMerger exceeded the antici-
pated capacity of school facilities located within the affected district, and the
overcrowding resulted in some other related physical impact, that caused a
significant effect on the environment.
4.13.3 PROJECT IMPACTS
Based upon Section 15131(a) of CEQA and recent court interpretations, the
analysis of environmental impacts resulting from a project must focus on the
physical effects of the project. For schools, this means that potential chwroom
overcrowding and the potential cost of constructing new classrooms are not in
themselves adverse environmental effects. CEQA applies only to activities that
will cause a physical change in the environment. A project's social and eco-
nomic effects can be relevant to an EUVs analysis if they are shown to lead to
physical impacts on the environment.
In response to the claim that increased student enrollment is a significant envi-
ronmental impact, the court in Goleta Union School District v. The Regents of
the University of California noted that in prior court decisions it was the need for
construction of new schools, not increased enrollment or potential overcrowd-
ing, that triggered detailed CEQA review. Student overcrowding is not a change
in the physical environment and, therefore, should not be treated as an impact
on the environment. Increased enrollment can cause a significant environmen-
tal impact under CEQA where a change in physical conditions, such as classroom
or new school construction, will occur. In other words, there must be a chain of
events caused by a project or program that causes a physical change to the
environment. Overcrowding by itself is not an environmental impact. Because
is increased enrollment is not an environmental impact, the court held the Regents
7/19/96KL\RSG63NEM$ECT4-I3.WPD* 4.134
Higb Schools
had no duty under CEQA to commit additional funds to mitigate student enroll -
went increases. 0
Recently passed SB1287 amended State law to limit a public agency's ability to
levy fees, charges or dedication against a development project for the construc-
tion or reconstruction of school facilities. Under this amended State law, only
fees that can be established to help finance school facilities are the developer fee
funding, described below, and community facilities district financing.
The current State statutory development fees levied for residential development
is E 1.84 per square foot and 40.30 per square foot for commercial development.
The elementary school districts (grades K-8), including HBCSD, OVSD, and WSD,
receive 61 percent of the developer fees. The high school district, HBUHSD,
receives the remaining 39 percent.
This EIR describes the options for responding to increased student enrollment.
This EIR analysis also recognizes that the school district will decide which solu-
tion to implement. It is not the purpose of this document to dictate policy to
the school districts to select a specific implementation program to address needs
created by the students generated by the Amendment/Merger or to suggest that
the districts employe particular mitigation approach. As the Merged Project Area
is developed and student numbers increase, it is anticipated that the school
districts will make decisions regarding the placement of the students on the basis
of policies then in effect on and current circumstances and options. The analysis
that follows concentrates on the predicted student population generated from
the Amendment/Merger, possible measures that could be implemented to pro-
vide adequate facilities for that population, and the potential adverse impacts
that could result from those choices.
Huntington Beach Union High School District
HBLTHSD uses a student generation factor of .1159 per dwelling unit. This is
based on in average dwelling unit size of 1,600 square feet, with an average
number of three bedrooms. To determine student generation for larger dwell-
ing units, the District recommends an increase of the generation factor by ten
percent for each 500 square feet of additional square footage in excess of 2,000
square feet and up to 4,100 square feet. The student generation rate should be
increased by 20 percent for each 500 square feet of additional square footage in
excess of 4,500 square feet, to account for additional bedrooms.
Huntington Beach Higb School
According to the District's 1995 Facilities Master Plan (FMP), HBHS has a total
capacity of 2,266 students. The District reports that current enrollment is at
2,145 students, leaving an approximate surplus capacity for 121 students. As
indicated in the FMP, the total number of permanent classrooms at HBHS is 80,
with no portable classrooms. When the number of permanent classrooms is
7/1%9&LAYSG6301EWECT413 WPrh
4.13-5
multiplied by the classroom loading capacity, which ranges from 33 for regular
academic classrooms to 30 for developmental classes, the total school capacity
has a range of 2,400 to 2,640 students. Therefore, the school's total student
capacity would increase by 255 to 495 students.
HBHS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the
decision to put HBHS on a year-round track, the school's total student rapacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
Yorktown -Lake and Main -Pier are within the attendance area of HBHS. There are
no planned residential areas associated with redevelopment actions within
Yorktown -Lake; however, based upon the anticipated redevelopment actions in
Main -Pier, 563 new housing units are projected. Multiplying the number of
units by the District's student generation factor of .1159 results in an increase of
approximately 65 students to HBHS. This addition to HBHS will not signifi-
cantly affect the school's facilities, since there is adequate capacity to serve the
additional students with either method of calculating the school's surplus capac-
ity.
Ocean View High School
According to the District's 1995 Facilities Master Plan (FMP), Ocean View High
School (OVHS) has a total rapacity of 1,989 students. The District reports that
current enrollment is at 1,640 students, leaving an approximate surplus capacity
for 349 students. As indicated in the F1VlP, the total number of permanent class-
rooms at OVHS is 53, with 16 portable classrooms. when the number of perma-
nent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity,
which ranges from 33 for regular academic classrooms to 30 for developmental
classes, the total school capacity has a range of 2,070 to 2,277 students. There-
fore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 81 to 288 students.
OVHS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the
decision to put OVHS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
Oakview and Talbert -Beach are within the attendance area of OVHS. There are
no planned residential units associated with redevelopment actions within
Oakview; however, based upon anticipated redevelopment actions in Talbert -
Beach, 43 new housing units are projected. Multiplying the number of units by
the District's student generation factor of .1159 results in an increase of approxi-
mately five students to OVHS. This addition to OVHS will not significantly affect
the school's facilities, since there is adequate capacity to serve the additional
students with either method of calculating the school's surplus rapacity.
Marina High School
According to the Disuices 1995 FMP, the Marina High School has a total capacity
of 2,367 students. The District reports that current enrollment is at 2,055 stu-
dents, leaving an approximate surplus capacity for 312 students_ As indicated in
7/19/9&I:\Fsc,53a%E RSEcr4.13.cCPE- 4.13-6
the FMP, the total number of permanent classrooms at MHS is 75, with 7 porta-
ble classrooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is
multiplied by the classroom loading capacity, which ranges from 33 for regular
academic classrooms to 30 for developmental classes, the total school capacity
has a range of 2,460 to 2,706 students. Therefore, the school's total student
capacity would increase by 93 to 339 students.
Marina High School is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District
were to make the decision to put Marina High School on a year-round track, the
schooI's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent.
There are no existing or planned residential areas within Huntington Center,
therefore, no additional students will be generated upon implementation of the
Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to Marina High School from additional
students generated by the project.
Westminster High Srbool
According to the District's 1995 FMP, the Westminster High School has a total
capacity of 2,563 students. The District reports that current enrollment is at
2,322 students, leaving an approximate surplus capacity for 241 students. As
indicated in the FMP, the total number of permanent classrooms at Westminster
High School is 89, with no portable classrooms. When the number of permz-
nent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity,
which ranges from 33 for regular academic classrooms to 30 for developmental
classes, the total school capacity has a range of 2,670 to 2,937 students. There-
fore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 107 to 374 students.
The school is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to
make the decision to put it on a year-round track, the school's total student
capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent.
There are no existing or planned residential areas within Huntington Center,
therefore, no additional students will be generated, upon implementation of the
Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to Westminster High School from
additional students generated by the project.
Middle Sebools
Huntington Beach City School Dis�
The HBCSD uses a student generation factor of .3095 per dwelling unit. This is
based on an average dweMng unit size of 1,600 square feet, with an average
number of three bedrooms. To determine student generation for larger dwell-
ing units, the District recommends an increase of the generation factor by ten
percent for each 500 square feet of additional square footage in excess of 2,000
square feet and up to 4,100 square feet. The student generation rate should be
increased by 20 percent for each 500 square feet of additional square footage in
excess of 4,500 square feet, to account for additional bedrooms.
7/19,96KL-V SG63t=�sECT4-13•WPt- 4.13-7
0 DuyerMiddleScbool
According to the District's Development Fee Findings Report (DFFR) prepared in
March, 1996, Dwyer Middle School (DMS) has a total capacity, of 1,080 students.
Actual 1995/1996 enrollment is at 870 students, leaving an approximate surplus
capacity for 210 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of per-
manent classrooms at DMS is 45, with 1 portable classroom. When the number
of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading
capacity of 30 students, the total school capacity increases to 1,380 students.
Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 300 students.
DMS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the
decision to put DMS on a year-round track, the school's total student rapacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
There are no planned residential areas within Yorktown -Lake; therefore, no
additional students will be generated, upon implementation of the Amend-
meat/Merger. There is no impact to DMS from additional students generated by
the project.
Somers Middle School
According to the District's Development Fee Findings Report (DFFR) prepared in
March, 1996, Sowers Middle School (SMS) has a total Capacity of 1,110 students.
Actual 1995/1996 enrollment is at 1,146 students, leaving an approximate capac-
ity deficit of 36 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of perma-
nent classrooms at SMS is 31, with 10 portable classrooms. When the number of
permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading
capacity of 30 students, the total school capacity is increased to 1,230 students.
Therefore, the school's total student Capacity would increase by 120 students.
SMS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the
decision to put SMS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
A small segment of Main -Pier is within the Sowers Middle School attendance
area; however, this segment is composed of a neighborhood commercial strip.
There are no residential projects included in this area; therefore, no additional
students will be generated by redevelopment actions upon implementation of
the Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to SMS from additional student
generated by the project.
Westhst" ster Scbool Disk ict
Although Huntington Center is within the attendance area of Stacey Intermedi-
ate School (SIS), the area is not anticipated to generate additional students to
SIS. Currently, the area does not have any residential areas nor does it propose
any. Therefore, no additional students will be generated by redevelopment
7/199CWL-V S ,630=45ECT4-z3.wPD- 4.13-8
actions upon implementation of the AmendmenvMerger. There is no impact to
SIS from additional students generated by the project; however, a discussion on
the total capacity at SIS is provided below.
Stacey Intermediate School
According to the District, total student capacity at Stacey Intermediate School
(SIS) is 764 students. Currently, SIS has a student enrollment of 709 students,
with a surplus capacity for 55 students. As indicated by the District, the total
number of permanent classrooms at SIS is 30, with 1 portable classroom. When
the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the class-
room loading capacity of 30, the total student capacity is 930 students. There-
fore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 166 students.
SIS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the
decision to put SIS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
As previously stated, Huntington Center neither has nor proposes any residential
land uses. 'Therefore, no additional students will be generated from this area,
resulting in no impact to Stacey Intermediate School.
Ocean View School Distna
MD uses a student generation factor of .30 for single family dwelling units and
.04 for multifamily dwelling units.
Mesa View Middle School
According to the District, total student capacity at Mesa View Middle School
(MUMS) is 740 students. Currently, MUMS has a student enrollment of 701
students, with a surplus capacity of 39 students. As indicated by the District, the
total number of permanent classrooms at MUMS is 24, with 4 portable class-
rooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied
by the classroom loading capacity of 34 students, the total student capacity is
increased to 952 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would
increase by 212 students.
MUMS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the
decision to put MUMS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
A portion of Oakview and all of Talbert -Beach are within the attendance area of
MUMS. As stated earlier, redevelopment actions within Oakview will not result
in new housing units. However, based upon anticipated redevelopment in
Talbert -Beach, 43 new housing units are projected. Multiplying the number of
units by the District's student generation factor of .30 results in an increase of
approximately 13 students to MUMS. The addition to MUMS will not significantly
7/19/96KL•1RSG630EMSECT4-13•VTm 4.13-9
•
affect the school's facilities, since there is adequate rapacity to serve the addi-
tional students using either method of calculating the surplus capacity. There-
fore, the number of students to MUMS resulting from anticipated redevelopment
actions in Talbert -Beach is incremental and considered less than significant.
Spring View Middle School
According to the District, total student capacity at Spring View Middle School
(SUMS) is 850 students. Currently, SUMS has a student enrollment of 826 stu-
dents, with a surplus capacity of 24 students. As indicated by the District, the
total number of permanent classrooms at SUMS is 26, with 3 portable class-
rooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied
by the classroom loading capacity of 34, the total student capacity is increased to
986 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by
136 students.
SUMS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the
decision to put SVMS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
Although Huntington Center is within the attendance area of SUMS, the area is
not anticipated to generate any additional students to SUMS. There are no
existing or planned residential areas within this area; therefore, no additional
students will be generated by redevelopment action's upon implementation of
the Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to SVMS from additional students
generated by the project.
Elementary Schools
Hunfsngfon Beach City School Dfsfrict
As identified above, the HBCSD uses a student generation factor of .3095 per
dwelling cunt.
Kettler Elementary School
According to the District's Development Fee Findings Report (DFFR) prepared in
March, 1996, Kettler Elementary School (KES) has a total capacity of 690 stu-
dents. Actual 1995/1996 enrollment is 686 students, leaving an approximate
surplus rapacity of four students. As indicated by the District, the total number
of permanent classrooms at KES is 22, with 6 portable classrooms. When the
number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom
loading capacity of 30 students, the total school capacity is increased to 840
students. Therefore, the school's total student rapacity would increase by 150
students.
7R9/9&1ARSo430XsEcs4-13•Wn)* 4.13-10
KES is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the
decision to put KES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
A portion of Main -Pier (the area southeast of Ist Street) is within the attendance
area of Kettler Elementary. Based upon anticipated redevelopment actions in
this part of the area, approximately 350 residential units are expected with the
Waterfront Project. Multiplying the number of units by the District's student
generation factor of .3095 results in an increase of approximately 77 students to
KES. This addition to KES will not significantly affect the school's facilities since
adequate capacity exists to serve the additional students when the mzdmum
allowable classroom loading capacity specified by the District is used. Therefore,
the impact to KES is considered less than significant.
Smith Elementary School
According to the District's Development Fee Findings Report (DFFR) prepared in
March, 1996, Smith Elementary School has a total capacity of 690 students.
Actual 1995/1996 enrollment is 770 students, leaving an approximate surplus
deficit of 80 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of perma-
nent classrooms at Smith Elementary is 23, With 6 portable classrooms. When
the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the class-
room loading capacity of 30 students, the total school rapacity is increased to
870 students. 'therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by
180 students.
Smith Elementary is not on a yeear-round schedule; however, if the District were
to make the decision to put Smith Elementary om a year-round track, the
school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent.
A portion of Mzio-Pier (the area north west of Ist Street) is within the attendance
arm of Smith Elementary. Based upon anticipated redevelopment actions in this
put of the area, approximately 213 residential units are expected (150 with the
Chevron: Project and 63 with the Third Block West Project). Multiplying the
number of units by the District's student generation factor of .3095 results in an
increase of 66 students to Smith Elementary. This addition to Smith Elementary
will not skpffiicantly affect the school's facilities since adequate capacity exists to
serve the additional students when the maximum allowable classroom loading
capacity specified by the District is used. Therefore, the impact to Smith Elemen-
tary is considered less than significant.
Westminster Stbool L fLv act
Although Huntington Center is within the attendance areas of both Clegg Ele-
mentary School (CES) and Schroeder Elementary School (SES), Huntington
Center will not generate any additional students to CES or SES. Currently, the
area neither has nor proposes any residential land uses. 'Therefore, no addi-
tional students will be generated by redevelopment actions upon implementa-
tion of the Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to CES or SES from addi-
7/19i96xL•1RSG630 EMECr413.VPX�* 4.13-11
tional students generated by the project; however, a discussion on the school's
capacities is provided.
Clegg Elementary School
According to the District, total student capacity at Clegg Elementary School
(CES) is 420 students. Currently, CES his a student enrollment of 481 stude;ats,
with a surplus deficit for 61 students. As indicated by the District, the total
number of permanent classrooms at CES is 16, with 2 portable classrooms.
When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the
classroom loading rapacity of 30, the total student capacity is 540 students.
Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 120 students.
CES is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the
decision to put CES on a year-round trick, the school's total student capacity
would increase by 2ppr0XiM2tely 25 percent.
As previously stated, Huntington Center includes no residential land uses. The
AmendmenVMerger proposes no change in land use for Huntington Center.
Therefore, no additional students will be generated from this area, resulting in
no impact to Clegg Elementary School.
0 Scbroeder Elementary School
•
According to the District, total student capacity at Schroeder Elementary School
Schroeder Elementary is 420 students. Currently, Schroeder Elementary has a
student enrollment of 449 students, with a surplus deficit for 29 students. As
indicated by the District, the total number of permanent classrooms at Schroeder
Elementary is 15, with 2 portable classrooms. When the number of permanent
classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 30,
the total student capacity is 510 students. Therefore, the school's total student
capacity would increase by 90 students.
Schroeder Elementary is not on a pear -round schedule; however, if the District
were to make the decision to put Schroeder Elementary on a year-round track,
the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent.
As previously stated, the Amendment/Merger proposes no residential Land uses
for Huntington Center. Therefore, no additional students will be generated
from this area, resulting in no impact to Schroeder Elementary School.
Ocean View &abaol Dusts is
As identified above, OVSD uses a student generation factor of .30 for single
family dwelling units and .04 for multifamily dwelling units.
7/19)96'KI:1RSC63VXMECT4.13:WPD- 4.13-12
Oak View Elementary Sebool 9
According to the District, total student capacity at Oak Yew Elementary School
(OYES) is 617 students. Currently, OYES has a student enrollment of 617 stu-
dents, with no surplus student capacity available. As indicated by the District,
the total number of permanent classrooms at OVES is 19, with 6 portable class-
rooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied
by the classroom loading capacity of 34, the total student rapacity is increased to
850 students. Therefore, the school's total student rapacity would increase by
233 students, resulting in a surplus student capacity.
OVES is not on a yeah -round schedule; however, if the District were to make the
decision to put OYES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
There are no planned residential uses within Oakview; therefore, no additional
students will be generated upon implementation of the Amendment/Merger.
There is no impact to OYES from additional students generated by the project.
Sun View Elementary School
According to the District, total student capacity at Sun View Elementary School
(SUES) is 470 students. Currently, SUES has a student enrollment of 440 stu-
dents, with a surplus capacity of 30 students. As indicated by the District, the
total number of permanent classrooms at SVES is 15, with 2 portable classrooms.
When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the
classroom loading capacity of 34, the total student capacity is increased to 578
students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 108
students.
SUES is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the
decision to put SUES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
Although Huntington Center is within the attendance areas of SUES, the area is
not anticipated to generate any additional students to SVES. Currently, the area
does not have any residential land uses, nor does it propose any. Therefore, no
additional students will be generated by redevelopment actions upon imple-
mentation of the Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to SVES from addi-
tional students generated by the project.
Hope View Elementary Sebool
According to the District, total student capacity at Hope View Elementary School
(HVE57 is 620 students. Currently, HUES has a student enrollment of 593 stu-
dents, with a surplus capacity of 27 students. As indicated by the District, the
total number of permanent classrooms at HUES is 23, with 3 portable class-
rooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied
by the classroom loading capacity of 34, the total student capacity is increased to
7n996«I:\tsc630\EX$ECT4-13 VPD* 4.13-13
884. Therefore, the school's total strident capacity would increase by 264 stu-
dents.
HVES is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the
decision to put HVES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
Talbert -Beach is within the attendance area of HUES. Based upon the proposed
redevelopment actions in this area, 43 new housing units are projected. Multi-
plying the number of units by the District's student generation factor of .30
results in an increase of approximately 13 students to HUES. This addition to
HUES will not significantly affect the school's facilities, since there is adequate
capacity to serve the additional students with either method of calculating the
school's surplus capacity.
Golden View Elementary School
According to the District, total student capacity at Golden View Elementary
School (GVES) is 620 students. Currently, GVES has a student enrollment of 561
students, with a surplus capacity of 59 students. As indicated by the District, the
total number of permanent classrooms at GVES is 22, with 3 portable class-
rooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied
by the classroom loading capacity of 34, the total student capacity is increased to
850. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 230 stu-
dents.
GVES is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the
decision to put GVES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
As previously stated, residential land uses associated with redevelopment actions
are not proposed. Therefore, no additional students will be generated from this
area, resulting in no impact to GVES.
Summary of Impacts
In summary, the potential impacts to schools serving the Merged Project Area are
considered less than significant. Table 4.13A indicates student enrollment
approaching and sometimes exceeding the student capacity at several schools, as
stated by the school districts. However, the districts did not calculate their
potential student capacity by multiplying the number of classrooms and
portables by the classroom loading capacity, and may have inadvertently under-
stated actual rapacity. When student capacity is calculated, the student capacity
figure increases substantially.
Based upon this method of calculation, implementation of the Amendment/
Merger will not generate students beyond the total student capacity at any
school. Therefore, there appears to be adequate space available to serve addi-
7/r919&L-\RSG630�E=EC74-23.WPty 4.13-14
tional students. When a year-round school schedule and increased usage of
portable classrooms are considered, adequate capaciry is assured. 0
In regard to potential project demands for school facilities, the districts collect
school impacts fees to the maximum amount permitted by law. With the excep-
tion of the establishment of community facility districts for specific develop-
ments, no other mitigation measures to meet increasing school enrollments are
possible, pursuant to State law (SBA 1287). In addition, the districts will receive
Average Daily Attendance financing to fund district teacher salary and other
general education expenses.
Furthermore, school districts will be entitled to a share of the tax increment
revenue generated by the Merged Project. As discussed in the Project Descrip-
tion, Section 3.0, the Amendment/Merger will amend the Merged Plan as such;
therefore, statutory payments provided by Section 33607.7 will be remitted to
any affected taxing agency with whom the agency has not entered into a pass
through agreement prior to January 1, 1994; the Agency will continue to remit
payments in accordance with such pass through agreement in lieu of statutory
payments. Such statutory and pass through payments are designed to alleviate
any financial burden or detriment that the affected taxing agencies may incur as
a result of the Amendment/Merger.
Because there is no physical impact to any of the schools and because construc-
tion of a new school is not justified, there are no physical consequences that
result from the Amendment/Merger. Impacts to the schools serving the Merged
Project Area are considered less than significant. Is
4.13.4 CU3MLA77VE IMPACTS
Although the General Plan Update EQi identifies that a cumulative increase in
the number of students generated would result in cumulative impacts to all of
the school districts and their facilities that serve the City of Huntington Beach,
the number of additional students resulting from the Amendment/Merger does
not exceed any affected school's existing facitilities and capacities. HBCSD will
experience an increase of 143 students as result of the Amendment/Merger,
however, this amount is only slightly higher than the student growth projections
for HBCSDI. Using the maximum allowable classroom Ioading opacity specified
by HBCSD, the number of students does not exceed HBCSD's capacity. There-
fore, as previously stated, there are no physical consequences that result from
the Amendment/Merger, therefore, there is no physical impact to any of the
schools and construction of a new school or a portion of a school is not justified.
Therefore, there are no cumulative impacts resulting from the Amendment/
Merger.
Community Systems Associates, Inc., Development Fee Findings Report,
March 14,1996.
7/1919buL• O\EMSEC74-13.WPDo► 4.13-15
0 4.13.5 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
r-I
The General Plan Update ELR identifies several policies contained in the Land
Use Element and the Public Facilities and Public Services Element of the General
Plan Update that will lessen impacts to the affected school districts. The policies
are listed below:
• Require that the type, amount, and location of development be corre-
lated with the provision of adequate supporting inf-Astr„cnire and ser-
vices (as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Service Ele-
ments) (Policy LU2.12).
• Continue the dialogue between the City of Huntington Beach and the
local school districts to review measures alleviating some school's over-
crowding while other school's have available capacity (Policy PF4.1.1).
• Continue communication and cooperation efforts between City officials
and the Iocal school districts, especially in the areas of population pro-
jections, funding sources, and through annual monitoring of develop-
ment activities in order to promote a better quality of life for existing and
future residents (Policy PF4?.1).
• Require that new development projects to pap appropriate school im-
pact fees to the local school districts (Policy PF 4.22).
4.13.6 Mr"GATlON MFASURFS
Mitigation measures are not warranted.
4.13.7 LEVEL OF L UPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFM A=GATION
in regard to potential project demands on school facilities, expected increases in
students are consistent with the General Plan Update. In addition, pursuant to
the California Health and Safety Code Sections 33000 et. seq, statutory and pass
through payments to school districts are considered adequate mitigation for
financial burden and detriment incurred as a result of the AmendmenVMerger.
No unavoidable adverse impacts to schools are expected to result from the
project.
With implementation of the General Plan policies identified above, the addi-
tional demands to the school districts that serve the City of Huntington Beach
will be lessened to a level below significance.
7/I9/96RI:%RSG63MMSECf*13 WPIY- 4.13-16
5.0 ALTERNATIVES 0
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126(d), an EIR must discuss a
reasonable range of alternatives that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of
the project. This chapter discusses the following aIternatives: 1) No Project, 2)
Alternative Financing, 3) Alternative Project Location, 4) Increased Development
Alternative, and 5) Reduced Development Alternative.
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of alternatives shall
focus on alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmen-
tal effects or reducing them to a less than significant level of impact, while still
meeting most project objectives. The alternatives considered in this EIR were
selected because they represent reasonable alternatives for the project area that
potentially could achieve the objectives of the project, and because they have the
potential to reduce unavoidable impacts of the project, or cumulative impacts of
the project and reasonably foreseeable projects. The individual impacts associat-
ed with each alternative are discussed in relation to changes in existing condi-
tions and their relative severity compared to the impacts of the
AmendmenuMerger.
5.1 AL72RNA77VE I - i1i O PROJECT ALT'ERNAT IVE
The No Project Alternative consists of maintenance of existing environmental
conditions as a baseline for comparison to the project. This alternative would
entail no changes in the existing and planned uses of the project areas, and
would maintain existing land use patterns and conditions. This alternative
contemplates development continuing at its current pace as allowed under
existing City regulations and the General Plan. This alternative is very similar to
the proposed Amendment/Merger, since the build out would be exactly the
same. The difference is that without the financing mechanism provided by the
Amendment/Merger, the build out under this alternative is likely to occur more
slowly, and may be dependent on other factors (such as market forces or other
funding sources) to achieve the ultimate build out. The pattern of development
and existing land uses is described in Section 4.1, Land Use.
Because this project is primarily a program for economic development, elimina-
tion of blight, and financing of infrastructure within the Merged Project Area,
there are implied redevelopment activities that would affect the long-term condi-
tions within these arras. Tberefore, the No Project Alternative will include a sub-
set called the No Build condition, wherein there would be no growth, no addi-
tional fimacing for infrastructure and public facilities, and no growth/changes in
land use or any other physical changes to the baseline environmental conditions.
It is important to note that the No Build condition is not a realistic condition. It
has been included Here to comply with CEQA requirements to address the No
Project scenario, where no additional development occurs. This is not a realistic
scenario for two reasons: 1) the Amendment/Merger does not include develop-
ment of private property within the Merged Project Area; even with the No
Project Alternative, it is unlikely that all development within the Merged Project
Area would cease; and 2) the General Plan provides for future growth in the
7n9)96,mt:\xsc MNEnt$ECT".avpm. 5-1
. Merged Project Area, so if growth does not occur as a future outcome of the
Amendment/Merger, growth is still provided for in the General Plan.
Land Use
No Project
Under the No Project Alternative, the existing land use designations would
remain as they are proposed in the General Plan. These designations primarily
include commercial, industrial and residential. The potential land use related
impacts associated with the No Project Alternative would be of no significance,
as the current land uses within the project boundaries would continue un-
changed due to the Redevelopment Plans' adoption of the current land use
designations of the General Plan and all future amendments to the General Plan.
In this way, the Redevelopment Plans will always be consistent with the City of
Huntington Beach General Plan Update. However, the eminent domain powers
that the Redevelopment Agency proposes to maintain in the project area would
lapse, preventing the Agency from converting existing commercial and industrial
properties to land uses that may be more beneficial to the City as a whole.
No Project/1Vo Build
The No Project/No Build Alternative would result in current land uses remaining
exactly the same as those evident today, and no new development or redevelop-
ment would occur on currently vacant or degraded parcels. This alternative
would essentially freeze land use as it is today; no physical improvements would
be made, no economic development would occur, and existing infrastructure
deficiencies would remain.
Population and Housing
No Prjvject
Under the No Project Alternative, economic growth and the construction of
affordable housing would occur at a slower rate than under the proposed pro-
ject due to the lack of tax increment financing and a coordinated economic
development program for the project areas. The No Project Alternative would
consequently result in the same ultimate employment and population as pro-
jected in the General Plan, but slower employment and population growth than
would occur without the Amendment/Merger. The development of general
commercial and general industrial properties would proceed before the con-
struction of additional affordable housing units, resulting in a negative impact to
the jobs/housing balance. in addition, the Agency's powers of eminent domain
would expire for Huntington Center and Oakview, thereby limiting the ability of
the Agency to make space available for constructing affordable housing. Because
the No Project Alternative would prolong the City's shortage of affordable hous-
ing, failure to implement the proposed Amendment/Merger would not allow the
7n996-1:vtSC63oJmnsfc'13-0.WYlso S-Z
Agency to assist in providing a range of housing available to all economic seg-
ments of the community. 0
No Project/No Brand
The No Build Alternative would prohibit the construction of any additional
assisted housing and would further worsen the City's housing shortage. Moder-
ate employment growth would still occur, but no additional housing would be
provided for future workers within the City.
Geology/Seismicity
No Project
Under the No Project Alternative, funding for redevelopment in the Merged
Project Airs would remain limited. Housing development, commercial develop-
ment, and economic growth would occur at a slower pace, resulting in slightly
fewer residents and employees moving into the City. From a seismic hazards
standpoint, there is no measurable difference in impacts of this alternative. The
replacement of older buildings (not built according to more stringent seismic
design requirements) with newer buildings (for those projects relying on rede-
velopment funds) would not occur, thus potentially increasing risk. Overall,
impacts relating to the identified seismic hazards would be similar to the Amend-
ment/Merger, since the minor amount of new buildings will not result in a
statistically significant decrease in risk exposure.
No Project/No Budd
Under the No Project/No Build scenario, no new development would occur.
Older buildings would not be replaced through redevelopment actions, result-
ing in continued occupancy of some buildings that may be seismically unsound
and could be at risk. For this reason, impacts due to geology and seismicity
would be greater than with the Amendment/Merger.
Water Resources
No Project
As with the Amendment/Merger, the No Project Alternative would result in less
than significant impacts to water quality and water resources. The funding
available for water quality control and new drainage improvements would be
more limited than under the proposed project.
7/19/969L1RSG63OgM*EG'I5-O.W7'B6 5-3
Air Quality
No Project/No Build
Impacts to water resource for the No Project/No Build Alternative would be the
same as those under the No Project Alternative.
No Project
Under the No Project Alternative, existing uses and densities would remain in
place, with incremental increases in density occurring as allowed raider the
City's General Plan. Air quality impacts of the No Project Alternative are the
same as those identified for the project.
Since the No Project Alternative would generate the same amount of traffic as
the Amendment/Merger, with development occurring at pace that would poten-
tially be slower, the No Project Alternative would ultimately generate the same
quantities of pollutant emissions associated with vehicle operation. However, it
may take a longer time to reach the same emission and pollution levels as pro-
jected in the General Plan Update EM under this scenario.
No Project/No Build
Under the No Project/No Build scenario, no additional vehicular traffic would be
generated within the project areas, and vehicular emissions would remain the
same as present-day conditions.
Transportation and Circulation
No Project
The No Project Alternative would result in traffic impacts similar to those experi-
enced under the Amendment/Merger. The land uses designated in the Citfs
General Plan would remain the same, and would result in similar traffic volumes
being generated at build out. The No Project scenario would result in slower
growth, delaying the effect of traffic and circulation impacts. This would be
offset by the isct that improvements planned to be funded by the Amend-
ment/Merger would not occur. Over the long-term, the impacts are essentially
the same as for the Amendment/Merger.
No Pre jecY/No Build
Under the No Project/No Build scenario, traffic conditions would be expected to
remain the same because build out according to the General Plan will continue.
Currently vacant parcels and lower density developments would continue to
produce little or no traffic, while some street improvements would be made with
non -redevelopment related funds.
7/19/96%L-\tSG63O EMSECT5-o.WPDO 54
Biological Resources
No Project
Because the Redevelopment Plans implement the City's General Plan land uses
and because the No Project Alternative does essentially the same but at a slower
pace without tax increment financing and eminent domain, the effects on open
space lots and adjacent resource areas are identical. Under the No Project Alter-
native, impacts to biological resources would be the same as those experienced
under the Amendment/Merger (i.e., less than significant).
No Project/No Build
Under the No Project/No Build scenario, currently vacant areas would remain
vacant and would serve as urban/disturbed open space. Since no important
biological resources are within the project areas, no significant biological impacts
would be avoided.
Public Reallb and Safely
.f PLn
No Project
The No Project scenario would allow for further development of cosnxnercW,
industrial, and residential land uses that may use toxic and hazardous materials
and/or generate hazardous waste. However, as with the Amendment/Merger,
compliance with existing City, County, State, and federal regulations regarding
hazardous materials would reduce potential impacts to below a significant level.
No ProjectWo Build
Under the No Project/No Build scenario, petroleum extraction activities would
be allowed to continue. Continuation of oil and gars extraction would prolong
the potential for hazardous materials and soil contamination to occur. The
existing industrial and commercial uses would remain, and would not be re-
placed with residential uses, which generate smaller qualities of hazardous
materials.
No Project
Under the No Project Alternative, similar volumes of traffic would occur due to
General Plan build out. As a result, significant increases in noise levels will be
expected to occur along specific roadway segments as reported in the General
Plan Update EM These increases in ambient noise levels would be comparable
•
to those resulting from implementation of the AmendmenVMerger. 0
7n9t96«i\RSC,63aEMrcr5-0.wrm► 5-5
•
No Project/No Build
Under the No Project/No Build scenario, vehicular traffic and associated ambient
noise levels would be incrementally less than those levels reached under the
Amendment/Merger andNo Project scenarios_
Public ServiceslVtg ties
No Project
The No Project Alternative would have relatively the same impact on utilities and
services as the Amendment/Merger, since build out would be the same as under
the General Plan. Lack of funding may slow the growth rate to ultimate build
out within the Merged Project Area. Funding for infrastructure improvements
that would be generated by the Amendment/Merger would not be available
under the No Project Alternative. If development did proceed without infra-
structure improvements, increases in the demand for public services and utilities
could potentially exceed the City's ability to supply funding. This will be pre-
vented by General Plan policies requiring provision of adequate public services
and utilities.
No Pre ect/No Build
Under the No Project/No Build scenario, the demand for public services and
utilities would not increase. Alternative forms of funding would be needed to
correct existing deficiencies.
Visual and Aesthetic Resources
No Project
The No Project Alternative would result in the existing character of the project
areas remaining the same. Continuing the existing pattern of developitnent will
continue the blight and land use conflicts that currently exist within the project
areas. Existing views would remain as they are, and the character and general
appearance of the project areas would not be altered. The visual improvements
that would occur with implementation of the Amendment/Merger would not be
implemented.
No Project/No Build
The No Project/No Build Alternative would also allow the existing conditions of
blight to remain unchanged. Although some views would be maintained, this
would not represent an significantly important benefit.
7n9j96«t:1RSG630JMMECt5+0.VM)- 5-6
Caltural Resources
No Prc ect
The No Project Alternative would still allow for build out of land as allowed by
the City's General Plan, and grading for future developments could potentially
disrupt presently unrecorded cultural resources, having the identical potential
impacts as the Amendment/.Merger. The potentially historic structures within
the City could still be subjected to the pressures of development, but would
most likely be protected by existing State and federal laws (as with the Amend-
ment/:bierger).
No Plr ect/No Build
Under the No Project/No Build scenario, no disruption of cultural resources
would occur.
5-2 AL7FRNA77VE 2 - AL72MVA77VE FVVANCEVG
This alternative will require the City of Huntington Beach to seek alternative
sources of revenue to fund needed redevelopment improvements and other
projects instead of utilizing Redevelopment Agency funding. The City is in need
of specific public improvements included in the list of public infrastructure,
storm drains and street improvements and public facilities such as the hlnwy
expansion, all cited in Chapter 3.0 of this EIR in order to fund these improve-
ments without Redevelopment Agency participation, other sources of revenue
the City could consider include infrastructure finance districts, industrial devel-
opment bonds, community development block grant (CDBG) funds (which are
declining and are considered unreliable), economic development administration
(EDA) funds, assessment districts, and County, State and federal assistance
programs.
As the primary source for financing the Redevelopment Projects, this alternative
will allow construction of projects only as financing sources are located and
funds become available. The availability of funds would, in turn, be dependent
upon such factors as the source; the marketability of bonds; the political climate
at the time; whether or not local, State or federal agencies have made funds
available; and other issues that may be Unknown at this time.
Under this alternative, the current list of projects within the existing Redevelop-
ment Project Areas could be developed slowly or possibly not at all, depending
upon the availability of funds and the success of the City at obtaining the neces-
sary funds. Once funds wete obtained, they could be restricted in use, used only
for specific projects, which could affect some of the Redevelopment Projects.
Generally, alternative financing sources are unreliable and rapidly disappearing.
This alternative is very similar to the No Project Alternative. The only difference
is that this alternative provides for alternate funding sources.
•
7/1WP&I:utS"5MEEMEC754 VPD- 5-7
Because one of the primary objectives of the Amendment/Merger is to finance
infrastructure improvements, an infrastructure financing district should be
considered as an alternative. Enacted by California Senate Bill 308 in 1990, the
enabling legislation (Government Code Section 53395, et seq.) authorizes cities
to establish infrastructure financing districts to purchase, construct, expand and
improve infrastructure of "community -wide significance."
Like the Amendment/Merger, an infrastructure financing district will be funded
by property tax increment (although only from certain taxing agencies that
consent to give up their increment), and will be able to issue bonds to finance
infrastructure activities. However, a number of drawbacks make infrastructure
financing districts of limited usefulness.
First, the constitutionality of the districts is uncertain. The Legislative Gounsel
(attorney for the California Legislature) opined that the enabling legislation is
unconstitutional because it authorizes tax increment financing without requiring
blight, and because an infrastructure financing district is not a "district" entitled
to allocation of property taxes'.
Second, the requirement that taxing agencies must consent by resolution to
donate their tax increment to the district severely limits the funds that can be
obtained, particularly in comparison to the tax increment funds that would be
generated by the Amendment/Merger. In addition, school districts and county
boards of education are not authorized to consent to give up their tax incre-
ments.
Third, the legislative intent to Section 53395 is that infrastructure financing
districts be used only in "substantially undeveloped areas." No portions of the
Redevelopment Projects would qualify as such.
Fourth, the creation of an infrastructure financing district and its issuance of
bonds must be approved by a two-thirds vote of all owners of property within
the district. Obtaining such two-thirds approval would be very difficult.
All of the other revenue sources cited above may have a place in providing
needed construction capital. However, they have several disadvantages such as
availability, allowed use of the funds, and the duration the funds are available.
The use of the above financing methods could result either in the delay of some
or all of the ongoing list of projects in the five Redevelopment Project Areas well
into the future, or in their abandonment.
From an environmental standpoint, this alternative will have impacts similar to
the Amendment/Merger due to similar, but possibly slower, construction im-
pacts and similar, but slower, growth inducing impacts. Alternative financing
methods, if and when obtained, would fund similar but not necessarily the same
Redevelopment Projects as the AmendmenuMerger. This would be due to
potential "strings" attached to federal and State funding sources. If this alterna-
tive did not fund affordable housing projects for many years, this alternative
0 ' "Report on Enrolled Bill" dated September 24, 1990.
7n996ar:1RS"30+E14O r:CT5-o.WPD- 5.8
could be environmentally inferior to the Amendment/Merger. If this alternative
did not fund needed public works improvements in a timely manner, infirastruc-
ture needs of the City in the Redevelopment Project Areas may not be funded.
With the exception of public services/Infrastructure and affordable housing, the
Alternative Financing scenario would have impacts similar to those of the
Amendment/Merger with regards to land use, geology/seismicity, water re-
sources, air quality, transportation and circulation, biological resources, public
health and safety, noise, aesthetics, and cultural resources.
5.3 ALIE WA17VE 3 - ALTERNATE PROJECT LOCATION
The key question in determining whether alternative locations need to be con-
sidered is 'whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided
or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only loca-
tions that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the
project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR" (Guidelines, Section 15126
(A) (5) (B). The "rule of reason" and feasibility are also factors to consider in
evaluating off -site or alternative locations.
In order for any area to be considered a Redevelopment Project Area, it must
meet several conditions established by State law. The Redevelopment Law
requires an extensive legal process involving the preparation of several docu-
ments, the formal action of the Agency, the Planning Commission and the City
Council. Prior to City Council adoption of Redevelopment Plugs for each of the
five Redevelopment Project Arras, extensive assessments were conducted to
determine whether the areas met the condition of blight as defined by the Rede-
velopment Law, as well as other necessary criteria.
The area within the City of Huntington Beach that is available as an alternative
Redevelopment Project Area is very limited. There is little remaining land within
the City that could be incorporated into a new project area that would satisfy the
objectives of eliminating blight, providing commercial rehabilitation, eliminating
land use conflicts and providing new housing opportunities. The primary areas
within the City that meet the definition of blight, i.e., areas that are in need of
commercial rehabilitation, are already included within the Merged Project Area.
Therefore, there is no suitable alternative location within the City that could be
incorporated into a new Redevelopment Project Area.
Since the principal purpose of the Amendment/Merger is to merge five pm-d-
ously established Redevelopment Projects to allow an increase in finance limits
and to allow flexibility in expending tax increment on projects within any of the
five arras, an alternative project location would not satisfy the objectives of the
Amendment/Merger. Each of the objectives defined in the project description is
site specific and could not be applied to an alternate location. Abandonment of
the project in order to establish a completely new Redevelopment Project Area
would result in the same situation as the 'No Project/No Build" alternative.
•
7n9/96+t:\T-IC,630QEMECT".coPE . 5-9
5.4 ALTERNATIVE 4 - INCREASED DEVF-LOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
The Increased Development Alternative would result in a Redevelopment Pro-
ject that provides strategies for encouraging new development and redevelop-
ment within the Redevelopment Project Areas to its theoretical capacity (i.e.,
greater than the development intensity allowed under the General Plan). Strate-
gies that could be employed to increase development intensities within the
Redevelopment Project Areas include 1) density bonuses for projects that incor-
porate particular land uses such as affordable housing or public recreation areas,
or 2) transfer of development rights between parcels located within the Redevel-
opment Project Areas. Although encouragement of density in excess of that
allowed under the General Plan will result in larger tax increment revenue, this
development would be inconsistent with the Land Use Element of the General
Plan and would require greater infrastructure improvements than currently
identified in the Amendment/Merger or the General Plan. In direct conflict with
Objective No. 2 (consistency with the City's General Plan) and No_ 3 (provision
of funds to assist implementation of infrastructure improvements) of the Amend-
ment/Merger, as outlined in Section 3.4 of this EIR, the alternative fails to meet
the majority of the Amendment/Merger objectives, and is considered infeasible.
5.5 ALTERNATIVE 5 - REDUCED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATM
The Reduced Development Alternative would result in Redevelopment Projects
that reduce programs to fund capital improvement projects within the Redevel-
opment Project Areas, and that focus on assistance with building rehabilitation
and construction within the Redevelopment Project Areas. Elimination of capital
improvement funding that corrects existing and planned deficiencies will result
in new and redevelopment projects bearing an increased burden for the costs of
upgrading infrastructure; in some cases, this may require downscaling of pro-
jects or may make them infeasible from an economic prospective. This addi-
tional economic burden is expected to reduce the level of development/
redevelopment that will occur within the Redevelopment Project Areas..Particu-
lar capital improvement projects that may not be financed include the following:
• Maintenance and refurbishment of infrastructure in Talbert -Beach, in-
cluding necessary replacement
• Storm drain improvements throughout the Redevelopment Project Areas
• Completion of storm drain improvements in Oakview
• Improvements to the interchange, roadways and intersections at Center
Avenue, Interstate 405 and Edinger Avenue
• Completion of a new accessaray into the Huntington Center Plaza, di-
rectly across from the interstate 405 southbound ramp at Center Drive
• Improvements at the Gothard Street/Hoover Street connection
• Completion of the Oakview branch library
• Various other improvements associated with community and neighbor-
hood improvement programs, commercial rehabilitation projects and
economic development.
Without implementation of these capital improvement projects, development
sponsors will be required to shoulder the economic burden for construction of
7n9N&LAFS"30\E NSECT ro.WFD- 5-10
improvements that accommodate not only their incremental demand but also
existing deficiencies in the system. This additional cost may create a hindrance
to economic development within the Redevelopment Project Areas, and may
have a corresponding negative effect on tax increment revenues within the
Redevelopment Project area. This loss of revenue will inhibit the ability of the
Redevelopment Agency to meet the objectives of the Amendment/Merger, as
identified in Section 3.4 of this EIR. In particular, Objective 3 (provision of
funds to assist implementation of infrastructure improvements) could not be
met with this alternative.
Since this alternative would produce development possibly at a slower rate than
expected with implementation of the AmendmenvMerger, environmental im-
pacts associated with this alternative are anticipated to be 'incrementally slower,
but not necessarily fewer, than for the Amendinent/Merger andAlternative 1 (No
Project), and greater than the impacts identified for Alternative 1 ( No Project/No
Build).
Implementation of Alternative 5 will result in incrementally slower, but not
necessarily fewer, environmental impacts than the Amendment/Merger, how-
ever, this alternative fails to meet one of the main Amendment/Merger objectives
(Objective No.3) and, therefore, is considered infeasible.
5.6 CONCLUSIONS
A reasonable range of project alternatives to potentially reduce significant envi-
ronmental impacts, which would otherwise occur under the Amendment/
Merger, was analyzed in this chapter. These alternatives include the No Project
Alternative, No Project/No Build sub -set Alternative, Alternative Financing, Alter-
nate Location Alternative, Increased Development and Decreased Development.
The No Project/No Build alternative was determined to be infeasible, as it would
not allow for build out of the City's adopted General Plan. While this alternative
would avoid significant increases in ambient noise levels, it would not be envi-
ronmentally superior to the Amendment/Merger overall.
The No Project Alternative would result in environmental effects similar to the
Amendment/Merger, but would not have its beneficial effects on housing and
infrastructure. It is therefore not considered to be environmentally superior.
The Alternative Financing Alternative, if feasible/successful, would have the same
environmental impacts as the Amendment/Merger. However, due to the uncer-
tainty of funding for this Alternative and because it does not reduce significant
environmental impacts, it is not considered an environmentally superior project
The Alternative Location, Increased Development and Decreased Development
Alternatives were deemed to be infeasible, as they would not achieve Amend-
ment/Merger objectives.
71i9N6R1:\TSCo9ANEW5ECT".WP1)3* 5-11
0
In conclusion, the AmendmenVMerger would have the fewest environmental
impacts among all the feasible alternatives, and it is considered to be the envi-
ronmentally superior alternative.
7n9)PCPKI VtSGA3&JMCSEct5-0.wrtb► 5-12
6.0 LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT 0
This chapter has been prepared in conformance with Sections 15126(e), (f) and
(g) of the CEQA Guidelines, which require EIRs to address long-term effects of a
project. This section also provides a summary and classification of the environm-
ental impacts of the AmendmenUMerger, which am identified in analyses con-
tained in Chapter 4 of this EGL
6. I ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ANALYZED IN THE FIR
6.1.1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant
Land Use and Planning; Population and Housing
The impacts associated with land use and planning were determined to not be
significant. Adoption and implementation of the Amendmenr/Merger will
actually result in positive land use impacts to the City and its residents. It is the
intent of the AmendmenV.Merger to facilitate the elimination of incompatible
land uses and blight, and to encourage new development that is compatible with
surrounding uses. Additionally, the Amendment/Merger does not propose
changes in the land use designations defined the Cirfs General Plan. and will
not result in land use conflicts or changes in the land use mix nor will it add
substantially to population and housing in the City. The Amendment."MI erger
will facilitate future development on a limited number of currently vacant
parcels contained within the Merged Project Area; however, these parcels do not
have significant scenic value, and are designated for development (i.e. non -opera
space) in the General Plan.
Earth Resources
As with most development in the region, implementation of the Amendment/
Merger will place future residents at a potential risk due to the potential for
regional seismic activity. However, the effect has been detained to be
insignificant based on modern building codes and foundation requirements used
by the City of Huntington Beach. Implementation of the mitigation measures
identified in the General Plan Update EIR (pages 5.6-26 through 5.6-29), now
incorporated into the General Plan as policies, will further reduce the effects of
fault rupture and ground shaking to a less than significant level.
Lands in the vicinity of the Merged Project Area have been known to be subject
to subsidence and/or liquefaction. Also, Yorktown -like and Main -Pier are within
a Methane Overlay District, where the likelihood of methane gas exposure is
prominent. Adherence to existing geotechnical engineering reporting
requirements, municipal and building codes, State Division of Oil, Gas, &
Geothermal Resource requirements, federal regulations, and the mitigation
measures identified in the General Plan Update EIR will reduce potential impacts
associated with subsidence, liquefaction, and methane to below a significant
level. 0
7/19)96r1:\it5C. MEMS£C.T6. VPt)- 6-1
0 Water Quality
The potential impacts to water resources within the City and surrounding areas
were determined to be less than significant. None of the Merged Project Area
currently has or is expected to have land uses or activities that could contribute
to a decline in water quality within coastal waters, bays, estuaries, or mart -made
lake features within the City. The AmendmenV-Merger will not significantly
impact water quality. Policies contained within the Environmental Resources/
Conservation Section of the General Plan are directed specifically at ensuring
that adverse impacts to water quality do not occur.
Transportation and Circulation
Implementation of the Amendment/Merger will result in a marginal increase in
traffic on local and regional roadways. However, the Amendment/Merger will
not result in significant traffic or circulation impacts. Policies contained in the
General Plan will ensure that implementation of the Circulation Plan and
TDNV'f'SM strategies will occur, and therefore the potential impacts associated
with the General Plan build out will be avoided in most cases. Increased traffic
levels on PCH, however, will represent an exception, as discussed in Section 6.2
below.
Biological Resources
Indirect, less than significant effects to biological resources may occur due to
intensification of human usage of open space areas located near the Merged
Project Area. No direct impacts to important biological resources are expected
as a result of the Amendment/Merger.
Public Health (Hazards)
The Amendment/Merger may result in further development of commercial,
industrial, and residential lands uses that may use toxic and hazardous materials
and/or generate hazardous waste. However, compliance with existing City,
County, State, and Federal regulations regarding hazardous materials will reduce
potential impacts to below a significant level.
Public Services and Utilities
The impacts associated with public services and utilities were determined to be
insignificant. Build out of the Merged Project Area will increase the demands
placed on all public services and utilities, including police services, fire and
emergency medical services, schools, parks and recreation, road maintenance,
utility services, water systems, sewage systems, solid waste disposal, storm
drainage, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications services. Although the
Amendment/Merger will require the addition of facilities and expansion of
service agencies, the increase in the tax base created by future development,
7/19,9&LARSG63&JM;I 5ECT60 VPrn* 6-2
coupled with fees paid for services, will facilitate the required increases in
services. By expanding the list of infrastructure and public facility projects that
the Redevelopment Agency may undertake, the Amendment/Merger will
improve the City's ability correct existing service deficiencies and provide
adequate services in the future. implementation of the policies outlined in the
General Plan will further ensure that no significant impacts to public services
and utilities will occur.
Aestbetics
The Amendment/Merger would promote economic development and new
development in a previously developed area. Any potentially negative visual im-
pacts will be reduced with application of standard City setbacks, landscaping,
and design requirements, along with recommended mitigation measures to be
included in future Specific Plans and policies contained in the General Plan.
Overall, the Amendment/Merger is anticipated to have positive and beneficial
aesthetic impacts. The use of tax increment revenue will allow the
Redevelopment Agency to use monies for improving and updating dilapidated
and blighted buildings, ultimately having positive visual impacts.
.1 `1'`M
Because the Amendment/Merger does not include any changes to the General
Plan land uses, there are no new significant impacts not already reported in the
General Plan Update EHL 0
schools
There are no physical impacts to the environment resulting from the small
number of students projected to attend public schools.
6.12 Long -Perm Impacts Avoided or Lessersed By Nithga lax
Implementation of proposed mitigation measures will reduce potential
environmental impacts to levels that are less than significant, or may even
produce Iong-term environmental benefits. Impacts initially found to be
potentially significant but that can be mitigated or lessened to avoid significant
impacts are listed below.
Biological Resources
There are no significant impacts reported to biological resources reported in the
Merged Project Area.
•
7119A.;6o \MG63MEMSECT" VPD* 6-3
Cultural Resources
Grading for development could disrupt presently unrecorded cultural resources.
Analysis of sites at the time subsequent environmental documents are prepared,
as required by CEQA and by mitigation included in this EIR, will result in avoid-
ance of impacts to any unrecorded cultural resources. A list of potential histori-
c:;l structures is included in Appendix B. Mitigation required in this ETR ensures
that any structure that is a potential historic resource will be assessed to deter-
mine the significance of the resource and provide further mitigation if war-
ranted.
Air Quality
Air pollutant emissions from Merged Project Area projects could result in poten-
tial impacts. Mitigation is included to lessen and avoid these impacts.
6.1.3 Ell? Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are included in their entirety in two sections of this EM
Section 1.0 of this document includes a listing of impacts and mitigation to offset
or avoid these impacts. Section 7.0 is the Mitigation Monitoring Program, which
includes each of the EIR's mitigation measures and implementing actions and
responsibilities. As discussed in each of the impact sections of this EIR, compli-
ance with the policies and mitigation measures contained in the General Plan
and General Plan Update FIR, respectively, will serve to mitigate potential im-
pacts that might otherwise occur with implementation of the Amend-
ment/Merger.
6.2 SIGNIF7CANT IRREVERSLUE ENVIROA31 NTAL CHANGES THAT WOULD BE
INVOLVED LV THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE I3,iPZE3MVTF.D
Specific mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce or eliminate adverse
impacts associated with the Amendment/Merger. 'There are no unavoidable
adverse impacts remaining after application of the mitigation measures, as ex-
plained in Chapter 4.
6.3 GROWTH LVDUCI2VG IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
It is the intent of the AmendmenVMerger to continue programs of economic
development and specific projects, including infrastructure improvement pro-
jects and housing programs, to alleviate conditions of blight within the Merged
Project Area. Through continuation of these projects and continuing funding of
these projects, the Agency will be improving and upgrading the existing infra-
structure, improving the level of public services, and also increasing the eco-
nomic viability of the Merged Project Area. The Amendment/Merger will con-
tinue and create new economic incentives that will attract commercial, residen-
tial, and industrial development into the Merged Project Area, resulting in em-
7n9)96ut:\RSG410\�t45ECT6o.WPD- 6-4
in employment opportunities for the local community. A small amount of
additional growth will occur through additional demand for goods, services, and
housing as a result of the new commercial and/or industrial uses on the site.
However, housing demand will be offset by the housing assistance projects
included in the Agency's list of potential projects, enumerated in Section 3.0,
Project Description.
The AmendmenVMerger will not change the existing land use designations in
the Merged Project Area as defined in the General Plan. The land use designa-
tions described in the General Flan will remain unchanged, and the Amend-
ment/Merger will implement the General Plan. The adoption and implementa-
tion of the Amendment/Merger will not result in an increase in development
intensities above General Plan land use designations and, therefore, will not
induce growth causing impacts beyond those accepted by the City with General
Plan build out.
•
L
7/19i9&LNRSC43OM"ECT64).WPD- 6-5
7.0 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
7.1 MITIGATIONMOAVIORING REQ unZEMENn
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (enacted by the passage of Assembly Bill
3180) requires that the following requkements shall apply To all reporting or
mitigation monitoring programs:
"(a) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for
the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of
projea approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the
environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed
to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those
changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at
the request of an agency baying jurisdiction by law over natural re-
sources affected by the project that agency sbal4 if so requested by the
lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting
or monitoring program.
(b) If there is a project for which mitigation is adopted a public agency
shall comply with subdivision (a) by, among other things, adopting
mitigation measures as conditions of project approval Those con-
ditions of project approval may be set forth in referenced documents
which address required mitigation measures.
(c) prior to the close of the public review period for a draft environmental
arrpact report or mitigated negative declaration, a responsible agency,
or a public agency baving jurisdiction over natural resources affected
by the project; shall either submit to the lead agency complete and
detailed performance objecrnives for mitigation measures wbicb would
address the significant effects on the environment identified by the
responsible agency or agency having Jurisdiction over natural re-
sources affected by the project, or refer the lead agency to appropriate,
readily available guidelines or reference documents. Any mitigation
measures submitted to a lead agency by a responsible agency or an
agency bavin;g jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the pro-
ject shall be limited to measures winch mitigate impacts to resources
which are subject to the statutory authority of, and definitions applica-
ble to, that agency. Compliance or noncompliance by a responsible
agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by
a project with that requirement shall not limit that authority of the
responsible agency or agency heaving jurisdiction over natural re-
sources affected by a project, or the authority of the lead agency, to
approve, condition or decry projects asprovided by this division or any
other provision of law.
(a) The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the docu-
ments or other material wbicb constitute the record of proceedings
upon which its decision is based."
7n9j95t,t vtSG630IMEct7-0.VPEVN 7-1
•
7.2 Mitigation Monitoring Procedures
This mitigation monitoring and reporting program his been prepared in compli-
ance with Public Resources Code Section 21086.6. It describes the requirements
and procedures to be followed by the City of Huntington Beach to ensure that
all mitigation measures adopted as pan of the AmendmenvMerger will be car-
ried out as described in this EIR.
Table 7A lists each of the mitigation measures specified in this FIR, and identi-
fies the party(ies) responsible for implementation and monitoring of each mea-
sure.
7l1986*I:\RSC630\ERlSfCI7-0.avPD* 7-2
Table 7A - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Responsible Party for
Environmental Topic Mitlgatlon Measure Implementation
Monitoring
Timing for Mitigation
Measure
4.2 Population and 4.2-A The Agency shall relocate any per- Community Development
Community Develop.
Prior to the issuance of any
Housing sons or families of low and moder. Director (or designee)
ment Director (or
project requiring removal
ate income displaced by a redevel-
designee)
or displacement of hous-
opment project. The Agency shall
ing.
adopt and implement it relocation
plan pursuant to Sections 33410
through 33411.1 of the California
Health and Safety Code. The relo-
cation plan ensures that no families
or single persons of low and mod-
erate income are displaced by a
redevelopment project until there
Is a suitable housing unit available
and ready for occupancy. Such
housing units shall be available at
rents comparable to those at the
time of displacement. Purther,
housing units for relocation are to
be suitable for the needs of the
displaced household, and must be
decent, safe, sanitary, and other-
wise standard dwelling, It i, the
Agency's objective that residents be
relocated with the minimum of
hardship.
7/19/9161t11VSG630\J1 S(!C774.WPD»
7-3
.10 1 0 . Is
0 0 9
Responsible Party for
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation
Monitoring
Timing for Mitigation
Measure
4.5 Air Quality Construction Bxbarat Emissions
4.5-A Mitigation for both heavy equip- Community Devclopment
Community Develop-
Prior to the issuance of any
ment and vehicle travel is limited. Director (or designee)
ment Director (or
grading or building permits
However, exhaust emissions from
designee)
associated with the Merged
construction equipment shall be
Project Area.
controlled by the applicant's con-
tractor in a manner that is consis-
tent with standard mitigation mea-
sures provided within the AQMIP,
to the extent feasible. The mea-
sures to be implemented are as
follows;
• Use low emission on -site
mobile construction equip-
ment;
• Maintain equipment in
tune, per manufacturer's
specifications;
• Use catalytic converters on
gasoline powered equip-
ment;
• Use reformulated, low -
emissions diesel fuel;
• Substitute electric and gas-
oline powered equipment
for diesel powered equip-
ment, where feasible;
7A9,96«1%vtsc6301i'tt [!Cl7.o.wrDA 7.4
N Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure
• Where applicable, do not
leave equipment idling for
prolonged peslods (i.e.,
more than five minutes);
and
• Curtail (cease or reduce)
construction during peri-
ods of high ambient pollut-
ant concentration (i.e.,
Stage 2 smog alerts).
The City shall verify use of the
above measures during normal
construction site inspections.
Fugitive Dust
4.5.13 The applicant shall implement
standard mitigation measures in
accordance with SCAQMD Rules
402 and 403, to control fugitive
dust emissions and ensure that nui-
sancc dust conditions do not occur
during contraction. These mea-
sures may include the following:
• Spread soil binders on site,
unpaved roads, and in
Parking areas;
• Water the site and equip•
ment in the morning and
evening;
7/t 9N6*i.\ItSG6301t!=Ecl7-O.WPD»
Responsible Party for
Implementation
Community Development Community Develop -
Director (or designee) meat Director (or
designee)
Timing for Mitigation
Measure
Prior to the issuance of
building or grading permits
associated with the Merged
Project Area.
7.5
Responsible Party for
Timing for Mitigation
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure implementation Monitoring Measure
• Reestablish ground cover
on the construction site
through seeding and wa-
tering;
• Phase grading to prevent
the susceptibility of large
areas to erosion over ex-
tended periods of time;
• Schedule activities to mini_
rnize the amounts of ex-
posed excavated soil dur-
ing and after the end of
work periods;
• Dispose of surplus exca-
vated material in accor-
dance with local ordi-
nances and use sound en-
gineering practices;
• Restore landscaping and
Irrigation removed during
construction, In coordina-
tion with local public ageri-
cies;
• Sweep streets on a daily
basis if alit Is carried over
to adjacent public thor-
oughfares or occurs as a
result of hauling;
7/19N64cls%SG630\X!I EC77-O.WPDa 7-6
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure
• Suspend grading opera-
tions during high winds in
accordance with Rule 403
requirements;
• Wash off trucks leaving
site;
• Maintain a minimum 12
Inch freeboard ratio on
haul trucks; and
• Cover payloads on haul
trucks using tarps or other
suitable means.
Volatile Organic Emissions
Responsible Party for
Implementation
Timing for Mitigation
Measure
4.5-C The application of paints and coat- Community Development Community Develop. Prior to the issuance of
ings and asphalt paving material Director (or designee) ment Director (or building or grading permits
will raise significant quantities of designee) associated with the Merged
VOC emissions during their appli- Project Area.
cation.
• Where feasible, emulsified
asphalt or asphaltic ce-
ment shall be utilized. The
use of rapid and medium
cure cutback asphalt
should be avoided when-
ever possible.
7/19/96a1iVlSG 630\RIMEC17.O.WPDp
7-7
•
Environmental Topic
Measure
Where feasible, low VOC
paints, primers, and coat-
ings, as well as precoated
materials, shall be speci-
fied.
Contaminated Soils and Dusts
4.5-D In larger areas of both surface and
subsurface contamination, a site
assessment will be conducted be-
fore any construction takes place at
that locale. At locations where
spillage of fluids from the petro-
leum extraction process has oc-
curred, the soils will be remediated
using appropriate techniques. Re-
moval of petroleum contamination
will also alleviate the generation of
hydrogen sulfide and Its attendant
odor. These activities would fall
under the direction of both local
and State agencies, which would
"algn oft" on the remedlation effort
upon completion. if unforseen
areas of subsurface contamination
are encountered during excavation
activities, these activities would be
curtailed In this area until the area
could be evaluated and remediatcd
as appropriate.
Responsible Party for
Implementntion Monitoring
Community Development Community Develop.
Director (or designee) ment Director (or
designee)
Tinning for Mitigation
Measure
Prior to the issuance of
building or grading permits
associated with the Merged
Project Men.
7n9N6*Iz% SG6301f IftBC17-O.WPD* 7-8
Environmental Topic
4.12 Cultural
Resources
Mitigation Measure
4.5-E Any structures to be demolished
will have an asbestos survey per-
formed by personnel trained and
certified in Asbestos abatement.
Any existing asbestos will be re-
moved and disposed in accordance
with sound engineering practice
and federal regulations. imple-
mentation of these measures will
reduce potentially significant con-
tamination issues to a level that is
less than significant.
4.12-A Prior to the commencement of new
construction that would displace
or require demolition of poten-
tially significant resources, a com-
plete assessment shall be prepared
for any of the potentially historic
buildings Identified in the present
report within the Merged Project
Area. At a minimum, this assess-
ment shall include the following
documentation:
A) A full description of each
building including archi-
tectural style, roof design,
window design, type of
foundation, exterior wail
treatments, special archi-
tectural features, etc.
7/19N60tt,1RSG6301 MI!CTI.0.WPD»
Responsible Party for
Implementation
Community Development
Director (or designee)
Community Development
Director (or designee)
Monitoring
Community Develop.
ment Director (or
designee)
Community Develop-
ment Director (or
designee)
Timing for Mitigation
Measure
Prior to the issuance of
building or grading permits
associated with the Merged
Project Area.
Prior to the issuance of any
entire stricture demolition,
gntling or building permi(.
7-9
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure
B) Black and white photo-
graphs showing one or
more facades of each
building.
C) A determination of con-
struction date from exist-
ing records such as build-
ing permit record books
on file in the Planning De-
partment at the City of
Huntington Beach. In the
event that records cannot
be located for some of the
buildings, Interviews
should be conducted with
members of the local his-
torical society or other in-
dividuals who may have
relevant data to share.
D) A competent architectural
historian should be con-
sulted prior to the demoli-
tion of any of the poten-
tially historic buildings
Identified in the present
study. Additional mea-
sures may be implemented
as a result, If necessary to
prevent an adverse impact.
Responsible Party for
Timing for Mitigation
Implementation Monitoring Measure
7l19/964Is1RSc630\IIM%SDC77-0.WPD» 7-10
Eavironmental Topic
Mitigation Measure
4.12-13 Should any cultural artifacts, ar-
chaeological resources or
paleontological resources be un-
covered during grading or excava-
tion, a County of Orange certified
archaeologist or paleontologist
shall be contacted by the Commu-
nity Development Director to: 1)
ascertain the significance of the
resource, 2) establish protocol
with the City to protect such re-
sources, 3) ascertain the presence
of additional resources, and 4) pro-
vide additional monitoring of the
site, if deemed appropriate.
Responsible Party for
Implementation
Community Development
Director (or designee)
MoWtoring
Community Develop-
ment Director (or
designee)
Timing for Mitigation
Measure
During demolition and
grading associated with the
Merged Project Area.
4.12-C Monitors trained in fossil Community Development Community Develop- During demolition and
recognition, fossil recovery and Director (or designee) ment Director (or grading associated with the
heavy equipment monitoring shall designee) Merged Project Area.
be on site during grading opera-
tions.
4.12-D A copy of the present report shall Community Development Community Develop- Priot to the issuance of any
be placed in the collection of his- Director (or designee) ment Director (or demolition, grading, or
toric documents on file at the Hun- designee) building permits associated
tington Beach Central Library or with the Merged Project
another suitable local archive. Area.
7A9/96«LWSG63t1i1ffiti ECt-7-0.WPD*
7-11
8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 0
The following persons contributed to the preparation of this EIR
LSA ASSOCIATES, LVC.
Project Manager Rob Balen
Cultural/Scientific Resources Steve Conkling
Bill McGawley
Staff Bill Mayer
Carollyn Lobell
Rick Hariacher
Julie Cho
John Staight
Todd Brody
Eric Rubery
Michael Amling
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP INC.
Project Manager Frank J. Spevacek
Associate Jim Simon
CIIYOFHUNTINGTONBFACH 0
Department of Economic Development David Biggs
Stephen V. Kohler
Michael Hennessey
Department of Community Development Linda Niles
Julie Osugi
L`
7/1&A.M- FZCr63C1E MSECT".VPD- 8-1
9.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
The following organizations and persons were consulted in the preparation of
the Draft EM:
Organization
Person Consulted/ritle
General Telephone and Electric
Mr. Robert MAZZola
(GTE)
Engineer -Telephone Operations
Huntington Beach Public Library
Mr. Ron Hayden
System
Library Services Director
The Gas Company
Mr. Robert S. Warth
Technical Supervisor
Southern California Edison Co.
Mr. Wayne Pitzer
Supervising Engineer
Time Warner
Mr. Michael %IcDonald
vice President Technical Operations
Municipal Water District of Orange
Mr. Stanley Sprague
County
General Manager
Orange County Transportation
Mr. Stan Oftelie
Authority
Chief Executive Officer
Metropolitan Water District of
Mr. John Wodraskat
Southern California
General Manager
Orange County Water District
Mr. Vidliam R. Mils, Jr.
General Manager
Huntington Beach City School
W. Jerry Buchanan
District
Asst. Superintendent of Administra-
tive Services
Orange Coast Community College
Ms. Nancy A. Pollard
District
President, Board of Trustees
Ocean View Elementary School
Dr. James Tarwater
District
Superintendent
Westminster Elementary School
Ms. Barbara Winans
District
Deputy Superintendent
Huntington Beach Union High
Dr. Patricia Koch
School District
Asst. Superintendent of Business
Services
City of Huntington Beach
Bruce Gilmer
Department of Public Works
7/ISA*-]-\RSG630JMV�SEC ".mPno 9-1
10.0 REFERENCES 0
Bean, Lowell J. 1974. Social Organization in Native Califomia. In 'Antap:
California Indian Political and Economic Organization, edited by
Lowell John Bean and Thomas King, p. 13-34, BP AP No. 2, Lowell John
Bean, series editor. Ballena Press, Ramona, California.
Bean, Lowell J. and Charles R Smith. 1978. Gabrielino. In California, edited
by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 538-549. Handbook of North American Indians,
vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D. C.
Bean, Walton. 1968. California: An Interpretive History. McGraw-Hill, New
York. (Reprinted, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1973)• _
Bolton, Herbert Eugene. 1927. Fray Juan Crespi. Missionary Eiptorer on the
Pacific Coast, 1769-1771. University of California Press, Berkeley.
(Reprinted, AMS Press, New York, 1971).
Boscana, Father Ger6nimo. 1933. Cbinigcbinicb: A Revised and Annotated
Version of Alfred Robinson's Translation of Father Ger6nimo Boscana's
Historical Account of the Beliefs, Usages, Customs and Ertravagancies
of the Indians of this Mission of San Juan Capistrano Called the
Acagcbemern Tribe. Fine Arts Press, Santa Ana. (Reprinted, Malki
Museum press, Banning, California, 1978.)
Buchanan Associates. 1995. Huntington Beach Union Higb School District
1995 Master Plan.
Cleland, Robert Glass. 1941. The Cattle on a Thousand Hills: Southern
California 1850-1880. The Huntington Library, San Marino California.
(Revised edition with a preface by Robert G. Cleland, 1951).
Clevenger, Joyce M. 1986. Archaeological Investigations at CA ORA 287: A
Multicomponent Site on Newport Bay. WESIEC Services, Ms. on file,
Ogden Environmental Services, Inc.
Community Systems Associates, Inc. 1996. Development Fee Findings Report of
the Huntington Beach Union High School District.
Community Systems Associates, Inc. 1996. Development Fee Findings Report of
the Huntington Beach City School District.
Community Systems Associates, Inc. 1994. Feasibility Study for Year Round
Education in Huntington Beach City School District.
Cowan, Robert G. 1956. Ranchos of California: A list of Spanish Concessions
1775-1822 and Mexican Grants 1822-1846. Ac2demy Library Guild,
Fresno, California. (Reprinted, Historical Society of Southem California,
Los Angeles, 1977).
7/1&9&1ARSCr630,mMECn".Vrm 10-1
Crownover, C. Scott, Beth Padon and E. Jane Rosenthal. 1989. Archaeological
Investigations at CA-ORA-121, Orange County, California. Larry Seeman
Associates. Ms. on file, South Central Coastal Archaeological Information
Center, UCLA, Los Angeles, California.
Demcak, Carol R. 1981. Fused Shale as a Time Marker in Southern California:
Review and Hypothesis. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of
Anthropology, California State University, Long Beach.
Drover, Chris E., Henry C. Koerper and Paul Langenwalter 11. 1983. Early
Holocene Human Adaptation on the Southern California Coast: A
Summary Report of investigations at the Irvine Site (CA-ORA-64),
Newport Bay, Orange County, California. Pacific Coast Arcbaeological
Society Quarterly 19(3&4):1484.
Elsasser, Albert B. 1978. Development of Regional Prehistoric Cultures. In
California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 37-57. Handbook of North
American Indians, vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D. C.
EngeIhardt, Zephyrin. 1922. San Juan Capistrano Mission. The Standard
Printing Company, Los Angeles.
1927a. San Gabriel Mission and the Beginnings of Los Angeles. Franciscan
Herald Press, Chicago.
1927b. San Fernando Rey: The Mission in the Valley. Franciscan Herald
Press, Chicago.
Envicom Corporation. 1995. City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update
Draft Environmental Impact Report and Technical Appendices.
Huntington Beach, California. Copy on file at City of Huntington Beach
Planning Department-
Envicom Corporation. 1995. City of Huntington Beach General Plan.
Huntington Beach, California.
Hall, Matt C. 1988. For the Record: Notes and Comments on "Obsidian
Exchange in Prehistoric Orange County." Pacific Coast Arcbaeological
Society Quarterly 24(4):34-48.
Harrington, John P. 1933. Annotations. In Chinigcbinicb. A Revised and
Annotated Version of Alfred Robinson's Translation of Father Gerdrdrno
Bosrana's Historical Account of the Belief, Usages, Customs and
Extravagancies of the Indians of this Mission of San Juan Capistrano
Called the Acagcbernem Tribe. Fine Arts Press, Santa Ana. (Reprinted,
Malki Museum Press, Banning, California, 1978)
1942. Culture Element Distributions: = Central California Coast.
University of California Antbropologiraal Records 7(1):146
7r1&96-t:W"30MFMECn0-0.VPD- 10-2
1986. Jobn Harrington Papers, Vol. 3: Soutbern CalifornialBasin.
Smithsonian Institution, National Anthropological Archives, Washington.
Microfilm edition, Kraus International Publications, Millwood, New York.
Hudson, Dee Travis. 1971. Proto-Crabrielino Patterns of Territorial Organization
in South Coastal California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society
Quarterly 7(2):51-76.
Koerper, Henry C. 1979. On the Question of the Chronological Placement of
Shoshonean Presence in Orange County, California. Pacific Coast
Archaeological Society Quarterly 15(3):69-84.
—. 19$1. Prehistoric Subsistence and Settlement in the Newport Bay Area and
Environs, Orange County, California. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
California, Riverside. University Microfilms International, Arm Arbor,
Michigan.
Koerper, Henry C. and Chris E. Drover. 1983• Chronology Building for Coastal
Orange County, the Case from CA-ORA-119A. Pacific Coast
Archaeological Society Quarterly 19(2):1-34.
Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of
American Ethnology Bulletin 78, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.
C. (Reprinted, Dover Publications, New York, 1976.)
MacLeod, Kaye H. And Barbara Milkovich. 1988. Huntington Beach. In: A
Hundred Years of Yesterdays: A Centennial History of the People of
Orange County and Their Communities. The Change County
Centennial, Inc., Santa Ana.
Mason, Roger D., Nancy A- Whitney-Desautels and Mark L Peterson. 1987. Test
Plan for National Register Evaluation of Archaeological Sites on the
Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Property, Orange County, California.
Scientific Resource Surveys. Ms. on file, Orange County Integrated Waste
Management Department.
Mason, William M. 1975. Fage's Code of Conduct Toward Indians, 1787. The
Journal of California Anthropology 2 (1):90-100.
McCawley, William. 1996. The First Angelina& The Gabrielino Indians of Los
Angeles. Malki Museum Press and Ballena Press, Banning, California.
Merriam, C. Hart. 1968. Vdi lage Names in Twelve California Mission Records.
University of California Arcbaeological Survey Report 74. Berkeley.
Moratto, Michael J. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando,
Florida.
Osendine, Joan. 1983. The Luiseno Village During the Late Prehistoric Era.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Riverside.
711a96-t&1RSG630\EW SECn4o.WPD- 10-3
Padon, Beth. 1987. A Culnn-Al/Scientific Assessment of the Waterfront Project,
City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange. On file, South Central
Coastal Information Center, UCLA Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.
Rosenthal, E. Jane and Beth Padon. 1986. Archaeological Research Proposal for
CA-ORA-123 and ORA-221f122. Ms. on file, 1SA Library and Caltrans
District 7.
Rosenthal, Jane, Patricia Jertberg, Steven Williams and Susan Colby. 1991. CA-
ORA-236, Coyote Canyon Cave Data Recovery Investigations, Coyote
Canyon Sanitary Landfill, Orange County, California. Larry Seeman
Associates, Inc. Ms. on file, South Central Coastal Archaeological
Information Center, UCLA, Los Angeles.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 1993. 1993 CEQA Air Qual
ity Handbook.
STA Planning Incorporated. 1989. Draft Environmental Impact Report, City of
Huntington Beacb Ed2 No. 89 4, State Clearinghouse No. 89060711. On
file, South Central Coastal Information Center, UCIA Institute of
Archaeology, Los Angeles.
Strudwick, Ivan H. 1986. Temporal and Areal Considerations Regarding the
Prehistoric Circular Fishhook of Coastal California. Unpublished M. A.
thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Long
Beach.
Wagner, Henry R. 1941. Juan Rodrigues Cabrillo: Discoverer of the Coast of
California. California Historical Society, San Francisco.
Wallace, William J. 1955. A Suggested Chronology for Southern California
Coastal Archaeology. SoutbumsternJournal ofAntbropology 11(3):214-
230. (Reprinted in The California Indians. A Source Book, edited by R.
F. Heuer and M. A. Whipple, pp. 186-201. University of California Press,
Berkeley, 1971).
—. 1978. Post -Pleistocene Archeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C. In California, edited
by Robert F. Heixer, pp. 538-549. Handbook of North American Indians,
vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D. C.
Warren, Claude N. 1968. Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the
Southern California Coast. Eastern New Mexico University
Contributions in AntbmpoloV 1(3):14.
White, Raymond C. 1963. Luiseno Social Orgarurttion. University of
California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology
48(2):91-194.
Wright, Doris Marion. 1977. A Yankee in Mexican California: Abel Stearns 1798-
0 1848. Wallace Hebberd, Santa Barbara, California.
7ner96<t:\xsG63&E st cno-o.VFD- 10-4
Young, Pamela, Loset=a Berner and Sall}► Woodbridge. 1989. Historic Structures
Report: Overview Chronology of Alterations, Ruch House and
Outbuildings. Master Planning Program for Rancho Los Alamitos. Report
on file, Rancho Los Alamitos Historic Ranch and Gardens.
is
is
7ns96*1:ussc.63a=sfcna -Vn). 10-5
0 APPENDIX A
C
NOP/INITIAL STUDY/COMMENT LETTERS
7/l9/96wIAR5G630�MT0 C.W Pm
•
April 16, 1996
To: Responsible Agencies and Interested Parties
Subject: Notice of Preparation for Environmental Impact Report on the Amendments and
Merger of Existing Redevelopment Project Areas to Create the Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project
Attached is a Notice of Preparation for the Draft Environmental impact Report (Draft EIR) on
the proposed amendments and project consolidations to form the Huntington Beach Redevel-
opment Project. The purpose of the Notice of Preparation is to describe the proposed changes
to the already adopted Redevelopment Plans and Project Components, to solicit input regarding
the scope and content of the anatysis in the EIR, and to describe the potential environmental
impacts that the EIR will evaluate. It should be noted that the project area amendments and
merger would not add property or delete property from the current Redevelopment Project
boundaries.
The Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency would appreciate your comments, suggestions or
concerns regarding potential environmental impacts related to the proposed actions. Due to
the time Limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date
but not latter than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please submit your comments by May
17, 1996. Written comments regarding the EIR can be sent via regular mail or hx to the follow-
ing:
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Attention: Stephen V. Kohler, Project Manager
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Fax: (714) 375-5087
Thank you in advance for any commend. if you have any questions about the proposed
Redevelopment Project, or the environmental review process, please contact Mr. Stephen Kohler
at (714) 536-5582.
Sincerely,
vid Biggs
Economic Development Director
Attachment: Notice of Preparation/Initial Study
04A5/'96a-%R5G430VNO]1%COV0LLn)
NOTICE OF PREPARATION •
OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
I. PROJECT INFORMATION
BACKGROUND
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach activated the Huntington
Beach Redevelopment Agency on March I, 1976. Since that time, the Rede-
velopment Agency has created five (5) redevelopment projects within the
City: Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Project; Main -
Pier Redevelopment Project; Oakview Redevelopment Project; Talbert -Beach
Redevelopment Project; and Yorktown -Lake Redevelopment Project. Each of
the five existing (Constituent) projects (described in more detail below) is
included in the proposed Redevelopment Project Amendment/Merger.
Certain limitations exist with each of the existing redevelopment projects that
hinder the Agency's ability to correct blighting conditions, promote economic
development and facilitate the construction of affordable housing. Thus, a
Redevelopment Project Amendment/Merger is proposed by the Agency to
allow the Agency to more comprehensively attain these purposes by expand-
ing the Agency's financial and statutory authority to alleviate conditions of
blight, revitalize commercial areas, protect residential uses and neighbor-
hoods, construct additional public improvements and facilities, and develop
affordable housing.
PROJECT LOCATION
The Project Area is located in the City of Huntington Beach, Orange County,
California Figure 1 illustrates the regional location of the redevelopment
areas. The Project Area is composed of five constituent Project Areas, total-
ling 619 acres or approximately 3.5 percent of the City acreage. Each of the
five casting redevelopment Project Areas is non-contiguous within the City
boundaries, as shown in Figure 2.
The profile of each of the Constituent Projects is described as follows.
Huntington Center Commercial DfstKa Redevelopment Project
Established via Ordinance No. 2743 adopted by the City Council on Novem-
ber 26, 1984, the Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment
Project encompasses 160 acres of retail and office commercial uses, and is
located in the vicinity of Edinger Avenue, Beach Boulevard, and the San .
04n6r96(L xRSG6WNaP.NOP.1XT)
4,96MC,630) LEGEND Figure I
I* - = City of Huntington Beach
Scale in "let
L S-A Regional Location
SEAL
BEACH
i
i
COUNTY OF �•�
ORANGE
(BOLSA CW. A)
T_
LEGEND
4e
r City Boundary �.
Huntington Center Commercial District
Redevelopment Project
Oakview Redevelopment Project
Talbert -Beach Redevelopment Project
.Yorktown -Lake Redevelopment Project
Main -Pier Redevelopment Project
Sou=: City of HuatinSwa Beach. Dcpa uww of Commtuaty DcwloP— t
4115/96 MG63a)
41.
N
L—SA see in m>=
0 ___ O.S 1
5
F1�t]OEH µw�
i
��"` • HEL
'" FouNraly
VALLEY
TALBERT �Fti
r
(A
0
°IJS x p
—
-- I raAaFla.a
� ,�uTow►a
4
; ADAMS
$
j�
f ATWA
1KA&MU
N
as �a�a ��3;-
•I
COSTA
MESA
Redevelopment Project Areas
•
•
Diego Freeway (I-405). The redevelopment area is shown as Area 1 on Fig-
ure 2. The Huntington Center Commercial District Project Area includes the
existing Huntington Beach regional mail.
Oakview Redevelopment Project
The Oakview Redevelopment Project of 68 acres was initially established on
November 1, 1982, by City Council Ordinance No. 2582. The Oakview Rede-
velopment Project Area is generally located between Warner Avenue and
Slater Avenue, from Oak Lane to Beach Boulevard (Area 2 on Figure 2). On
July 5, 1989, the City Council amended the Redevelopment Plan for the
Oakview Redevelopment Project with Ordinance No. 3002 to extend certain
time and financial limits. The Oakview Project Area includes existing general
commercial, medium density and high density residential land uses.
Talbert Beach Redevelopment Project
The Talbert -Beach Redevelopment Project was established via Ordinance No.
2577 adopted by the City Council on September 20, 1982. The Talbert -Beach
Redevelopment Project Area is located between Talbert Avenue and Taylor
Drive, west of Beach Boulevard. The Talbert -Beach Redevelopment Project
encompasses 25 acres of existing low, medium, and high density residential,
and general industrial land uses (Area 3 on Figure 2).
Yorktown -Lake Redevelopment Project
The Yorktown -Lake Redevelopment Project was established by Ordinance No.
2576 adopted by the City Council on September 20, 1982. The Yorktown -
Lake Redevelopment Project encompasses 30 acres of existing medium den-
sity residential and public land uses such as the Huntington Beach Civic
Center and Police Department. The Yorktown -Lake Redevelopment Project
Area is located in the vicinity of Main Street, Yorktown Avenue, Lake Street,
and Utica Avenue (Area 4 on Figure 2).
Main Pier Redevelopment Project
On September 20, 1982, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2578,
which created the original five block Main -Pier Redevelopment Project Area..
On September 6, 1983, the City Coundi amended the Redevelopment Plan
for the Main -Pier Redevelopment Project with Ordinance No. 2634, enlarging
the Main -Pier Redevelopment Project Area to 336 acres. The Main -Pier
Redevelopment Project Area is located along Main Street, between Palm
Avenue and the Huntington Beach Pier, and along Pacific Coast Highway,
between Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard (Area 5 on Figure 2). The
Main -Pier Redevelopment Project Area includes existing retail, tourist recre-
04l16M(I:-,M "0P-NOP.TXT) 4
ational, public, and residential land uses, including the Huntington Beach
Pier. 0
The Amendment/Merger does not propose to either add property to, or
delete property from any of these Project Areas.
PROJECT DESQUMON
The subject Redevelopment Project has been proposed to initiate redevelop-
ment plan amendment/merger proceedings to effect the following.
Merge the Redevelopment Plans, for the Constituent Projects into a Single
Redevelopment Plan ('Plan) and Establish the Merged Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project ("Project') and Project Area
The Agency's current redevelopment programs have been frustrated by an
imbalance of resources and needs between the Constituent Projects. in
order to move funding resources between the Constituent Project Areas, the
Agency proposes to merge the Constituent Projects into the single Project.
Establish a New Dollar Limit on the Amount of Tax Increment Revenue the Agency
May be Allocated from the Project
Presently, the Yorktown -Lake Redevelopment Project exceeds its . annual
$250,000 tax increment cap. Given moderate growth projections, it is pro-
jected that the Talbert -Beach Redevelopment Project will also exceed its tax
increment limit prior to the expiration of the Redevelopment Plan. Without
an increase in the tax increment limits, the additional tax increment revenue
will not be available to the Agency to fund redevelopment projects and pro-
grams.
In conjunction with tax increment revenue limit amendments, bond indebt-
edness limit increases are needed to permit the Agency to raise additional
capital and invest in new redevelopment projects and programs.
Extend the Time Frame Within Wbicab the Agency May Incur Indebtedness on Behalf
of Abe Project and Establish New Time Periods Within Whkh the agency May Incur
Debt, Undertake Redevelopment Activities, and Receive Tax Increment
With the exception of the Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelop-
ment Project, generally the Agency is prohibited from incurring debt after
2002; 2004 for the Huntington Center Commercial District. In the event that
the Agency wishes to pursue new projects and/or incur debt after these time
frames, an amendment is necessary.
•
osr16/96(1:-,RSG630\NC)?-,vop.TxT) 5
On a Selective Basis, Extend the Time Frame Within Wbich the Agency May Employ
Eminent Domain Proceedings on Nonresidential Properties in the 3Iain Pier and
Huntington Center Commercial District Area
In order for the Agency to implement redevelopment projects involving land
acquisition, eminent domain authority may be a useful tool to acquire non-
residential property. Presently, the authority to use eminent domain has
expired in all but the Huntington Center Commercial District and Oakview
Redevelopment Projects. Through the Amendment/Merger, the Agency pro-
poses to establish a new 12 year time frame within which the Agency may
employ eminent domain on nonresidential properties in the Main -Pier and
Huntington Center Commercial District areas only.
Expand the List of Infrastructure and Public Facility Projects Tbat the Agency May
Undertake Within the Project Area
When adopted, the Plan will amend and merge all existing redevelopment
plans for the Constituent Projects, and will guide all future redevelopment
activities, infrastructure and public facility projects and programs in the
Amended/Merged Project Area. However, the Amendment/Merger will not
affect the Agency's outstanding obligations or indebtedness.
0 CONFORMANCE WITH THE GFVIuA r Ply
•
Redevelopment Land Uses
The land uses permitted in the Project Area are in conformance with the
City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and any other state and local building
codes and guidelines as they now exist or are hereafter amended.
Principal Streets
The principal streets within the Project Area include Beach Boulevard, Eding-
er Avenue, Talbert Avenue, Main Street; Yorktown Avenue, Lake Street, Warn-
er Avenue, Slater Avenue, and Pacific Coast Highway. The layout of principal
streets and those that may be developed in the future shall conform to the
Circulation Element of the General Plan as currently adopted or as hereafter
amended.
E3dsting streets within the Project Area may be closed, widened or otherwise
modified, and additional streets may be created as necessary for proper
pedestrian and/or vehicular circulation provided they are consistent with the
General Plan.
0{n&96(1: %RSG63"0P,NOP.Z7t7) 6
Proposed Population Densities 0
Permitted densities within the Project Area shall conform to the General Plan
as currently adopted or as hereafter amended, and shall conform to applica-
ble ordinances and local codes.
Proposed Building Intensities
Building intensity shall be controlled by limits on: 1) the percentage of the
building site covered by the building (site coverage); 2) the ratio of the total
floor area for all stories of the building to the area of the building site (floor
area ratio); 3) the size and location of the buildable area on the building site;
and 4) the heights of the building. The limits on building intensity shall be
established in accordance with the provisions of the General Plan, Zoning
Ordinance, and local codes and ordinances, as they now exist or are here-
after amended.
Proposed Building Standards
Building standards shall conform to the building requirements of applicable
local codes and ordinances. The Agency may consider more restrictive re-
quirements and may incorporate such requirements into the Plan in the
interest of the public health, safety and welfare.
Potential Public Infrastructure and Facilities Projects
Funding of infrastructure improvements and public facilities projects may
occur within the Amended/Merged Project Area. The list of possible projects
would be expanded to include, but not be limited to: 1) maintenance and
refurbishment of infrastructure in the Talbert -Beach area; 2) storm drain
improvements throughout the Project Area; 3} completion of storm drain
improvements in the Oakview area; 4) street improvements, street lights,
signal lights, alley improvements and landscaping in the Oakview area, Cen-
ter Avenue, Interstate 405 and Edinger Avenue, the Gothard Street/Hoover
Street connection, and 5) completion of a branch library. Various other
programs and projects, all competing for a limited amount of revenue gener-
ated by the Redevelopment Project, could be considered in connection with
community and neighborhood improvement programs, corn ercial rehabili-
tation projects and economic development.
SUBSEQUENT ENVRONMENTAL RM W
The EIR to be prepared for the Huntington Brach Redevelopment Project will
function as a Program ELK as specified in CEQA Statutes Section 21090. A
Program EIR is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 as applying to
04A6r966 ,RSG63"0PtiNOP.TX) 7
•
•
related or sequential projects or programs that may be environmentally
cleared in one EIR. The Program EIR concept is further discussed in Section
III of this Initial Study. The EIR will describe the environmental consequenc-
es of the plans, programs, policies and projects contemplated to be carried
out in the Redevelopment Project Area. Subsequent redevelopment projects
will be subject to future review and approval by the City Council, Redevelop-
ment Agency, Planning Commission and other appropriate decision -making
bodies and may require additional environmental review if it is demonstrated
that there are significant environmental impacts not fully documented in the
original Redevelopment Project EIR After input has been solicited from
affected residents, property owners, businesses, public agencies and other
interested parties, and prior to approval of subsequent projects under this
program, an assessment will be made by the Agency or the City regarding
whether the individual subsequent projects require additional environmental
analysis.
04n6960:,,R5G63"OP-,NOP.TXT) 8
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors listed below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning _ Trxnsportation/Circvladon _ Public Services
Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities and Service Systems
Geological Problems Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics
Water _ Harards _ Cultural Resources
Air Quality Noise Recreation
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 fund 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 the attached sheet have been added to the project. A 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. X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a 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, if the effect is a "potentially significant
impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated." 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, there WELL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately m an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project-
a46�J'
/ l
Signature Date
Stephen Kohler
Printed Name
•
•
04A6196(L•,,RSG6WV0P,NOP.IX7) 9
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
Affisupported by the information sources a Lead Agency cites following each questions. A "No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does
not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No
Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general
standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific
screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including 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 there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant.
If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an
EIR is required.
4) 'Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" 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 XVII, "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 XVII at the end of the checklist.
*Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached. Other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
I. IAND USE AND PIANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning??
SOURCE(S):
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
SOURCE(S):
c) Be incompatible with msting land use in the vicinity?
SOURCE(S):
d) Affect a0cultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or hrmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uscs)? souRCE(s):
PotcndaUy
SignificsLnt
Pat daffy Unless
Less lima
Slvgfiaut >r hi ptiou
Significmt
Impact Incorporated
Impact No Impact
— —
— X
— X
—
— —
— X
04n6/96(I: -%RSG63M0P%-NOP.TM 10
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless
Las Than
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
Significant Midgation
impact Incorporated
SigwficLnt
Impact No Impact
e)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
— —
X —
esnblished community (including a low-income or
minority community)? SOURCE(S):
II. POPULATION
AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a)
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
. X
projections? SOURCE(S):
b)
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
— —
X
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major inhwtructure)? SOURCE(S).
e)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
X —
SOURCE(S):
III. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a)
Fault rupture? SOURCE(S):
X —
b)
Seismic ground shaking? SOURCE(S)-
— —
X —
c)
Seismic ground failure:, including liquefaction?
—
X —
SOURCE(S):
d)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? SOURCE(S):
X —
e)
Landslides or muddows? SOURCE(S):
X —
E)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
X
conditions from excavation, grading. or 6lLs SOURCE(S):
g)
Subsidence of the land? SOURCE(S):
X —
h)
Expansive soils? SOURCE(S):
X —
i)
Unrque geologic or physical features? SOURCE(S):
X
W. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a)
Changes in absorption ratter, drainage pauerw, or the
— X
_ —
rate and amount of suriaee runoff'? SOURCE(S):
b)
Exposure of people or property to Water rciated hazards
_
X
such as flooding? SOURCE(S):
e)
Discharge into surface water or other alteration of
X —
surb= Water quality (e.g. tempcmnuere, dissolved oxrgea
or turbidity)? SOURCE(S):
d)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any Water
— —
X —
body? SOURCE(S):
e)
Change in currents, or the course or direction of water
—
X —
move>nerts? SOURCE(S).
f)
Change in the quality of ground waters, either through
X
direct additions or withdrawals, or through inter tion
of an aquifer by cuts or otuvations or through
substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability?
SOURCE(S):
04A6/960-�RSG6301NOP,,NOP.TXTk 11
1
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unlcss
Las Than
dL
Significant Mitigation
Significant
and Supporting Information Sources: _
Impact Incorporated
Impact No Impact
g)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
—
X —
SOURCE(S):
h)
Impact to groundwater quality? SOURCE(S):
X —
i)
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundw2ter
X
otherwise available for public water supplies?
SOURCE(S):
V. AIR
QUAL TY. Would the proposal:
a)
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
—
X
existing or projected air quality violation? SOURCE(S):
b)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? SOURCE(S):
X —
c)
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
— —
X
any change in climate? SOURCE(S):
d)
Create objectionable odors? SOURCE(S):
X —
V1. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result
in:
a)
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? SOL?RCE(S):
X
b)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g, sharp carves
X
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.
farm equipment)? SOURCE(S):
c)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
—
X w
SOURCE(S):
d)
Insufficient parking rapacity on-Gite or offsitc?
— —
X —
SOURCE(S):
e)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
X _
SOURCE(S):
f)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
—
X
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
SOURCE(S):
g)
Rail, w2uA)orne or air traffic impacts? SOURCE(S)-
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in
impacts too:
a)
Endangered, du=tened or rue species or their habitats
—
X —
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals,
and birds)? SOURCE(S).
b)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
_ X
SOL'RCE(S):
e)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
X
— —
coastal habitat, etc.)? SOURCE(S):
d)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and verml pool)?
— X—
SOURCE(S):
e)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? SOURCE(S)-.
X
OVI6196(I:-.RSC,65 NOPNNOP.TXI) 12
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless
Less Than
Significant Mitigation
Significant
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
Impact incorporated
Impact No Impact
.
VHL
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. would the proposal:
a) Condia xlth adopted energy conservation plans?
— —
X —
SOURCE(S):
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient
—
X —
manner? SOURCE(S):
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
—
X —
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? SOURCE(S):
DC.
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
X
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
—
chemicals or radiation)? SOURCE(S):
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or
— —
X —
emergency evacuation plan? SOURCE(S):
c) The creation of any health hazard or poa mdal health
—
X —
hazard? SOURCE(S):
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
_y
X -
health hazards? SOURCE(S):
e) Increased fire hazard in arms with flammable brush,
— —
X
X
grass, or trees? SOURCE(S):
NOISE Would in:
the proposal result
a) Increases in existing noise levels? SOURCE(S):
X—
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? SOURCE(S):
XM.
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon,
or rmulx in a need for new or altered government services in
arty of the following areas:
a) Fur protection? SOURCE(S):
— —
X —
b) Police protection? SOURCE(S):
X
c) Schools? SOURCE(S):
— —
X —
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
— —
X
SOURCE(S):
e) Other governmental services? SOURCE(S):-
MI.
IT UITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal
result in a need fear new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? SOURCE(S):
—
X —
b) Communications systems? SOURCE(S):
.� —
X —
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
— —
X —
facilities? SOURCE(S):
d) Sewer or septic t uiks? SOURCE(S):
w —
X —
e) Storm water drainage? SOURCE(S):
—
X —
04A6/96(L%R5G63MN0P,N0P.TX1) 13
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless
Less Thin
Significant Mitigation
Significan:
1W es and Supporting Information Sources:
Impact Incorponted
Impact No Impact
f)
Solid waste disposal? SOURCE(S):
— —
X —
g)
Loral or regional water supplies? SOURCE(S):
—
X —
MIT. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a)
Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? SOURCE(S):
X —
—
b)
Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
i
x -
SOURCE(S):
c)
Create fight or glare? SOURCE(S).
X —
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a)
Disturb paleontological resources? SOURCE(S):
X —
b)
Disturb archaeological resouroes7 SOURCE(S):
X —
c)
Affect historical resources? SOURCE(S):
X —
d)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
X —
would affect unique ethnic cultural values> SOURCE(S):
c)
Restrict c3dsting religious or sacred uses within the
X —
potential impact area? SOURCE(S):
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a)
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
—
X —
or other recreational facilities? SOURCE(S):
b)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? SOURCE(S):
X —
XVI. EARLIER ANALYSES.
•
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more
eSeas have been adequately analysed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. (Section 15063(c)(3)(D).) In this
case a discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify a arikx analyses and state whet: they are available fur review.
Not applicable.
04n&%(1 %.RSG63"0P%N0P.'iXr) 14
b) Impacts adequately addressed- Identify which effem from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable 0
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are 'less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,' describe, on attached
sheets, the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to
which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
Not applicable
Potentially
significant
Potentially Unless Liss Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Iaoorpotated Impact No Impact
XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the proiect have the potential to degrade the quality of the _ x
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, oust a fists of wildlife population to drop below self-
sutaining levehs, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community. reduce the number or restrict the range of a tart• or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major proceeds of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the proioa have the pvae>ztlal to achieve short-term, to the _ x
disadvannge of longterm, envuw mental gals.)
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but _ X
cusaulativt:hy considerable.) CCumulat w* mtmdenble" mesas
that the incremental effem of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects
of other tautmt projects, and the effects of probable future
pmjects•)
d) Does the project bave environmental effects which will cause _ x
substsmial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
iridirecdy'
is
04n606(L.1tsG63"OP,N0P TX -I) 15
•
III. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND CONSEQUENCES
The Redevelopment Agency has determined that an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) is required to assess the environmental effects of the Redevelop-
ment Project, and to identify mitigation measures that will lessen or avoid
potentially significant impacts. The EIR to be prepared for the Redevelop-
ment Project is a Program EIR, wherein all public and private activities or
undertakings pursuant to or in furtherance of the Redevelopment Plan consti-
tute a single project (CEQA Statues, Section 21090). A Program EIR is a type
of EIR designed to address a series of related actions that are: 1) logical
parrs of a chain of contemplated actions; 2) related geographically; 3) a plan,
set of regulations, or a set of contemplated actions that are part of a continu-
ing program; or 4) individual activities carried out under the same authoriz-
ing authority (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15168). The proposed Redevelop-
ment Plan is a program made up of various components that include poli-
cies, land use plans, public infrastructure improvements, construction of
public facilities, development of affordable housing, and actions to promote
commercial rehabilitation and promote economic development. The pro-
posed Redevelopment Project qualifies as a "Program" as defined by the
CEQA Statutes and is consistent with all categories summarized above, and as
fully described in Guidelines Section 15168.
The following explanation of environmental effects of the Redevelopment
Project is provided to help guide the analysis in the forthcoming EIR docu-
ment. Because the project being discussed is a "Program" that includes
various plans, policies and projects as described above, the discussions below
are not specific to any individual subsequent project, but are addressed to
the "Program" as a whole.
This section provides the reasoning underlying the findings and conclusions
identified in the Environmental Checklist Form. The discussions below also
provide direction to the EIR preparers during the EIR preparation period.
The conclusions are based upon a preliminary assessment of the proposed
Redevelopment Project as described in the Preliminary Plan for the Hunting-
ton Brach Redevelopment Project.
The Environmental Checklist identifies four categories of project impact:
"potentially significant impact", "potentially significant unless mitigation
incorporated", "less than significant impact" and "no impact". A response of
"potentially significant impact` indicates that there is the potential for signifi-
cant impact resulting from the proposed project. 'potentially significant
unless mitigation incorporated` applies where incorporation of mitigation
measures could reduce an effect from a "potentially significant impact" to a
"less than significant impact." A response of "less than significant" appears if
there is substantial evidence that the potential effect of the project is below a
level of significance. A response of "no impact` indicates that the project will
not have any significant impact on the environment.
M1 &WK1:.RSG63MN0F,,NOP.iX7} 16
REFERENCES USED VV COMPLE7WG TAB FNvMOAMENTAL UZECSLlST
The following documents were used in completing the Environmental Check
lisvinitial Study and the discussion provided below, and are available for
review at the City of Huntington Beach Department of Community Develop-
ment, Fifth Floor, 2000 Main Street. Where appropriate these reference
documents have been cited in the explanation of checklist responses.
1. City of Huntington Beach Draft General Plan and Draft EIR, as amend-
ed, December 12, 1995.
2. Final Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Project
Area EIR (EIR 844).
3. Preliminary Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project.
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: -
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
No impact. The proposed Redevelopment ProjeWAmendmenvMerger con-
forms to the City's General Plan and by extension to the zoning, which is
generally consistent with the General Plan. The Redevelopment Project
proposes land uses, streets, highways and public facilities consistent with the
existing General Plan and the proposed General Plan, and has provisions that
make it consistent with future amendments. Because the project is consis-
tent with the General Plan and, in turn, the underlying zoning, there are no
specific environmental impacts associated with the project.
b) Conflict witb applicable environmental plans or policies adopt-
ed by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
No impact. The proposed Redevelopment Project conforms to the existing
policies and environmental plans pertaining to the Project Area, either in
their existing form or as may be amended hereafter. The EIR will address the
potential compatibility aspects of the AmendmemMerger with relevant juris-
dictional policies and plans.
c) Be incompatible witty existing land use in the vicinity?
Potentially sign icant unless mitigation incorporated The programmatic
components of the proposed Redevelopment Project will not directly physi-
cally affect existing land uses in the vicinity of the Constituent Projects. The
EIR will analyze the potential for land use incompatibilities, and will deter-
mine the need for mitigation that would reduce or eliminate land use im-
pacts from the future specific redevelopment proposals within the Constitu-
ent Project areas. 0
04/1696(i -%R5G6WNOP,NOP.TM) 17
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to
soils or farmlands, or impacts, from incompatible land uses)?
No impact. Some agricultural land uses are still active in Huntington Beach;
however, to a large extent, they have been replaced by residential, commer-
cial and industrial development and related infrastructure. A total of 69.1
acres of land is currently under agricultural production, representing less
than one percent of the City's total acreage (General Plan Draft EIR, Decem-
ber 12, 1995). None of the areas currently in agricultural production are
within or adjacent to the Constituent Project Areas comprising the Redevel-
opment Project Area. Therefore, the proposed Redevelopment Plan will not
affect existing agricultural resources or operations, nor propose incompatible
land uses in the existing agricultural production areas.
e) Disrupt or divide the pbysical arrangement of an established
community (including a low-income or minority community)?
Less than significant impact. The Constituent Project Areas {e;dsting Rede-
velopment Areas} were created based on the desire to improve blighted
conditions that prevail in those areas. The proposed Redevelopment Project
is intended to facilitate the Redevelopment Agency's ability to correct blight-
ed conditions, finance infrastructure improvements, foster rehabilitation and
economic growth and construct affordable housing. The proposed merger of
the Constituent Projects under one Redevelopment Plan and other program-
matic components do not include any large-scale infrastructure improve-
ments or major reconfiguration of streets or roadways that are typically
associated with division of communities. In addition, the land uses and
infrastructure improvements will be consistent with the City's General Plan
and zoning, and would not disrupt the arrangement of established communi-
ties. The EIR shall describe the potential physical changes resulting from
implementation of project components and address the issues of those physi-
cal changes that could potentially effect land use arrangements.
H. POPU ATTON AND HOUSEVG. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively eaereed official regional or local population pro-
jections?
No impact. The programmatic components of the proposed Redevelopment
Project do not include substantial development of either housing or commer-
cial uses that would bring about substantial change in population or employ-
ment. The land uses, and by extension the growth anticipated for the Project
Areas, are the same as included in the City's General Plan. Because the
incremental growth within the Project Area is the same as is planned within
the CiWs General Plan, the population/employment projections for the
Project Area are included within City wade projections, which form the basis
04/16r96(I:%RS"3"OP%NOP_'!XI) 18
for regional projections. The Redevelopment Project is designed to improve
exzisting commercial areas, thereby improving the vitality of businesses and
supporting local economic growth. Subsequent gains in employment oppor-
tunities may draw workers from surrounding communities, but would not
result in a significant influx of permanent residents to Huntington Beach.
Because there are no specific development projects included in the Redevel-
opment Plan that would affect housing availability or creation of significant
numbers of jobs, there are no significant population increases, overcrowding,
or other population impacts anticipated from project implementation. Poten-
tial population increases due to build out of General Plan designated land
uses are addressed in the City's General Plan EIR. This will be addressed in
the EIR.
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indi-
rectly (e.g. througb projects in an undeveloped area or exten-
sion of major infrastructure)?
Less than significant impart. Redevelopment Project improvements include
expansion of limited infrastructure and incentives programs designed to
induce economic growth. Because the programs and projects included in
the Redevelopment Project are distributed between housing, commercial
rehabilitation, economic development, and infrastructure including sewer,
storm drains, alley improvements, street improvements and landscaping,
incremental improvement of entire project areas is anticipated. The project
would not induce substantial growth. The EIR shall address the effect of
induced growth of implementation of infrastructure in the project area in
conjunction with planned inhastructure development to determine whether
there are potentially significant impacts that require mitigation.
c) Displace existing bousing, especially affordable housing?
Less than s gniJicant impact. The proposed project will establish new I2-
year eminent domain provisions within the Huntington Center Commercial
District and Main -Pier development areas. However, these proposed provi-
sions are restricted to nonresidential properties and therefore will not result
in the displacement of existing housing. The EIR will address the potential
effects of Redevelopment Project implementation on housing and affordable
housing.
Ill: GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to
potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?
b) Seismic ground shaking?
04A6/'96(1: %rSCx6_7,"0P%N0P.TXT) 19
.7
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seicbe, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e) Landslides or mudflows?
f) Erosion, changes in topograpby or unstable soil conditionsfrom
excavation, grading, or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land?
h) Expansive soils?
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
The following explanation responds to the geologic topics listed above (III a-
i) :
Less than significant impact. The proposed Redevelopment Project/Amend-
ment/Merger will not affect geologic conditions within the Project Area. As
with any other development in the City, Redevelopment projects will be
required to conform to the Uniform Building Code and other applicable
soils, grading and structural foundation requirements, codes and ordinances
such that any potential geologic impacts are reduced to less than significant
levels. The EIR will identify the c3dsting geologic conditions within the
Project Ara and will determine the potential effects on programmed and
possible future redevelopment proposals.
IV. WATEIL Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff?
Potentially significant unless mitigation implemented The proposed Rede-
velopment Project will not substantially alter c:dsting drainage patterns or
runoff absorption rates except those areas affected by infrastructure projects
that include storm drain reconstruction or alteration. Certain specific storm
drain projects and unknown drainage projects can be anticipated to be pro-
posed within the Constituent Project areas. The EIR will evaluate the poten-
tial for those and other specific redevelopment projects to affect stormwater
runoff volumes, rates and drainage patterns.
The Huntington Center, Qakview and Main -Pier Constituent Redevelopment
Areas are subject to flooding (Draft General Plan EIR). The Redevelopment
Project EIR will address potential flooding impacts in these areas.
04n &960:'-RSG630WOP"NoP.7XT) 20
b) Fatposure of people or property to water related bazards such
as flooding? 0
c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Cbanges in the amount of surface water in any water body?
e) Cbange in currents, or the course or direction of water move-
ments?
f} Cbange in the quality of ground waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aqui-
fer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability?
g) Altered direction or rate offlow, of groundwater?
b) Impact to groundwater quality?
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise
available for public crater supplies?
Less than sfgnicant impact. The proposed Redevelopment ProjeWArnend-
menvMerger will not physically affect crater resources within the Project
Area. The EIR will identify the existing hydrologic conditions in the Project
Area and the vicinity, and determine, at a programmatic level, the potential
for their modification by implementation of specified infrastructure improve-
ments and of future potential redevelopment proposals. Future redevelop -
anent projects will be required to conform to City standard conditions for
flood control and for provision of adequate storm drain facRities to serve
projected projects. The EIR will address the potential effects of the Redevel-
opment Project upon existing water resources, groundwater aquifers and
subsidence within the Main -Pier area.. Given that the redevelopment project
areas are currently developed, and that redevelopment will conform to exist-
ing General Plan, zoning ordinance and other jurisdictional plans or pro-
grams, or as otherwise amended in the future, less than significant impacts to
these resources are anticipated fmm the facilitation of redevelopment pro-
cesses.
V.- AM QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
04n &%(F: NRSCv630XOP.NOP.TXT) 21
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any
0 change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors?
The following response addresses checklist items V a) through d) :
Less than significant impact. The proposed Redevelopment Project will not
increase land use intensities beyond those allowed by the City of Huntington
Beach General Plan, as amended. Any potential impacts to air quality related
to growth, including increased vehicle emissions, are addressed in the envi-
ronmental documentation in the General Plan Elk The project does not
propose creation of incompatible land uses that could subject sensitive re-
ceptors to pollutants or objectionable odors. These issues will be further
discussed in the EIFL
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vebicle trips or traKtc congestion?
Potentially significant impact. The programmatic components of the pro-
posed Redevelopment Project will not physically affect the number of trips
on the local or regional circulation network. The EIR will evaluate the po-
tential for increased trip generation, on a general Project Area basis, within
the Constituent areas in conjunction with reasonably foreseeable future
redevelopment projects. Mitigation measures may be required to ensure that
future redevelopment adheres to city standard levels of service and operating
capacities.
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (eg. farm equip-
ment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d) Insu11cient parking capacity on -site or offsite?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
_0 Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transpor-
tation (eg. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
The following response addresses checklist items VI b) through f):
Less than significant impact. Precise identification of impacts from future
redevelopment projects is speculative at this program level. However, the
04A6A6(L,RSG65MN0PtiNOP.T=) 22
EIR will state that future redevelopment proposals will be required to comply
with the City's eadsting General Plan land use designations and zoning ordi-
nance, or as amended in the future. Specific mitigation related to significant
traffic generation and levels of service impacts on roadway segments and
intersection will be determined in subsequent environmental analyses for
specific redevelopment projects. General development within the Redevelop-
ment Project Area will be described and potential traffic impact will be identi-
fied based on the analysis provided in the Draft General Plan EIR
g) Rail, waterborne or air tra,�ic impacts?
No impact. No impacts to rail, water or air traffic are foreseen by the pro-
posed Redevelopment Project in that the project proposes to facilitate com-
mercial rehabilitation, housing opportunities, street improvements and public
infrastructure projects within the constituent Redevelopment areas, and the
project will not create specific physical effects on these transportation facili-
ties. Because the Redevelopment Project and infrastructure projects, in
particular suret improvements, are consistent with the City's General Plan,
there are no effects beyond those discussed in the Draft General Plant EIR.
This discussion will be included in the Redevelopment EIR
VAT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, tbreatened or rate species or their babitaft (in-
cluding but not limited to plants, ftsb, insects, animals and
birds)?
Less than significant impact. According to the Draft General Plan EIR, the
areas that include valuable biological resources are not included in the pro-
posed Redevelopment Project Area (Figure BR-1). The Redevelopment Pro-
ject EIR will describe those areas of biological resources and discuss poten-
tial effects, should they c3dst, within these resource areas. Visual reconnais-
sance of the Constituent Areas will be performed to determine the condition
of properties in the Redevelopment Project Area and to provide indicators of
the pressure (or absence) of sensitive species habitats.
b) Locally designated species (e.g., beritage trees)?
Potentially signffirant unless mitigation incorporated A visual reconnais-
sance will be conducted to determine the presence of designated species. A
discussion of project effects will be included in the EIR,
7
04n6196(1:� tSG6_WN0P--N0P.7XT) 23
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest,
0 coastal habitat, etc.)?
Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. A visual reconnais-
sance will be conducted to determine the presence of designated species. A
dismission of project effects will be included in the EIR.
d) Weiland habitat (e.g., marsb, riparian and vernal pool)?
Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. A visual reconnais-
sance will be conducted to determine the presence of designated species. A
discussion of project effects will be included in the EIR.
e) Wildlife dispersal or mitigation corridors?
Less than significant impact. Each of the five Constituent Redevelopment
Areas are currently developed and are located within a central development
spine of the City. No significant wildlife movement corridors are located
within the combined Project Area.. The Program EIR will address potential
impacts of redevelopment on wildlife and wildlife habitat; however, signifi-
cant impacts are not anticipated.
0 WH ENERGYAND AHNERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
•
a) Confliat with adopted energy conservation plans?
Less than significant impact. Due to the programmatic nature of the project
and the known list of infrastructure, housing and public facilities projects
included in the Redevelopment Plan, there are no known projects that would
potentially conflict with such plans. This issue will be further explained and
addressed in the EIR..
b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner?
Less than sign Tcant impact. As with a) above, there are no projects con-
templated in the Redevelopment Plan that would cause an impart on non-
res-.wable resources.
04A 6/96(L•,,itSG6-iMNOP �NOP.TXI) 24
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that mould be of future value to the region and the residents of
the State?
Less than significant impact. The only known resource in the City is oil and
gas production. Due to the decline in active fields in Huntington Beach,
properties that were formerly producing fields are converting to other uses.
This issue will be addressed in the EIR
ZE HAZARDS Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous sub-
stances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals
or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or em-
ergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any bealtb hazard or potential bealtb hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas witb flammable brush, grass, or
trees? 0
The following is an explanation of responses to checklist items iX a) through
e).
Less than significant impact The Redevelopment Project does not propose
changes in land uses that would result in a significant exposure of the public
to hazardous materials or other potential health hazards. The project will
facilitate future improvement of residential and commercial areas within the
Constituent Project areas. The financing large-scale industrial Operations that
typically handle hazardous substances is not proposed as pert of the project.
Future buildings constructed within the Constituent Project areas will be
required to comply with c3dsting State and local requirements for emergency
evacuation plans.
There is one known hazard that would affect potential development projects
within the Redevelopment Arras. Methane gas migration hazards will be
discussed in the EIR for Talbert -Beach, Main -Pier and Yorktown -Lake project
areas.
•
04n6l96(I: kRSG630 NOP-,NOP.TX'i) 25
x NOISE Would the proposal result im
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) F-vposure of people to severe noise levels?
The following is an explanation of responses to checklist items X a) and b):
Potentially significant impact. The EIR will address the potential for in-
creased noise generation through future redevelopment of the constituent
project areas. Both short-term construction noise and long-term operational
noise effects will be evaluated from a general qualitative perspective. Specific
construction -level noise analysis cannot be conducted until redevelopment
plans are submitted for review after the proposed Redevelopment Pro-
ject/Amendment/ Merger is adopted by the City. The EIR will include miti-
gation that future construction projects will need to conform to City noise
ordinances that delineate thresholds for the various land use types that are
proposed as part of redevelopment.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal bane an effect upon, or result in a need
for new or altered government services in any of the following areas.
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of publicfacififtes, including roads?
e) Other- governmental services?
The following response addresses items XI a) through e).
Less than sign 7cant impact. The Project Area is currently within the
service areas of the City police and fire departments, and is within several
school districts. The EIR will evaluate the potential impacts to public services
and school districts in the Project Area firom future redevelopment programs.
XU LrrLEr LES AND SERVICE SYSTFMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new
systems or suppliesy or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas?
Communications systems?
04t6i9 .,,FSG6W,XOP,,PIOP.=rj 26
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities?
d) Seiner or septic tanks? 0
e) Storm water drainage?
f) Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
The following response addresses items III a) through g).
Less than significant impact. The Project Area is already served by public
utilities and related infrastructure. The proposed Redevelopment Project
does not project significant population or employment increases within the
constituent project areas. There is potential for needed improvements in
certain areas where deficiencies are identified in the Draft General Plan EIR.
Any such deficiencies for service to the future redevelopment plans will be
addressed by Redevelopment Agency funding and the list of infrastructure
and public facilities improvements in the Preliminary Plan. The EIR will
address the potential impacts to public utilities and systems and/or the ability
to provide adequate service to future redevelopment areas.
A'l►H. AESTREIICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
Potentially sign ftcant impact. There are significant scenic vistas and scenic
corridors at and near the beach in the Main/Pier area. The EIR shall address
this important resource and the potential effects of the project on this re-
source.
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
Less than signffscant impact. One of the primary objectives of the Redevel-
opment Project is the elimination of blight and rehabilitation of commercial
properties. This will have a positive effect on the overall Redevelopment
Project Area.
c) Create light or glare?
Less than significant impact. There are no specific proposals in the Redevel-
opment Project Preliminary Plan that would Create light or glare. 'Therefore,
this issue will not be further discussed.
•
04A696(L•.RSGd3"0P%N0P.iXT) 27
•
)UV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Affect historical resources?
d) Have the potential to cause a pbysical change whicb would
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area?
The following response addresses checklist items XIV a) through e).
Less than significant impact. The Redevelopment Project Area is primarily
built out or has been highly disturbed due to urban development and human
activity. However, as reported in the Draft General Plan EIR, there are histor-
ic structures and other potential historic and cultural resources within the
Redevelopment Project Area. An historical and cultural resources records
check and visual survey will be performed to identify potential sensitive
resources. This issue will be addressed in the EIR
XV. RECREAl70N. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for nekbborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities?
Less than significant impact. The proposed Redevelopment Project is a
programmatic project and includes no specific housing or commercial devel-
opment proposals for evaluation. The EIR will analyze the potential for
future redevelopment activities to increase the demand for recreational facili-
ties based on projected land uses and density of development included in the
Redevelopment Plan, as also reflected in the Draft General Plan EIR Signifi-
cant population increases are not anticipated with the redevelopment of
these areas in that possible future development proposals are intended to be
in conformance with the adopted City General Plan and associated jurisdic-
tional plans and ordinances, or any future adopted amendments thereto.
This issue will be further addressed in the EIR
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
Less than significant impact. The EIR will evaluate, at a program level, the
potential for future redevelopment within the constituent project areas. The
locations of exsting recreational facilities will be described in the EIR, and
04A6/96(1: %rSG630NV0P,,NOP.TXT) 28
potential effects will be described. The Preliminary Redevelopment Plan does
not include any encroachment on recreational sites or potential physical
effects on any public recreational site.
XVl. FA LL R ANALYSES
No earlier analyses have been utilized to prepare this Initial Study. Please
see the references cited in the introduction to this section.
•
0 n6/96M-,rSG63MOF,,NOP_TXM 29
STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON. Governor
fg&IF'ORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION ROBERT C. HIGHT, Ezecuirve Officer
owe Avenue, Suite 100 South ``%' (916) 574-1800 FAX (916) 574-1810
lnersto, CA 95825-8202 California Relay Service From 9TDD Phone 14800-73-5-2922
`fT from Voice Phone 1-800-735-2929
-- Contact Phone- (916) 574-1992
Contact FAX• (916)574-1925
July 1, 1996
Stephen V. Kohler
Project Manager
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Mr. Kohler:
File Ref: PRC 6616/SD 96-05-07.7
W 503.1699
RECEIVED BLA 84
JUL 8 1996
DEPARTMENT OF
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation for Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the
Amendments and Merger of Existing Redevelopment Project Areas to
Create the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project
Staff of the State Lands Commission (SLC) has reviewed the subject NOP. Under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City's Redevelopment Agency is the Lead
Agency and the SLC is a Responsible and/or Trustee Agency for any and all projects which
could directly or indirectly affect sovereign lands, their accompanying Public Trust resources or
uses, and the public easement in navigable waters. We apologize for the lateness of our
comments and would appreciate their consideration by the City.
The SLC has jurisdiction and management authority over all ungranted tidelands,
submerged lands, and the beds of navigable rivers, sloughs, lakes, etc. (e.g. Public Resources
Code §6301.) All tide and submerged lands, granted or ungranted, as well as navigable rivers,
sloughs, etc., are impressed with the Common Law Public Trust.
The Public Trust is a sovereign public property right held by the State or its delegated
trustee for the benefit of all the people. This right limits the uses of these lands to waterborne
commerce, navigation, fisheries, open space, recreation, or other recognized Public Trust
purposes. A lease from the Commission is required for any portion of a project extending onto
State-owned lands which are under its exclusive jurisdiction.
The proposed redevelopment project, specifically the Main -Pier Redevelopment Project,
I* includes: (1) the Huntington Beach Pier, located on sovereign lands tinder the jurisdiction of the
SLC, and under lease (PRC 6616) to the City; (2) an area up coast of the pier subject to
Stephen V. Kohler
July 1, 1996
Page Two
Boundary Line Agreement 84 dated November 17, 1966, which fixed the boundary between
public and private land; and (3) an area southeast of the pier subject to an implied dedication for
public access and recreation use, and an express restriction of land uses found in a deeded
easement for public recreational uses held by the City of Huntington Beach in trust for the
statewide general public since 1932, as stipulated in the case of -City of Huntingloou Beach v.
Huntington BeashhSo , San Diego County Superior Court Case #65537, recorded in Book 432,
page 537, Official Records of Orange County. The City, as trustee of these lands for all the
people of the State, has an obligation to maintain public access and recreational rights acquired
by or granted to the public. The City has an obligation to ensure that any uses proposed for the
area described in (3) above are consistent with the land use restrictions on the property.
With regard to the Huntington Beach Pier, our file reflects that Lease PRC 6616 was
issued in 1984, and also authorized three subleases for the Tackle Box, Neptune's Locker, and
Captain's Galley. In 1990, the SLC authorized the demolition and reconstruction of the pier to
include restrooms and lifeguard stations, and the termination of the three subleases. No other
construction was authorized at that time. It does not appear that the amendment approved by the
SLC was ever executed by either the SLC or the City. .
In 1994, the City applied for a coastal development permit (#5-93-294) to construct a
restaurant, snackshop, and bait and tackle/snackshop on the pier. SLC authorization was not
obtained. Any development and/or sublease(s) proposed for the pier other than that authorized
by the SLC in 1984 and 1990 will require SLC authorization and an amendment to Lease PRC
6616. Please advise as to the present status of pier development
If you have any questions, please contact Jane E. Smith, Public Land Management
Specialist, at (916) 574-1892.
Sincerely,
MARY G GGS
Environm tal Services
Division of Environmental
Planning and Management
cc: Dwight E. Sanders
Jane E. Smith
9
%iJ ... 7V r:-%,x 111,1111.1 1 1%1N
{} f
Wof conforrae
Memorandum
Tra : Mr. Stephan Kohler, Frojmt Manager
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
THE RESOURCES A3EMCY OF CAUFORN14
Dew : May 22, 1996
From, ! b"ararowt of Cwowvafion . Div%len of 011. Gera, one Osornwsl oie~ees . L" Gooch
Ed Santiago
sLelsor. NOP for Environmental Impact Report on the Amendments and Merger of Existing Redevelopment
Project Areas to Create the Huntington Beach Rakv 1opmcrit Project
The Department of Conservative's Division of Oil, On and Geothermal Resources (Division)
bas reviewed the NOP for the proposed project and submits the following comments for your
consideration.
The project is heated in Huntington Beach oil field. Out records show that them are active and
abandoned oil wells within or in close proximity to the project's boundaries. To ensure proper
review of building projecu within the subject area, the Division has available an informational
packet entitled, 'Construction Project Site Review and Well Abandonment Procedure." The
packet outlines the information that a project developer trust submit to the Division for review.
Developers should contact the local building department for a copy of the site review packet
if any structure is to be located over or in the proximity of a previously abandoned well, titre
is the possibility that the well may need to be plugged and abandoned to currant Division
specifications. Section 3208.1 of tint Public Resources Code authorizes the State Oil and Gas
Supervisor to order the rrabandonment of any previously abandoned well when cmutu Lion of
any structure over or in the proximity of the well could result in a hazard. The cost of
reabandonmelt operations is the responsiiWity of the owner of the property upon which the
structure will be located.
Although the possibility for future problems from oil and gas wells that have been plugged and
abandoned or rcabandoned to the Division's current specifications are rmft, we, nevertbeku,
suggest that a diligent effort be made to avoid building over any abandoned well. If conswxtion
over an abandoned well is unavoidable, we suggest that an approved gas venting system be
placed over the well.
Because the proposed development is located in an oil field, development of this area will
remove available surface land needed to recover oil resources. Therefore, provisions should be
made to designate and set aside an adequate amount of land for future drillft sites so that both
shallow and deep oil resources can be recovered. Please refer to Division publication TR31,
"Land Use Planning in Urban Oil Producing Areas', before making land use planning decisions
1-1
Ut-zl-gib Uj:U2PM FROM DISTRICT 1 DOG PO4
NOP on Amendments and Merger for
Huntington Beach Projects Arras
Page two
The Division is mandated by Section 3106 of the Public Resources Code (PRQ to supervise the
drilling, operadon, maintenance, and abandonment of wells for the purpose of preventing: 1)
damage to life, health, property, and natural resources; 2) damage to underground and surface
waters suitable for irrigation or domestic use; 3) loss of oil, gas, or reservoir energy, and 4)
damage to ail and gas deposits by infiltrating water and other Causes.
Furtherntane, the PRC vests in the State 09 and Gas Supervisor the authority to regulate the
manner of drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of oil and gas wells so as to
conserve, protect, and prevent waste of these rewurcea, while at the same time encouraging
operators to apply viable programs for the purpose of increasing the ultirnzte recovery of oil and
gas. .
No building intended for human occupancy should be located ter any active well unless suitable
safety and fire protection measures and setback are approved by the local fire department. Also,
there should be adequate clearance and access to the active wells for well workover equipment.
The roads for the well workover equipment should have a minimum 12-foot width of clearance,
and be designed for heavyweight use.
Tile developer must provide adequate clearance and access to the wells for well workover
equipment. 11x wells should be provided with safety shut down devices. Also, we recommend
that all wells and associated equipment, within the project site, be enclosed by an 8-foot, block
wall with barbed win on the inside at the 7-foot level. Suitable gages should be provided which
arc capable of allowing large workover equipment aoceas into the well sites. The grade within
the enclosed arras should be constructed so that potettW spillage will be confined to the
enclosure. To restrict access, the placement of climbable landscaping around the perimeter of
the oil field facility should be avoided.
Methane gas cars accumulate beneath developed areas where ooncrctc and asphalt surfaces
prevent the natural migration of the methane gas to the atmosphere. If this occurs, and a erach
develops in the concrete or asphalt at some time later, the gas could migrate into the interior of
the overlying structure and create the potential for an explosion or fire. 7berefore, it may be
necessary to include a study of the area to determine the liilmlihood of this type of occurrence.
if the study indicates that gas accumulation is a possibility, it may be necessary to drill some
shallow, pressure -relief wells within, or adjacent to the site. Also, gas detectors, gas migration
barriers, or venting systems should also be considered. '
It is po="ble that during excavation, old wells, methane gas, or oil seeps may be eeoounwred.
If any unrecorded wells are uncovered or abandoned wells damaged during c=vaticm or.
grading, remedial plugging operations may be required. If wells are uncovered or damaged, the
Division's district office in Long Beach must be contacted to obtain informa:tion on the
requirements for and approval to perform remedial operations. Please consult with tin
Huntington Beach Fire Departtnent for specific recommendations for this area.
•
U! -11-yo UJ:Ue lk reeds DISIRICT ! DOG P03
NOP on Amendments and Merger for
Huntington Beach Projects Areas
Page three
Written approval from the Supervisor is required prior to drilling, reworldng, injecting into,
plugging and abandoning any well. Therefore, we recommend that prior to commencing
operations the project applicant should consult with the Division district office in Long Heath
to obtain information on the wells located within or adja=t to the project area and for the
requirements and approval to conduct any of the work mttioned above.
If you have sny questions regarding this information, please contact Richard K. Baker or Edward
Santiago at 245 W. Broadway, Suite 475, Lang Beach, CA 90802; or telephone 3101590-5311.
•
r�
TE OF CAuKwNIA—WSrNESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY PETE WILSON.
TARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - —
iuCT 12-
1 PULLOAA14 STREET
aA ANM, CA 92705 May 20 1996
Stephen Kohler File: IGR/CEQA
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency SCH # none
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648
Subject: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project
Dear Mr. Kohler:
Thank you for the opportumity to review and comment on the Notice of Preparation for
the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project. The proposed project is to merge 5 redevelopment
plans into a single Redevelopment Plan. In respect to this Notice of Preparation, Caltrans District
12 is a reviewing agency and has the following comments for your consideration:
District 12 requests the Program Environmental Impact Report contain a detailed traffic
study report that includes existing and future average daily traffic volumes, traffic generation
(including peak hour), and traffic distribution along Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway
(PCH). Also, District 12 requests that future individual, sequential projects be made available
for future review and comment.
Finally, if any work is required within the State right of way, an Encroachment Permit
from Caltrans will be required.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions
concerning these comments, please contact Aileen Kennedy on (714) 724-2239.
Sincerely,
,
Robert r Joseph, Chiif
Advance Planning Branch
cc: Tom Loftus, OPR
Ron Helgeson, HDQTRS Planning
Tom Persons, HDQTRS Traffic Operations
T.H. Wang, Traffic Operations
Judy Heyer, System and Public Transportation
7
•
\ - -� •- • _. � •-- MICHAEL M. RIIANE
4 7rqqr-Y OFV - ; G DIRECTOR. EMA
THOMAS B. MATHEWS
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
s RAN G E
LOCATION:
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY 300 N. FLOWER ST.
THIRD FLOOR
a; PLANNING SAWA ANA, CA
MAILING ADDRESS:
MAY 17 1996 P.O. BOX 4048
NCL 9 6 - 3 7 SANTA Aft CA 92702-404,8
TELEPHONE:
(714) &M-4643
FAX a: &U-2771
DPC: $34-4772
Stephen V. Kohler, Project Manager
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
SUBJECT: NOP to Amend & Merge Existing Redevelopment Project Areas to Create
the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project
Dear Mr. Kohler:
4
kvironmental
e above referenced item is a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a draft
Impact Report (EIR) for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency.
The proposed project would merge five existing non-contiguous redevelopment
projects (totaling 619 acres) to more comprehensively attain the ability to
correct blighting conditions, promote economic development and facilitate the
construction of affordable housing. The County of Orange had reviewed the NOP
resulting in the following comments.
1. Section XV. RECREATION should address recreational programs, including
opportunities for riding and hiking trail facilities, and on -road and
off -road bikeways.
2. The Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan (CBSP) identifies a regional
Class I (paved off -road) bikeway along the railroad right-of-way easterly of
Gothard Street. The EIR draft should address this bikeway, which will
connect Golden West College, Huntington Center, Old World Center, and Park &
Ride facilities to residential areas. It will also link at least three of
the five redevelopment areas.
3. It is also suggested the City consider a greenway (linear recreation
corridor) along the railroad right-of-way. Greenways typically include
bikeways and riding and hiking trails. Greenway corridors are an important
amenity for communities with redevelopment areas.
0
Mr. S. Kohler
Page 2 0
4. The CBSP also identifies a regional Class I bikeway along the west
side of Pacific Coast Highway within the pier section of Redevelopment Area
#5.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the NOP. Please send one complete
set of the draft EIR to Charlotte Harryman at the above address when they become
available. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please call Ms.
Harryman at (714) 834-2522.
Very truly yours,
fo4rgeitton, Manager
Environmental & Project Planning Division
CHzsf
6051508244629
•
0
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL, DISTRICT
20451 Cramer Cane - P.O. Box 71 Huntington Beach. California 92648 (714) 9ti4-8888
� �T El
Q QF LRVaTEES
�i �
May 17,1996
D
7� 199�
n E. Rechsteiner
President
3rian Garland
Clerk
Stephen P. Kohler�r=;L:
Project Manager c.,�;":::3 = _�•y_Yt
;hirler Care,
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Member
2000 Maid Street
yen tAann. Ed-D.
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Member
ierine McGough
SUBJECT: Response to Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Imipact Report
Member
on the Amendments and Merger of Existing Redevelopment Project Areas
to create the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area.
'LNiSTRAT)ON
Scope and Content Comments from the
A. oishno. Ed D_
Huntington Beach City School District
,penntendent
=asmussen. Ed.D.
Dear Mr. Kohler.
.nt Supenniendent
4olxs siooat
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT ("District" is in receipt of
the Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the Environment Impact Report ("EIR") of the
„w
ra Supennsendent
Amendments and Merger of existing Redevelopment Project Areas to Create the
,$trative Services
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area ("Project") dated April 16, 1996.
Huntington Beach City School District has reviewed the proposed Project, and is prepared
to provide public hearing testimony before the City of Huntington Beach Planning
Commission ("Planning Commission"), City Council ("City Council"), and
Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") in order to protect and preserve the District's
administrative and legal remedies, to provide the City of Huntington Beach ("City") with
information supporting the District's contention of the impact of the Project on the District,
and to enable the District to consistently and effectively participate in the Project adoption
and the environmental review process. This letter represents the District's response to the
NOP.
The District is a "Responsible Agency" as identified by CEQA, Chapter 25., Definitions,
Section 21069, and the CEQA Guidelines, in that the District is a public agency, other than
the Lead Agency, which has direct, statutory responsibility for providing (carrying out)
public services (education) and facilities (schools) for a portion of the area within and
directly affected by the Project. Section 15096 of the CEQA Guidelines outlines the
process for a Responsible Agency including its role in Response to Consultation.
Section 15096
Response to Consultation. A Responsible Agency shall respond to consultation by the
Lead Agency in order to assist the Lead Agency in preparing adequate environmental
documents for the project. By this means, the Responsible Agency will ensure that the
documents it wi11 use will comply with CEQA.
"We Are An Equal Opportunity Employer"
(2) As soon as possible, but not longer than 30 days after receiving a Notice of
Preparation from the bead Agency, the Responsible Agency shall send a written reply by
certified mail or any other method which provides the agency with a record showing that
the notice was received. The reply shall specify the scope and content of the environmental
information which would be germane to the Responsible Agency's statutory
responsibilities in connection with the proposed project The Lead Agency 1b.L11 include
this information in the M (emphasis added)
The District emphasizes that the use of the word "shall" identifies a mandatory element
which all public agencies are required to follow according to Section 15005 of the CEQA
Guidelines. Therefore, the City must include the scope and content specified by the District
in the EIR.
The District is in receipt of the Notice of Preparation regarding a Draft Environmental
Impact Report ("DEIR") for the proposed Project. Pursuant to the Notice, the District may
provide a response to the Notice within 30 days after receipt of the Notice. The Notice was
received by the District on April 17,1996.
In order to facilitate the District's early response to the Notice of Preparation, even though
the District believes that the Notice of Preparation is invalid, the District hereby submits and
presents the following list of scope and content for mandatory inclusion into the DEiR:
1) The average building square footage and type (i.e., single family detached homes,
townhomes, apartments, mobile homes, etc.) of anticipated typical dwelling units
and the total building square footage and type (ie., retail, office, industrial,
regional mall, etc.) of projected non-residential uses shall be identified.
2) The phasing of development (residential and non-residential) over time from the
present to buildout of the Project shall be identified with appropriate, incremental
intervals (preferably not greater than five (5) years).
3) The location of all existing school sites, school bus stops, student pedestrian
movement patterns to the school sites, bus routes, etc., (located within the District
whether in the City or County) shall be identified and mapped.
4) The anticipated designation of schools that will be attended by students generated
based upon present District attendance areas shall be identified
5) The District's existing conditions relative to the location, size. quality, and
condition of all existing schools, administrative, and operation facilities (within and
outside of the City) shall be discussed.
6) The District's past and present enrollment trends, and present enrollment, including
facility utilization and capacity of permanent and rzlocatabie facilities, shall be
identified_
7) A complete and comprehensive traffic analysis shall be prepared identifying
vehicular movement and volumes, and potential conflicts with school pedestrian
and bicycle movement, school transportation, and busing activities.
8) A complete and comprehensive noise analysis shall be prepared identifying any
11
noise sources and volumes which may affect school facilities, classrooms, and
outdoor school areas.
9) A complete and comprehensive air quality analysis shall be prepared identifying
any air quality deterioration that would result from the transportation and busing of
students to various schools within and outside the District as a result of
overcrowded conditions and the necessity to mitigate capital facility deficiencies.
10) The Redevelopment Plan's utilization impact of the estimated residential
development potential on the District, including projected enrollments, student
generation factors, projected space requirements, projected busing requirements,
projected teacher/staffing requirements, projected required interim facilities,
projected required support facilities (MOT, Administration, etc.,) and traffic and
noise impacts shall be identified.
11) The Redevelopment Plan's utilization impact of the estimated non-residential
development potential on the District, including projected enrollments, student
generation factors, projected space requirements, projected busing requirements,
projected teacher/sting requirements, projected required interim facilities,
projected required support facilities (MOT, Admini mation, etc.), and traffic and
noise impacts shall be identified. Of particular importance is the conversion of non-
residential square footage to projected employees who will reside in existing and
new residential units, and the effect the estimated non-residential development
potential will have on inducing, facilitating, and/or accommodating residential
growth within the District, and the impacts such residential growth will have on the
District.
12) The physical impact as represented by the fiscal costs to the District, including
projected cost of land acquisition, school construction, and other facilities, shall be
identified; present and projected capital facility, operations, maintenance, and
personnel financing and funding sources shall be analyzed; and personnel,
operational, and maintenance costs shall be identified
13) Appropriate and legal development utilization and fiscal impact mitigation measures
shall be identified, including a complete discussion and analysis of the mitigation
measures set forth in Section 65996 of the Government Code, as follows:
a) Chapter 22 (commencing with Section 17700) of Part 10 of the Education
Code.
b) Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 17785) of Part 10 of the Education
Code.
c) Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 17870) of Part 10 of the Education
Code.
d) Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 39327) of Chapter 3 of Part 23 of the
0 Education Code.
e) Section 53080 of the Government Code.
f) Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 53311) of Division 2 of Title 5 of
the Government Code.
g) Chapter 4.7 (commencing with Section 65970) of Division 1 of Title 7 of
the Government Code.
Additionally, the decisions of Mira. Lf= and Murrieta shall be discussed as
vehicles for impact mitigation consideration.
14) Cumulative impacts on the District addressing item No.'s 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12
shall be identified and discussed All plarined, projected, and approved projects
proposed within the jurisdiction of the District, along with an analysis of the
buildout under the City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange General
Plans shall be included in the cumulative analysis and should be identified by
development name, unit size, timing and location.
15) Unavoidable development utilization and fiscal impacts on the District should be
addressed, particularly as they relate to the quality, quantity, and present and future
condition of the District's enrollments, space utilization, curriculum, financial and
fiscal condition, transportation, operational and maintenance activities,
administrative activities, and asset management activities.
16) An estimate of the amount of development fees to be generated by estimated
development potential in aocordance with implementation of the Project shall be
made using the Districts 61 % share of $1.84 ($1.12) per square foot for residential
uses and $0.30 ($0.18) for non-residential uses ('inflated according to State Law
over time).
17) The nominal and net present value of statutory tax increment revenues to be
provided to the District under A.B. 1290 shall be identified.
18) The amount of physical space and the resultant cost for provision of capital facilities
to accommodate new students shall be identified and expressed in a per student and
per square foot format.
19) The shortfall or excess between the estimated development fees to be generated and
the cost for provision of capital facilities shall be identified.
20) The impact of the project on the District in tams of the public use of school
facilities and grounds for recreation (parks) and open space purposes (i.e., for uses
other than District directed educational activities) caused by a shortage of City
owned facilities and open space shall be assessed.
In particular, existing quantities of City owned park, recreation, and open
space lands shall be identified and the degree of satisfaction of the General Plan
level of service standards for City owned and non -City owned land shall be
determined. The implications of any General Plan policies or implementation of the
Project on school district facilities shall be discussed and mitigated if significant.
21) The adequacy of the existing infirastructure, including sewer, water, gas, electricity,
cable television, and telephones saving existing schools shall be determined and
•
considered before recommendations for increasing student loading at any existing
school is made.
22) A site feasibility analysis identifying the nature and extent of all existing facilities
(permanent and relocatable), existing and proposed site utilization, and impacts on
curriculum and operational activities, shall be performed prior to the
recommendation for the addition of relocarable facilities on any school as a
mitigation measure.
23) An analysis and presentation of mitigation measures shall be identified in relation to
measures set forth in Section 33352 of the Health and Safety Code.
24) Appropriate alternative projects, including, but not limited to: a) the inclusion of
blighted school properties and facilities within the project area; b) the Agency's
financial assistance towards the improvement, modernization, and expansion of
existing school facilities which serve the project area; and c) the Agency's financial
assistance towards the acquisition of property and the construction of new school
facilities required to serve the project area, should be considered and evaluated, and
the items and issues set forth herein as No.'s 1 through 22 should be determined
for each alternative.
. 25) if a statement of overriding consideration is intended to be used relative to the
District's development utilization, physical, and fiscal impacts for unavoidable or
unmitigated impacts, the text of the statement, along with quantitative and
qualitative substantiation, shall be identified and made available for public
inspection.
The substantiation shall also provide a comparison to the mitigation of other public
services and facilities (such as police, fire, water supply, sewer services, etc.) with
schools, with detailed explanations should there be differences in the level or types
of mitigation proposed.
26) Inclusion of those topics with regards to the Project's re-evaluation pursuant to the
provisions of Section 33354.6 of the Health and Safety Code.
The District further understands that 20`90 of the annual tax increment generated from the
proposed Project is required to be used within the Project Area or elsewhere in the
community for the purpose of increasing, improving, or preserving the community's
supply of low and moderate income housing. The Agency's expenditure of such revenues
would have an impact on the District, particularly if the expenditures resulted in increasing
the number of low and moderate income residential units within the community.
Experience has provided evidence that affordable housing units, units which are
specifically set aside for families which are low or moderate income, and subsidized
housing for many times minority and/or certain ethnic groups, result in households which
generally have larger family sizes with higher student generation rates than other market
rate housing types. Therefore, the DEIR should specifically address the Agency's intent
0 and commitment towards the expenditure of the housing set -aside funds, identify the
impacts on the District, and provide appropriate mitigation measures to off -set the impacts
to the District from these activities.
Based upon the significance of the impacts of the Project, designation and/or dedication of
school site(s) and specific mitigation measures which provide for the full impact mitigation
of the developments- which will occur following the adoption of the Proposed
Redevelopment Plan, such as an Impact Mitigation and Reimbmsement Agreement between
the City and the District, may have to be made part of the mitigation measures identified in
the DEIR.
The District is prepared to provide additional information and review any materials as may
be prepared as a part of the environmental process. We further hereby request that all
notices and documentation with regard to this Project be specifically mailed to the following
representatives of the District:
Dr. Duane Dishno
Superintendent
Huntington Beach City School District
Post Office Box 71
Huntington Beach, California 92648
. Mr. Jerry Buchanan
Assistant Superintendent, Administrative Services
Huntington Beach City School District .
Post Office Box 71
Huntington Beach, California 92648
and
Marshall B. Krupp, President
COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC.
730 El Camino Way, Suite 200
Tustin, California 92680
Should you require any additional information at this time or during the preparation of the
DM or if we can answer any questions, please don't hesitate_ to call either the District or
Community Systems Associates, Inc.
The adequacy and accuracy of the existing setting, project impacts and their significance,
and the mitigation of impacts resulting from the Project as they relate to Huntington Beach
City School District are of extreme importance to the District. Therefore, we will be more
than happy to provide you with any materials you may need to assist you in the preparation
of an adequate envhvl=nmI analysis of the Project
Thank you for your assistance and consideration.
Sincerely,
Jerry Buchanan
Assistant Superintendent, Administrative Services
ec: Dr. Duane Dishno, Superintendent
Marshall B. Krupp, President
•
•
OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT
Superintendent James R- Tarwater. Ed.D. Board or Trustees Charles Osterfund. President
Pam Walker, Clerk
ill. 14%ife Carol Pefima I , Member
i0i Tracy Penman, Member
Nancy Stuever. Member
IN QUEST 17200 PINEHURST LANE - HUNTINGTON BEACH - CALIFORNIA - 92647 - 714/847-2551 - FAX 714/847-1430
EXCELLENCE' We are An Equal Opportunity Employer. This District does not discriminate on the basis of age, gender or handirap.
-.�...-.-.... - =. J
May 16, 1996
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
Attention: Stephen V. Kohler, Project Manager
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Response to Notice of Preparation of EIR on Amendments and Merger of Existing
Redevelopment Project Areas to Create the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project;
Our file 5400.1.000
*Dear Mr. Kohler:
The Ocean View School District has reviewed the Notice of Preparation of EIR and proposed
project information, and conclude that the EIR must address the impact any commercial and
residential development might have within the Redevelopment Project Area. Our reasons are
set forth below.
The project, which is described as a merger, contemplates commercial and residential
development of substantial magnitude in areas located within the District's boundaries. Each
of the five projects to be merged included these uses; in fact two are all residential uses. The
checklist included with the notice of determination states that the impact on schools will be "less
than significant".
Recently the Ocean View School District adopted an increase in the fees that it may impose on
new development pursuant to Government Code section 53080. The Board has concluded that
new development will generate at least 55 new students, for which the District has no facilities.
The District's share of the maximum statutory fee that it may collect (61 % of $1.84) will
produce far less than the approximately $3.00 per square foot of assessable new construction
(residential) required to provide sufficient housing for these students. The District invites the
Agency to confer regarding its needs in these areas.
0
Stephen V. Kohler
Project Manager
Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Huntington Beach
-2-
May 16, 1996
Because of the impact of any new development on the District's ability to provide the facilities
necessary for students who will be generated by housing development in the Redevelopment Plan
Area, the District believes that the impact should be considered "significant" and that appropriate
mitigation should be called for.
Very truly yours,
ames R. Tarwater,
District Superintendent
Ocean View School District
JRT:gb
•
•
•
Boas of Trustees:
i�
HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION
r;r;t L ' '.
Bonnie Bruce
.f
HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
B�aJo men
Curt Sorses
10251 Yorktown Avenue • Huntington Beach, California 926a&299� r.,
Michael Simons
(714) 964- 339FAX (714) 963-7684
David J. Hagen, Ed.D., Superintendent of Schools
May 15, 1996
VIA FAX AND CERTIFIED MAIL
Stephen P. Kohler
Project Manager
HUNIT tGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
SUBJECT: Response to Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
on the Amendments and Merger of Existing Redevelopment Project Areas
to create the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area.
Scope and Content Comments from the
Huntington Beach Union High School District
Dear Mr. Kohler:
HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT ("District") is in receipt of
the Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") of the
Amendments and Merger of existing Redevelopment Project Areas to Create the Huntington
Beach Redevelopment Project Area ("Project") dated April 16, 1996. Huntington Beach Union
High School District has reviewed the proposed Project and is prepared to provide public hearing
testimony before the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission ("Planning Commission'),
City Council ("City Council"), and Redevelopment Agency ('Agency') in order to protect and
preserve the District's administrative and legal remedies, to provide the City of Huntington
Beach ("City") with information supporting the District's contention of the impact of the Project
on the District, and to enable the District to consistently and effectively participate. in the Project
adoption and the environmental review process_ This letter represents the District's response
to the NOP.
The District is a "Responsible Agency" as identified by CEQA, Chapter 2.5., Definitions,
Section 21069, and the CEQA Guidelines, in that the District is a public agency, other than the
Lead Agency, which has direct, statutory responsibility for providing (carrying out) public
services (education) and facilities (schools) for a portion of the area within and directly affected
0 by the Project. Section 15096 of the CEQA Guidelines outlines the process for a Responsible
Agency including its role in Response to Consultation.
lie mission of the HBUHSD, responsive to our diverse community expectations, is to educate all students by ensuring a relevant and
focused educational prograni which develops responsible, productive and creative individuals with a capacity for leadership.
Stephen P. Kohler
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
May 15, 1996
Page 2
Section 15096
Response to Consultation. A Responsible Agency shall respond to consultation by the
Lead Agency in order to assist the Lead Agency in preparing adequate environmental
documents for the project. By this means, the Responsible Agency will ensure that the
documents it will use will comply with CEQA.
(2) As soon as possible, but not longer than 30 days after receiving a Notice of
Preparation from the Lead Agency, the Responsible Agency shall send a written
reply by certified mail or any other method which provides the agency with a
record showing that the notice was received. The reply shall specify the scope
and content of the environmental information which would be germane to the
Responsible Agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed
project. The Lead Agency shall include this information hi the EIR. (emphasis
added)
The District emphasizes that the use of the word "shall" identifies a mandatory element which
all public agencies are required to follow according to Section 15005 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Therefore, the City must include the scope and content specified by the District in the EIR.
The District is in receipt of the Notice of Preparation regarding a Draft Environmental Impact
Report ("DEIR") for the proposed Project. Pursuant to the Notice, the District may provide a
response to the Notice within 30 days after receipt of the Notice. The Notice was received by
the District on April 17, 1996.
In order to facilitate the District's early response to the Notice of Preparation, even though the
District believes that the Notice of Preparation is invalid, the District hereby submits and
presents the following list of scope and content for mandatory inclusion into the DEIR:
1) The average building square footage and type (i.e., single family detached homes,
townhomes, apartments, mobile homes, etc.) of anticipated typical dwelling units and the
total building square footage and type (i.e., retail, office, industrial, regional mall, etc.)
of projected non-residential uses shall be identified.
2) The phasing of development (residential and non-residential) over time from the present
to buildout of the Project shall be identified with appropriate, incremental intervals
(preferably not greater than five (5) years).
3) The location of all existing school sites, school bus stops, student pedestrian movement
patterns to the school sites, bus routes, etc., (located within the District, whether in the
City or County) shall be identified and mapped.
4) The anticipated designation of schools that will be attended by students generated based
upon present District attendance areas shall be identified.
5) The District's existing conditions relative to the location, size, quality, and condition of
all existing schools, administrative, and operation facilities (within and outside the City)
small be discussed.
•
Stephen P. KohIer
HUNTPgGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
May 15, 1996
Page 3
6) The District's past and present enrollment trends, and present enrollment, including
facility utilization and capacity of permanent and relocatable facilities, shall be identified.
7) A complete and comprehensive traffic analysis shall be prepared identifying vehicular
movement and volumes, and potential conflicts with school pedestrian and bicycle
movement, school transportation, and busing activities.
8) A complete and comprehensive noise analysis shall be prepared identifying any noise
sources and volumes which may affect school facilities, classrooms, and outdoor school
areas.
9) A complete and comprehensive air quality analysis shall be prepared identifying any air
quality deterioration that would result from the transportation and busing of students to
various schools within and outside the District as a result of overcrowded conditions and
the necessity to mitigate capital facility deficiencies.
10) The Redevelopment Plan's utilization impact of the estimated residential development
potential on the District, including projected enrollments, student generation factors,
projected space requirements, projected busing requirements, projected teacher/staffing
requirements, projected required interim facilities, projected required support facilities
(MOT, Administration, etc.,) and traffic and noise impacts shall be identified.
11) The Redevelopment Plan's utilization impact of the estimated non-residential development
potential on the District, including projected enrollments, student generation factors,
projected space requirements, projected busing requirements, projected teacher/staffing
requirements, projected required interim facilities, projected required support facilities
(MOT, Administration, etc.), and traffic and noise impacts shall be identified. Of
particular importance is the conversion of non-residential square footage to projected
employees who will reside in existing and new residential units, and the effect the
estimated non-residential development potential will have on inducing, facilitating, and/or
accommodating residential growth within the District, and the impacts such residential
growth will have on the District.
12) The physical impact as represented by the fiscal costs to the District, including projected
cost of land acquisition, school construction, and other facilities, shall be identified;
present and projected capital facility, operations, maintenance, and personnel financing
and funding sources shall be analyzed; and personnel, operational, and maintenance costs
shall be identified.
13) Appropriate and legal development utilization and fiscal impact mitigation measures shall
be identified, including a complete discussion and analysis of the mitigation measures set
forth in Section 65996 of the Government Code, as follows:
a) Chapter 22 (commencing with Section 17700) of Part 10 of the Education Code.
Stephen P. Kohler
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
May 15, 1996
Page 4
b) Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 17785) of Part 10 of the Education Code.
c) Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 17870) of Part 10 of the Education Code.
d) Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 39327) of Chapter 3 of Part 23 of the
Education Code.
e) Section 53080 of the Government Code.
f) Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 53311) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the
Government Code.
g) Chapter 4.7 (commencing with Section 65970) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the
Government Code.
Additionally, the decisions of Mira, Harr, and ur?i to shall be discussed as vehicles for
impact mitigation consideration.
14) Cumulative impacts on the District addressing item No.'s 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 shall
be identified and discussed. All planned, projected, and approved projects proposed
within the jurisdiction of the District, along with an analysis of the buildout under the
City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange General Plans, shall be included in
the cumulative analysis and should be identified by development name, unit size, timing
and location.
15) Unavoidable development utilization and fiscal impacts on the District should be
addressed, particularly as they relate to the quality, quantity, and present and future
condition of the District's enrollments, space utilization, curriculum, financial and fiscal
condition, transportation, operational and maintenance activities, administrative activities,
and asset management activities.
16) An estimate of the amount of development fees to be generated by estimated development
potential in accordance with implementation of the Project shall be made using the
Districts 39% share of $1.84 ($0.72) per square foot for residential uses and $0.30
($0.12) for non-residential uses (inflated according to State Law over time).
17) The nominal and net present value of statutory tax increment revenues to be provided to
the District under A.B. 1290 shall be identified.
18) The amount of physical space and the resultant cost for provision of capital facilities to
accommodate new students shall be identified and expressed in a per student and per
square foot format. 0
19) The shortfall or excess between the estimated development fees to be generated and the
cost for provision of capital facilities shall be identified.
Stephen P. Kohler
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
May 15, 1996
Page 5
20) The impact of the project on the District in terms of the public use of school facilities
and grounds for recreation (parks) and open space purposes (i.e., for uses other than
District directed educational activities) caused by a shortage of City owned facilities and
open space shall be assessed.
In particular, existing quantities of City owned park, recreation, and open space lands
shall be identified and the degree of satisfaction of the General Plan level of service
standards for City owned and non -City owned land shall be determined. The
implications of any General Plan policies or implementation of the Project on school
district facilities shall be discussed and mitigated if significant.
21) The adequacy of the existing infrastructure, including sewer, water, gas, electricity, cable
television, and telephones serving existing schools shall be determined and considered
before recommendations for increasing student Ioading at any existing school are made.
22) A site feasibility analysis identifying the nature and extent of all existing facilities
(permanent and relocatable), existing and proposed site utilization, and impacts on
curriculum and operational activities, shall be preformed prior to the recommendation for
the addition of relocatable facilities on any school as a mitigation measure.
23) An analysis and presentation of mitigation measures shall be identified in relation to
measures set forth in Section 33352 of the Health and Safety Code.
24) Appropriate alternative projects, including, but not limited to: a) the inclusion of blighted
school properties and facilities within the project area; b) the Agency's financial
assistance towards the improvement, modernization, and expansion of existing school
facilities which serve the project area; and c) the Agency's financial assistance towards
the acquisition of property and the construction of new school facilities required to serve
the project area, should be considered and evaluated, and the items and issues set forth
herein as No.'s 1 through 22 should be determined for each alternative.
25) If a statement of overriding consideration is intended to be used relative to the District's
development utilization, physical, and fiscal impacts for unavoidable or unmitigated
impacts, the text of the statement, along with quantitative and qualitative substantiation,
shall be identified and made available for public inspection.
The substantiation shall also provide a comparison to the mitigation of other public
services and facilities (such as police, fire, water supply, sewer services, etc.) with
schools, with detailed explanations should there be differences in the level or types of
mitigation proposed.
26) Inclusion of those topics with regards to the Project's re-evaluation pursuant to the
provisions of Section 33354.6 of the Health and Safety Code.
Stephen P. Kohler
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY .
May 15, 1996
Page 6
The District further understands that 20% of the annual tax increment generated from the
proposed Project is required to be used within the Project Area or elsewhere in the community
for the purpose of increasing, improving, or preserving the community's supply of low- and
moderate income housing. The Agency's expenditure of such revenues would have an impact
on the District, particularly if the expenditures resulted in increasing the number of low- and
moderate -income residential units within the community. Experience has provided evidence that
affordable housing units, units which are specifically set aside for families which are low- or
moderate -income, and subsidized housing, result in households which generally have larger
family sizes with higher student generation rates than other market rate housing types.
Therefore, the DEIR should specifically address the Agency's intent and commitment towards
the expenditure of the housing set -aside funds, identify the impacts on the District, and provide
appropriate mitigation measures to offset the impacts to the District from these activities.
Based upon the significance of the impacts of the Project, designation and/or dedication of
school site(s) and specific mitigation measures which provide for the full impact mitigation of
the developments which will occur following the adoption of the Proposed Redevelopment Plan,
such as an Impact Mitigation and Reimbursement Agreement between the City and the District,
may have to be made part of the mitigation measures identified in the DEIR.
The District is prepared to provide additional information and review any materials as may be
prepared as a part of the environmental process. We further hereby request that all notices and
documentation with regard to this Project be specifically mailed to the following representatives
of the District:
David Hagen, Ed.D.
Superintendent
Huntington Beach Union High School District
10251 Yorktown Avenue
Huntington Beach, California 92646
Patricia Reid Koch, Ph.D.
Assistant Superintendent, Business Services
Huntington Beach Union High School District
10251 Yorktown Avenue
Huntington Beach, California 92646
and
Marshall B. Krupp
President
COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. +
730 El Camino Way, Suite 200
Tustin, California 92680
Stephen P. Kohler
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPyfE.NT AGENCY
May 15, 1996
Page 7
Should you require any additional information at this time or during the preparation of the
DEIR, or if we can answer any questions, please don't hesitate to call either the District or
Community Systems Associates, Inc.
The adequacy and accuracy of the existing setting, project impacts and their significance, and
the mitigation of impacts resulting from the Project as they relate to Huntington Beach City
School District are of extreme importance to the District. Therefore, we will be more than
happy to provide you with any materials you may need to assist you in the preparation of an
adequate environmental analysis of the Project.
The District appreciates the opportunity to work with the Agency to ensure the mutual benefits
that have ensued from the other joint activities.
Thank you for your assistance and consideration.
Sincerely,
HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Patricia Reid Koch, Ph.D.
Assistant Superintendent, Business Services
cc: David Hagen, Ed.D., Superintendent
HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Marshall B. Krupp, President
COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC.
MWMerger.Red
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
330 Golden Shore, Suite 50
Long Beach, California 90802
(310) 590-5113
May 14, 1996
Mr. Stephen V. Kohler
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
2000 Main Street
/?untington Beach, California 92648
Dear Mr. Kohler:
Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report
Amendments and Merger of Ming Redevelopment Project Areas to Create the
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project
Orange County
The Department of Fish and Game (Department) appreciates this opportunity to
comment on the above -referenced project, relative to impacts to biological resources. To
enable Department staff to adequately review and comment on the proposed project, we
recommend the following information be included in the draft Environmental Impact Report:
1. A complete assessment of the flora and fauna within and adjacent to the project area,
with particular emphasis upon identifying endangered, threatened, and locally unique
species and sensitive habitats.
a. A thorough assessment of rare plants and rare natural communities, following
the Department's May 1984 Guidelines for Assessing Impacts to Rare Plants
and Raze Natural Communities (Attachment 1).
b. A complew assessment of sensitive fish, wildlife, reptile, and amphibian
species. Seasonal variations in use of the project area should also be addressed.
Focused species -specific surveys, conducted at the appropriate time of year and
time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable, are
required. Acceptable species -specific survey procedures should be developed in
consultation with the Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
C. Rare, threatened, and endangered species to be addressed should include all
those which meet the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) definition
(see CEQA Guidelines, § 15380).
40
•
Mr. Stephen V. Kohler
May 14, 1996
Page Two
d. The Department's California Natural Diversity Data Base in Sacramento should
be contacted at (916) 327-5960 to obtain current information on any previously
reported sensitive species and habitat, including Significant Natural Areas
identified under Chapter 12 of the Fish and Game Code.
2. A thorough discussion of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts expected to adversely
affect biological resources, with specific measures to offset such impacts.
a. CEQA Guidelines, § 15125(a), direct that knowledge of the regional setting is
critical to an assessment of environmental impacts and that special emphasis
should be placed on resources that are rare or unique to the region.
b. Project impacts should be analyzed relative to their effects on off -site habitats.
Specifically, this should include nearby public lands, open space, adjacent
natural habitats, and riparian ecosystems. Impacts to and maintenance of
wildlife corridor/movement areas, including access to undisturbed habitat in
adjacent areas, should be fully evaluated and provided.
C. A cumulative effects analysis should be developed as described under CEQA
Guidelines, § 15130. General and specific plans, as well as past, present, and
anticipated future projects, should be analyzed relative to their impacts on
similar plant communities and wildlife habitats.
3. A range of alternatives should be analyzed to ensure that alternatives to the proposed
project are fully considered and evaluated. A range of alternatives which avoid or
otherwise minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources should be included.
Specific alternative locations should also be evaluated in areas with lower resource
sensitivity where appropriate.
a. Mitigation measures for project impacts to sensitive plants, animals, and
habitats should emphasize evaluation and selection of alternatives which avoid
or otherwise minimize project impacts. Off -site compensation for unavoidable
impacts through acquisition and protection of high -quality habitat elsewhere
should be addressed.
b. The Department considers Rare Natural Communities as threatened habitats
having both regional and local significance. Thus, these communities should be
My avoided and otherwise protected from project -related impacts (Attachment
2).
c. _ 'Ile Department generally does not support the use of relocation, salvage,
and/or transplantation as mitigation for impacts to rare, threatened, or
endangered species. Department studies have shown that these efforts are
experimental in nature and largely unsuccessful.
Mr. Stephen V. Kohler
May 14, 1996
Page Three
4. if the project has the potential to adversely affect species of plants or animals listed
under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), either during construction or
over the life of the project, a CESA-Memorandum of Understanding (CESA-MOU)
must be obtained under § 2081 of the Fish and Game Code. CESA-MOD's are issued
to conserve, protect, enhance, and restore State -listed threatened or endangered species
and their habitats. Early consultation is encouraged, as significant modification to a
project and mitigation measures may be required in order to obtain a CESA-MOU.
a. Biological mitigation proposals should be of sufficient detail and resolution to
satisfy the requirements for a CESA-MOU.
b. A Department -approved Mitigation Agreement and Mitigation Plan are required
for plants listed as rare under the Native Plant Protection Act.
5. The Department opposes the elimination of watercourses and/or their channelization or
conversion to subsurface drains. All wetlands and watercourses, whether intermittent
or perennial, must be retained and provided with substantial setbacks which preserve
the riparian and aquatic values and maintain their value to on -site and off -site wildlife
populations.
a. The Department has direct authority under Fish and Game Code § 1500 et seq.
in regard to any proposed activity which would divert, obstruct, or affect the
natural flow or change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake.
Early consultation is recommended, since modification of the proposed project
may be required to avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources.
b. A discussion of potential adverse impacts from any increased runoff,
sedimentation, soil erosion, and/or urban pollutants on streams and watercourses
on or near the project site, with mitigation measures proposed to alleviate such
impacts must be included.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Questions regarding this letter and further
coordination on these issues should be directed to W. Scott Harris, Wildlife Biologist, at
(310) 590-5100.
Sincerely,
0-
11-
e:c i:a 7wxolf
Acting Regional Manager
Region 5
Attachments
cc: See attached list
•
•
Mr. Stephen V. Kohler
May 14, 1996
Page Four
cc; Mr. Scott Hams
Department of Fish and Game
Long Beach, California
Mr. Ray Ally
Department of Fish and Game
Lung Bmch, California
Mr. Richard Nitsos
Department of Fish and Game
Long Beach, California -
Mr. Jim Dice
Department of Fish and Game
San Diego, California
MS. Tetra Dickerson
Department of Fish and Came
Lacuna Miguel, California
0 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Carlsbad, California
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Los Angeles, California
•
State of California
THE RESOURCES AGENCY
Department of Fish and Game
May 4, 1984
GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING THE EFFECTS OF PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENTS ON RARE AND ENDANGERED PLANTS AND PLANT COMMUNITIES
The following recommendations are intended to help those who prepare and review environmental
documents determine when a botanical survey is needed, who should be considered qualified to conduct
such surveys, how field surveys should be conducted and what information should be contained in the
survey report.
1. Botaricxl surveys that are conducted to determine the environmental effects of a proposed
development should be directed to all rare and endangered plants and plant communities. Rare and
endangered plants are not necessarily limited to those species which have been 'listed" by state
and federa! agencies but should include any species that, based on all available data, can be shown
to be rare and/or endangered under the following definitions.
A species, subspecies or variety of plant is 'endangered' when the prospects of its survival and
reproduction are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change
in habitat, over -exploitation, predation, competition or disease. A plant is "rare" when. although
not presently threatened with extinction, the species, subspecies or variety is found in such small
numbers throughout its range that it may be endangered if its environment worsens.
Rare plant communities are those communities that are of highly limited distribution. These
communities may or may not contain rare or endangered species. The most current version of the
California Natural Diversity Data Base's Outline of Terrestrial Communities in California may be
used as a guide to the names of communities.
2. 't is 3P.-wow-ate to conduct a botanical field survey to determine if, or the extent that. rare plants
wiii ae affected by a proposed project when:
a. Based on an initial biological assessment, it appears that the project may damage potential
ra►e c%'ant habitat;
b. Rare plants have historically been identified on the project site, but adequate information for
irrpact assessment is lacking; or
C. No initial biological assessment has been conducted and it is unknown whether or not rare
Wants or thei- hat -tat exist on the site.
F! mica/ ons_'iz:r.!c should be selected on the basis of possession of the following Qualifications
(:n order cf importance):
a. Experience as a botanical field investigator with experience in field sampling design and
field methods;
b. Taxonomic experience and a knowledge of plant ecology;
C. Familiarity with the plants of the area, including rare species; and
tl. Familiarity with the appropriate state and federal statutes related to rare plants and plant
collecting.
4. Field surveys should be conducted in a manner that will locate any rare or endangered species that
may be present. Specifically, rare or endangered plant surveys should be:
a. Conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both 'evident"
and identifiable. Field surveys should be scheduled (11 to coincide with known flowering
periods, and/or 12) during periods of phenological development that are necessary to
identify the plant species of concern,
b. Floristic in nature. 'Predictive surveys` {which predict the occurrence of rare species based
on the occurrence of habitat or other physical features rather than actual field inspection)
should be reserved for ecological studies, not for impact assessment. Every species noted
in the field should be identified to the extent necessarysto determine whether it is rare or
endangered.
C. Conducted in a manner that is consistent with conservation ethics. Collections of rare or
suspected rare species (voucher specimens) should be made only when such actions would
not jeopardize the continued existence of the population and in accordance with applicable
state and federal permit regulations. Voucher specimens should be deposited at recognized
public herbaria for future reference. Photography should be used to document plant
identification and habitat whenever possible, but especially when the population cannot
withstand collection of voucher specimens.
d. Conducted using systematic field techniques in all habitats of the site to ensure a
reasonably thorough coverage of potential impact areas.
e. Well documented. When a rare or endangered plant (or.rare plant community) is located, a
California Native Species for Communiryl Field Survey Form or equivalent written form
should be completed and submitted to the Natural Diversity Data Base.
5. Reports of botanical field surveys should be included in or with environmental assessments,
negative declarations, EIR's and EIS's, and should contain the following information:
a.
Project description, including a detailed map of the project location and study area.
b.
A written description of biological setting referencing the community nomenclature used
and a vegetation map.
C.
Detailed description of survey methodology.
d.
Dates of field surveys.
e.
Results of survey (including detailed maps).
'.
An assessment of potential impacts.
g.
Oiscussion of the importance of rare plant populations with consideration of nearby
PcDulations and total species distribution.
h.
recommended mitigation measures to reduce or avoid impacts.
i.
List of all species identified.
j.
CuPles of all Califomia Native Species Field Survey Forms or Natural Community Field
Survey Forms.
k.
Name of field investigator(s).
1.
References cited, persons contacted, herbaria visited, and disposition of voucher
specimens.
•
2
ATTACHMENT 2
Sensitivity of Top Priority Rare Natural
Communities in Southern California*
sensitivity rankings are determined by the Department of Fish and Game,
fornia Natural Diversity Data Base and based on either number of known
rrences (locations) and/or amount of habitat remaining (acreage). The
e rankings used for these top priority rare natural communities are as
ows:
Less than 6 known locations and/or on less than 2,000 acres of habitat
remaining
Occurs in 6-20 known locations and/or 2,000-10,000 acres of habitat
remaining
Occurs in 21-100 known locations and/or 10,000-50,000 acres of habitat
remaining
The number to the right of the decimal point after the ranking refers to
degree of threat posed to that natural community 'regardless of the ranking.
example:
k
1
51.3• = very . threatened
52.2 = t neatened
53.3 = no current threats known
Se sitivit Rankings (February 1992)
Community Name
Mojave Riparian Forest
Sonoran Cottonwood Willow Riparian
Mesquite Basque
Elephant Tree Woodland
Crucifixion Thorn Woodland
Al2thorn Woodland
Arizonan Woodland
Southern California Walnut Forest
Mainland Cherry Forest
Southern Bishop Pine Forest
Torrey Pine Forest
Desert Mountain White Fir Forest
Southern Dune Scrub
Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub
Maritime Succulent Scrub
Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub
Southern Maritime Chaparral
Valley Needlegrass Grassland
Great Basin Grassland
Mojave Desert Grassland
Pebble Plains
Southern Sedge Bog
Cismontane Alkali Harsh
•
C7
-2-
Sensitivity Rankings (Cont.)
Community Pane
Southern Foredunes
Mono Pumice Flat
Southern Interior Basalt F1. Vernal Pool
Venturan Coastal Sage Scrub
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
Riversidean Upland Coastal Sage
Scrub
Riversidean Desert Sage Scrub
Sagebrush Steppe
Desert Sink Scrub
Mafic Southern Mixed Chaparrel
San Diego Mesa Hardpan Vernal P.
San Diego Mesa Claypan Vernal P.
Alkali Meadow
Southern Coastal Salt Marsh
Coastal Brackish Marsh
Transmontane Alkali Marsh
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
S. Arroya Willow Riparian Forest
Southern Willow Scrub
Modoc-G.Bas. Cottonwood Willow Rip.
Modoc-Great Basin Riparian Scrub
Mojave Desert Wash Scrub
Engelmann Oak Woodland
Open Engelmann Oak Woodland
Closed Engelmann Oak Woodland
Island Oak Woodland
California Walnut woodland
Island Ironwood Forest
Island Cherry Forest
S. Interior Cypress Forest
Bigcone Spruce -Canyon Oak Forest
2 Active Coastal Dunes
Act1ve Desert Dunes
Stab. and Part. Stab. Desert Dunes
Stab. and Part. Stab. Desert Sandfield
Mojave Mixed Steppe
Transmontane Freshwater Marsh
Coulter Pine Forest
S. California Fellfield
Write Mountains Fellfield
3 Bristlecone Pine Forest
Limber Pine Forest
•
ELEMENT RANKING
•Iar••Rs rr.rasa►•►R►s RraRa.aasaa►l►.►aa1a•1•►ss0000 r••sa•aa••.s a a••a as a•►►►►rr.araaa•.... moo.
' CLQtA1. RANt{u�tG
Teri p+bAn/ropa iG-tank; Is a tonott;at+ of " avotor rortd-,t;►n of on ellomwnt 0wovphovt he global tattoo.
STEMS MIM
CIO Less ths^ t w4bta f 0s OR lass than 1000 ImMoidvals Olt less
the,% 20?0 octet.
C2- 9.20 101 01k 1000-3000 itevhfbols OR 2000-10.000 octet.
C3. 21.100 t 0 1 OR 3000`10.000 Ind•.+:$vets OR 10.0 0.S0,W acres
G4 • /• wo^t<r #scuts: V;$ ten► is slowly So swap than C3 JWr
factors ez;1t to rows wno col%cent: i.t. there Is some
thfast, of some..hst narrow habitat.
Ci• FoAvlaUorr demonstrably secure to Mer66.cobto dot to lo;np
sommorJr !eyed ;n the wand.
suss+ECrrs LrVIL
Sobspet:as roca;rg a T-ro^1 a:ta.hsd to the G•ronk. W.1h two evbspar;sr. the G-r" tof eM rho told;60A a! the entire
-e-�.z. whereat the T-rar%k toNcts the global &;wot.on of just the Zyt'tsrec;ems.
for esorn,ts: CAoi*eAtAt tolrvate tr&r.Aap"jpD .
Tea p:a4t Is It-Lgg C2T1. The G•ronk target to the wheho apes;vs ranpa of CAari7artthe rodwta. The T-rant; Were *Pir 19
ter• ptobar cartdit;aft at ver. As, tweg r.
♦as•►aRaa•►RRaRRI►R►.asRaaaa+.al.aaas•aa•ssala♦a asssaaaaa••saaaaassaasi•aaaaaafa•a•aaaaf s••11a
STATE RAlrteINre
The state re-,*i es aet;p^od rhWeh the same Gray as the global terA. except elm tanke In CoVorris ofisn Alta cants;+% a •set
wvre+Der attached to the S-tart!..
Loss than ; E0s OR loss th+a^ 1000;mtFlvidvats OR Use than 2000 •etas
dr S 1: S 1.1 r vory Woottnad
51.2 It tIveeteAad
51.3 . no ev-ont tivests knower
E-22 tOs OR 1D00 700@ ++rd:v;dvots Get 20DO-10.000 &etas
ar li j: -
52.1 r very tMoat*trad
t;2.2 • tivestenad
92.3 a na cart#^t Ovarts khewh
21•t03 fat Da =00T10.000ina;vtarrs's Ott 10.000,SO.Dweve I
• i0: U-1 . w17 threstthad
$3.2 - 1*rsotewed
L3.3 in no e%rtrant threats knows%
it Arpartmlr aocvtc w=%tin. Cerrorrt;a: 1h;t rank Is clearly tewet tkarr 93 bvt torlots exist to eovsr aerne t:oncoM theto
AS sore+► threat, or sorngwhat narrow habitat. NO714REAT NUM2LA.
fi3 Ogrnanstreblt socvrs to inaradocobso In Cofio++ro. MO THREAT t;l not&
..00.:................•......•....•........•..........•...•............•�••......•............
Motes:
Vneatto;nty ebart the roN el 0% element is Depressed in
Sara m%ajer wars:
Or sepv*es;^p the rare! at &senor of we"s: La.
9291 rnaer%s the ra-A is 6ern4th;n1►r,twsen-52
ot4d s3.
Or add;^a & 01, is the say:
I.e. 92h Yerr rayreset+ts tyre eerta;wt� than
sxs3. "
If
Other eyenboia:
CH AS o;tas ors KatrieaL- pea oranroert has teat b*o^
*son for of toset to wove irtt PA&& o h61+;191 still
ao;sts aN a. As CoVerde Ditaa or* 1`sta4raG.
OX at a;t*t see oalir'palel: *is asas%otrt A etef4t iR the
WU IS% . At Coeforwa Shot arts eett+saeadl- -
CXC Lewsct M the whd; *stets in aJsl•adaw-
014 Tio olsw4ftt to Wort vote. W there it a sese•owr;c
"s Liao esseoato4 whk 1L
a
�_ � rsn C+�rrsrtin*.ref A-5 Fi`.�. ii:2
Top petortty Rare Naturat•CommunfOes
`• From fiepion five
:ode !.=tort' FWA- Fwc Berne
'133]
Cts
DV-4 Sty
312W
as
S0^. 0--+C489:81 Sj" S:b
32AW
Gs
vArt,nre S,r=%irlont Sov
32720
Gs
R+ve-s' ssm AlrrwiI Fan Sete S=b
37=
Cis
Y
Cr4:h8 tt
42110
Cis
Wey KGol e„ •sss G-ass:snd
43.=
Pas
Y
Groat Basin Grasstaftd
43777
Des
Y
Vt jzvz Dosa't Gntstand
47=
Cis
Fabbre Pl ft
5117?
Gc
Y
so mwn Sr3ga Sop
62310
Gs
Ccsmv-vA-» A &t,, L'4rth
$1700
Des
5t.lsys Foaran Fames!
6WO
Des
$onorzn C >:U*nW=d WdbW gP&.;sn
Met��;�te 9asave
4a:
3
Gts
Y
VephriiTne Wocad'.end
00
Des
Y
trvw:zianThom Woodland
7s=
Des
Y
!U.",t&nwoomand
7SrW
Des
Y
Mmun Wo*:Und _
R t wo
rit
govmwn Ca womia Watn:R pats.
011M
cm
Y
ivwa-4 Chrry Foust
LJ :22
Cs
Y
so►tt'+ n 5lchop P" Forer.
33,40
Ots
Torrey Peon Forest
85=
Des
Y
Deee'• 4tountai % 1fi AO Fe FWut
5 12 Rank-
2t 230
Ces
Sa?`,am Fwea�nres
35910
Des
µ" PLR m Flat
4•t3 t 0
Gs
yarn lnlow fk W% FL Verrmaf Pool
SZ 1 Rank;
32300
Cis
Y
Vontusr+ Coastal Saps Saab
12500
Gis
paten Coastal Sw Sorb
2271.0 _
C4
Y
Rivtsid'an UptanQ Coastal 9&2o Sor.
32730
Gt
Y
ftrva-i;Ssan Deasrt Sa2a Sam
!•5=
Do$
Y
6a3ebnsth St+apps
SOIN
Ott
Y-
Dtiart Sint Sty
37U2
Ox
Y
L4tti: Sou4+ern Mumd chap;trat
4432t
cis
fan D+2o t+%u lurspart Vae W P.
*20 Me cu pen Vier W P. .
0�
Ott
/ems ow
A2120
Ae
iovem"s Coastal Salt b+ wIh
E2320
c e
Coasts: br.dktah Marsh -
U410
cot
Transmontane AWAS harsh
vad•z
at afr►+r cm (tor ciamomane) nr del E1or doow.>)
NMB ram =Mvr mPjrs FPS Feb.1M
pop 2
Code f*snb .
Lor llw
Few rwsxdt
lima►
52e10
Ca
Coara' and 1/at;er Freshwater Mara%
61=
Qs
b- Atrop W-Low FLsinan Forest
6u20
Gs
*,M W40W Scrab
61510
Des
I.cacx-G Est C*n.-mwood MOW Pp.
636M
Deg
V �
IA�dx- Gram Satin kpanan S"
63700 -
Des
Y
Mo;sra Dosart Wash Swab
71180
Cis
Y
Er'pz ann oak WoWland
71191
Gs
Y
Open Erge'Tav, Oak Wxrdland
71182
C+s
Y
Ckcsol Enpl-rsavn Oak Woodwrid
7110
Cia
Y
$'aid Oak WooMand
71210
Gs
C00rstii8 WANA Woodland
111700
Cis
Y
ls'a,.d ironwDod Forest
21e14
Ca
Wail Cho-ry Faust
63230
Cis
S intaior Cp-asi FSir*st
64150
cis
Y
Bpo+e Spovae canyn Oak Forest
622 Rank:
21100
C+s
i
Axtve Coastal Dues
22100
Des
A,:b re Deae:t Dunes
22M
Des
Stab. and Par.- Stab. Desert Dunes
22330
Des
Y
Sub and Part Sub. Desaot SandhoLd
34220
Des
Y
MDiara Mixed Stem*
52423
Des
y
Tnnrnont ,%o Froshrrow Marsh
$4140
Ca
i
Co:fter Am Fornsl
P1130
cm
Y
S Catt7enia Feaioeld
Q1t4a
Des
Y
WT 15 Macrntains Fe"fold
56•4.1» Des Br&Vozona Pine Forest
06700 Des T Lrnbe, Pro Forest
' oaa.s as •rtr+.•-rjL (Sor asmonsame) eat del (Sor deaerl)
•
C
tip:
141962.2411
*ng address:
10. Box 8127
twinvauey. cn
9272B8127
rest address:
-4 prs Avenue
tain va*. GA
92708-7018
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
May 1, 1996
Attention: Stephen V. Kohler, Project Manager
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
SUBJECT: Preparation of Environmental Impact Report for Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project
This is in response to your notice dated April 16. 1996 that the City of Huntington
Beach Wil prepare an Environmental Impact Report for amendments to and merger
Member of five redevelopment projects within the city: Huntington Center Commercial District
Agencies Redevelopment Project; Main Pier Redevelopment Project; Oakview Redevelopment
• Project; Talbert -Beach Redevelopment Project; and Yorktown -Lake Redevelopment
cities Project. The areas are within County Sanitation District Nos 3 and 11.
Anaheim
area
You are requested to calculate the expected sewage to be generated from the
'a Park
proposed development and compare it to the Districts' previous plans. For your
ypress � Way
..
calculations, use flow coefficients of:
Rillermn
nVwn Beach
hvine
La xabra
- 100 gallons per day per acres (gpd/acre) for estate density residential
La Palma
(1-3 d.u./acre);
Los Alamitos
.»*port Beau,
- 1615 gpolacres for low density residential (4-7 d.u./acre);
arwve
- 3880 gpd/acre for median density residential (8-16 d.u.lacre);
PiNcemSat"°a
- 5880 gpd/acre for medium -high density residential (17-25 d.uJacre)
sea/ Beach
- 7945 gpd/acre for high density residential (26-35 d.u./acre);
sw"dO"
A sun
- 3230 gpd/acre for commercial;
YAUa PX*
- 4520 gpd/acre for industrial;
Yar°a Linda
- 200 gpd11,000 sq.fL gross floor area (GFA) for high intensity office or
.y of orange
high-rise commercial;
- 150 gpolroom for hotels and motels;
ah7 Districts
- 50 galJseat for restaurants, and
- 200 gpd/acre for recreation and open space usage.
c45M mesa
. arden rwwow
M, Way oty
Wastewater generated within the Districts' service area is processed at treatment
plants located in Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach. The Districts operate under
an NPDES permit issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and
the United States Environmental Protection Agency. This permit has a set discharge
limit for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids (SS), which are
affected by the flow received for treatment. Increases in flow require additional,
costly increases in pumping energy, secondary treatment and solids disposal.
Industrial users should take on -site measures to reduce the load strength of the
A pubsc wastewaur and Envronmenral Management Agency Commiaed to Protecong the ErA ronmant Since 1954
Stephen V. Kohler
Page 2
May 1, 1996
sewage. Commercial users should incorporate all practical and mandated water
conservation measures. All users should use ultra -low flow water fixtures to reduce
the volume of sewage to the system.
Other regulations such as those adopted by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) pursuant to the Air Quality Management Plan
(AQMP) may also impact the proposed project. Therefore, you should also review
th' ject in light of the rules and requirements of other regulating agencies.
A. u n, E.
Director of Engineering
TMD:dl
EngVrdti0425%.I1
April 23, 1996
APR 15 1936
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Attention: Stephen V. Kohler, Project Manager
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
SUBJECT: City of Seal Beach response to "Notice of Preparation of a Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project", dated April 16, 1996
0 Dear Mr. Kohler:
The City of Seal Beach has reviewed the above referenced NOP and has several areas
of concern which should be more thoroughly discussed in the Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR) for the proposed project.
The first concern is that the NOP does not clearly indicate that the following area of
concern have been identified as having a "Potentially Significant Impact":
Transportation/Circulation; Noise; and Aesthetics. To the casual reader of the document, this
oversight may lead individuals to believe that the project does not have many potentially
significant impacts which would be discussed in the DEIR.
Secondly, the following concerns should be addressed in the discussion regarding the
following environmental area of concerns:
■ Transportation and Circulation
The DEIR should clearly set forth "Impact Significance Criteria', which would
set forth criteria for both "Roadway Segments" and "Intersections". The above
discussed impact significance criteria should be utilized to insure that all
identifiable impacts are mitigated. Said analysis should extend from the project
D:IWPSI%RDAU411NOPCIR.LTRU VA04-22-%
NOP - Merger of Huntington Beads Redevelopment Project Areas
Ory of Seal Beach Response Lacer
April 23, 1996
areas along all major transportation/circulation routes until the significance
criteria are no longer exceeded.
A "Percent Trip Distribution Map" should be provided, indicating percentage of
project generated trips allocated to various roadway segments. A "Project Trip
Generation Summary" should also be provided, which would summarize the
following information:
■ Project Element
■ Number of Units and/or Acreage of Project Element Facilities
■ Estimated number of Daily Trips per Analysis Unit
■ AM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips, In, Out, and Total
■ PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips, In, Out, and Total
The potential for extreme congestion in the area, coupled with the increased
traffic generation from the Boisa Chica Project and other residential projects in
Huntington Beach should be carefully explored and discussed in the DEIR.
Congestion Management criteria should be incorporated into this analysis.
■ Noise
The DEIR needs to discuss the concern of exposure of people to severe noise
levels. The major construction -related impacts of the proposed project, including
demolition operations, need to be adequately analyzed as to the potential impacts
upon both construction workers on the subject site and workers of adjoining
employment sites, and residents on adjoining residential sites.
Thank you for your consideration of the comments of the City of Seal Beach. Please do
not hesitate to contact Mr. Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, at telephone
(310) 431-2527 if you have any questions regarding this matter. In addition, please provide five
(5) copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Report to his office for distribution to the City
Council when it is available. We look forward to reviewing the DEIR in detail when it is
available for public comments.
D,lWP5l1RDAMMNOPEIR.LTRXLW%09-22-% 2
•
NOP - Merger of Huntington Beadi Redevelopment Projeu Areas
Gry of Seal Beach Response Later
April 23, 1996
Sincerely,
ce Has gs
Mayor, City of Seal Beach
cc: City Council City Manager
Planning Commission Director of Development Services
Environmental Quality Control Board
•
9 n IWP5I nAUWO"-M.zT U-W%04-n-% 3
0 APPENDIX B
•
CULTURAL RESOURCES
7/19Hi5R I:1*G63QMMTTOC.WPD+
LFA AzxxtaMs, Inr-
Appendix B - Vrsual Survey Results for the Merged Project Area
Street Address
Est Date
I Description/Cominents
602 7th Street
1930s
residence -bungalow
616 7th Street
1930s
Iresidence-bun ow
Main, Palm & 7th intersect.
1930s?
Smith's Mortuary
619 Main Street
1930s
residence -bungalow
617 Main Street
1930s
residence -bun oar
609 Main Street
1930s
residence -bungalow
Iow
607 Main Street
1930s
(residence -bun ow
605 Main Street
1930s
Iresidence-Spanish Revival
603 Pecan Street
1930s
Iresidence-Spanish Revival
523 Pecan Street
1940s?
Iresidence "ranch" style
519 Pecan Street
1930s?
!residence -"firm style
515 Pecan Street
1930s (residence"farm" style
509 Pecan Street
1930s
Iresidence-bungalow
501 Penn Sweet
1920s
residence -bungalow
417 6th Street
1940s
Iresidence-bungalow
415 6th Stint 1193N
Iresidenee-bungalow
411 6th Street
1930s
Imidence-bungalow
409 6th Street
1930s
Ircsidence-bungalow
410 6th Street
IChurch, cons[. 1906 (HBGP)
323-327 6th Street
1930s
(apartment cow
317 6th Street
19303
residence -bungalow
313 6th Street
1930s
residence -bungalow
301 6th Street
1930s
Iresidence-! Farm style
225 6th Street
1940s?
I residence -"ranch" style
217 6th Street
1930s
residence-bu ow
211, 211 12 6th Street
1930s
duplex, 2-story
Walnut & 6th intersec.
1940s?
Owmnerrial
121 6th Street
1930s
residence-bu ow, 2-story
119 6th Street
1930s
residence -bungalow
6th St. & PCH intersec.
?
restaurant
520 Pacific Coast Hwy
1950s?
comrnemw
128 6th Street
1930s
Helm -worthy House, cons[. 1880s GP)
220 6th Street
1930s
residence -bungalow
308 6th Street
1930s
residence-bu ow
310 112.312 1I2 6th St.
1930s
I duplex-bu ow sryie
328 6th Street
1930s
Imidence-bu ow
5th & Orange intetsec.
1930s
I bungalow, no address visible
321 5th Street
loonstructed 1905 GP)
317 5th Street
Instructed 1910 P
313 5th Street
19305
midence-bungalow
311 5th Street
constructed 19303 (HBGP
r�
•
7118)96 it APP)
ISAAMCiuter, Ira
0
•
•
Appendix B - Visual Survey Results for the Merged Project Area
Street Address
Est. Date
Description/Comments
309 5th Street
?
residence
305 5th Stint
1930s40s?
(residence
5th & Olive intersec.
?
�cornmercial brick building
215 5th Street
?
2-story residence
213 5th Street
?
'restaurant
211A 211C 5th Street
1940s
Istucco apartments
205 5th Street
19305
Iresidence, bungalow
201 5th Street
1930s44s
(residence, "ranch" style
502. 506, 510 Walnut
1930s
laparLments
513. 517 Walnut
'Helm House Furnishing Co., coast. 1904 (fiBGP)
508 Pacific Coast Hwy
1930s
Irestaurant 7
204 5th Street
IShank House, coast. 1912 (HBGP
210 5th Street
19305?
commercial, 2-story
218, 218 12, 220 5th St
Ciry Hall & Jail, coast. 1918 TB:GP
470 Pacific Coast Hwy
11920s
commercial, 2-story, perhaps the H.B.
ICompany/E=hange
401 Main Street
1950s?
Immmtrcial
217 Main Street
i
I Pioneer Feed and Fuel, coast. 1904 (HBGP)
215 Main Street
2920s-30s
Icommercial, 2-story
213. 213 12 Main St.
H. B. Sheet Metal, coast. 1919 (HBGP
211-201 Main Street
205 Main St., H. B. News, aonst. 1904 GP
207 Main St., Princess Theater, cons. 1910 (HSGP
127 Main Street
1930S
'commercial
123 Main Street
Hunt' on Cafe, coast. 1906 (HBGP)
121 Main Street
19305
jcommer+cial
119. 119 1/2 Main Sr.
1930s
Commercial
117 Main Street
1930s
commercial, 2-story
116. 116 12 Main St.
?
commercial
120 Main Street
?
commercial
122 Main Street
Pacific City Hall, coast. 1903
124 Main Street
Obwr Drugs, ronst. 1910 (iM�GP
126 Main Street
Standard Drugs, coast. 1928 GP)
316 Olive Street
U.S. Post Office, coast. 1936 (HBGP
4110 Olive Street
Dr. Hawes Medical Bld . , coast. 1936 (HBG
316-328 Main Street
1930s-40s?
commercial
410 Main Street
1940s?
commercial, 2-story
424 Main Street
1940s?
commercial
419 Main Street
19403
commercial
610 Main Street
T s Garage, coast. 1933 (1LBGP) wooden
warehouse in rear
533 Lake Street
1930s
residence -bun ow
529 lake Street
1930s
residence -bun ow
7/IW (bUZSr,63 SNST-"
LSAAOwiaa4 Iw-
Appendix B - Visual Survey Results for the Merged Project Area
Street Address
Est. Date
I Description/Comments
Yorke & 6th St. incersec.
J`Brewstees Ice, 1945-1995-
505 Lake Street
I TERains House, const. 1915 GP)
201, 203, 205 Pecan St.
11930s
triplex
343 Pecan Street
11930s
residence -bungalows
431-435 Lake Street
Poss. eonst. 1915 (LSD
42Lk 421B, 421C Lake
A smaII complex o (5) bungalow -style buildings,
1925 court. date n (HPDF)
409 Lake Street
19305
residence -bungalow
407 Lake Strut
1930s
residence -bungalow
405 Lake Street
11930s
residence -bungalow
401 Lake Street
1930s40s
residence -bungalow
310 Orange Street
1930s
residence -bungalow
220 Walnut Street
1940s?
1 2-story apartments
Walnut Street
1940s
Icommercw
216 Walnut Street
1940s
commercial
214 3rd Street
1930s
residence -bungalow
218 3rd Street
193N
residence -bungalow
211, 217 Olive Street
1930s405
Iduplex
302 3rd Street
1930s
residence -bungalow
306 3rd Street
1930s
residence -bungalow
? 3rd Street
19305?
residence -bun ow
318 3rd Street
1930s?
residence-bu ow
320 3rd Street
1930s?
residence -bungalow
322 3rd Street
1930s?
residence -bungalow
324-328 3rd Street
1930-40s
(5)-plex
325 Orange Street
19305
rest&-nce-bungalaw
400 3rd Street
1930-40s
residence-bu ow
? 3rd Street
19305403
residence -bungalow
3212nd Street
1940s-50s
residence
317 2nd Street
1940s-50s Irwidence
313, 315 2nd Street
1940-50s Ictuplex
309 2nd Street
1940-50s
residence
305 2nd Street
1930s Jresidenmbungalow
215 2nd Street
1930s
residence -bun
112-116A 2nd Street
1930s?
(3) duplexes, bungalow -style
117 Walnut Street
?
residence
121 Walnut Street
193N
residence -bungalow
208 2nd Street
1930s
residence -bungalow
222 2nd Street
1930s
residence-bu aw
230 2nd Street
const. 1940 DF)
302 2nd Street
? Iresidence
•
•
7/18,96 (Z.Ut5G6-30%FZRWL9TU T"P)
M AsmCfare4 Irw.
•
Appendix B - Visual Survey Results for the Merged Project Area
Street Address
Est. Date
Description/Comments
304 2nd Street
1930s? !residence -bungalow
308 2nd Street
1930s Ieesidence-bungalow
310 2nd Street
1940s? 1residence-bungalow
316, 318 2nd Street
I ? Iduplex
106 olive Sueec
1930s? ;residence -bungalow
321 1st Street
.1950s
110 Pacific Coast Hwy
kconst- 1910 D
114 Pacific Coast Hwy
Garner House. cone 1905 GP)
508, 510 PCH
Store Eaees street, (2) bungalows are situated
1930s 1 behind (north of) the store
17201 Ash Street
1920s-30s jresidence-bun ow
17171 Ash Street
1930s (residence-S nish Revival
17142 Ash Street
1920s-30s residence -bungalow
17132 Ash Street
1920s-30s
Iresddence-bungalow
17131 Ash Street
1920s-30s
residence -bungalow
7761 Sycamore
1920s-305
residence -bungalow
7822 Sycamore
1920-303
residence -bungalow
7842 Sycamore
1920s-30s
residence -bungalow
? Sycamore
1920s-30s
residence -bungalow, no address visible
17061 Elm
1 1930-40s
residence -bungalow
17113 Elm
?
residence -bungalow
17141 Elm
1930s?
residence-bunplow
17221 Elm
1930s?
residence -bungalow
17242 Elm
?
residence, s e, house and associated
buildings are hidden behind a tall fence
7772 Cypress
11930s
residence -bun ow
? Cypress
1930s
residence -bungalow, no address visible
7862 Cypress
1930s?
residence -bungalow
7622 Warner St.
1930s?
Church and "&rm'3rYIe residence
7642 Warner
1930s
residence -bungalow
17038 or 17028. Oak
1930s (residence
-bur: ow
1802 Main Street
1930s
residence -bungalow, corut. 1927 F)
1812 Main Suva
1930s
residence -bungalow
1816 Main Street
193N
Craftsman style bungalow. conSL 1917 D
1837 Park Street
1930.40s?
residence -bungalow
1817 Park Street
?
residence-S nish Revival
1815 Pine Street
1930s
residence -"farm" style
1718 Alabama
1930s
residence -bungalow
2311 Florida Street
?
residence -"faun" style
2307 Florida Street 11930s
residence -bungalow
711806 (r .APp)
Caiifamis
Fiimxie
Resom=
..' tnve=ey
Deborah McLean
LSA Associates, Inc.
One Park Plaza, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92714
Regional Information Center ra Aosam 0moge- ventara Cc=iet 4%1- .
11996
May 9, 1
RE: Records Search for Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project, Orange County, CA
Dear Ms McLean,
As per your request of May 8, 1996, we have conducted a records search for the
above referenced project. This search includes a review of all recorded historic and
prehistoric archaeological sites within the project area as well as a review of all known
cultural resource survey and excavation reports. In addition, we have checked our file of
historic maps, the National Register of Historic Places, the California State Historic
Resources Inventory, the California Points of Historical interest, and the listing of
California Historical Landmarks in the region. The following is a discussion of our
findings for the project area.
PREHISTORIC RESOURCES:
Four prehistoric sites have been identified within a one -quarter mile radius of the
project areas (see enclosed map). These are: CA-0RA-276, CA-ORA-296, and CA-
ORA-359. One prehistoric site, CA-ORA-149, is located within the project area. This
site record is enclosed.
HISTORIC RESOURCES:
No historic archaeological sites have been identified within a one -quarter mile radius
of the project area.
Inspection of our historic maps — Las Bolsas (1896 and 1941) and Santa Ana (1894
and 1901) 15' series — indicates that by the turn of the century the community of
Huntington Beach consisted of a light street grid pattern. The area surrounding Bolsas
Creek, to the west of Huntington Beach (on the Seal Beach Quad), was a marsh Many
intermittent streams, two intermittent lakes, and Bolsas drainage ditch were also present
in this area A primary road ran east -west to the north of the project areas on the Seal
Beach Quad. The eastern part of the project area along the coast of Huntington Beach
consisted of a submerged marsh. The Southern Pacific Railroad, Smelter Branch, had
been constructed following the coast (between Newport Beach and Huntington Beach)
and traveling away from the coast to Las Bolsa, Talbert and Smeltzer. Light street grids
and scattered structures were concentrated around Talbert, Smelteer, and Wintersburg. A
marsh was also present in the Wintersburg area. By I941, the coastal area of Huntington
Beach consisted of a moderately dense street grid pattern. US 101, Pacific Coast
Highway, had been constructed. The - Pacific Electric Railroad had been constructed
following the coast Reservoir Hill had been named.
•
•
5as+h Crrral Cautsl Infortiuioa Center •UCIJ1 Iastimte oC.�rdtseoioRr • Fo,.dr+ Vf„c,,.... ,.� r-.a....., tr.«...... r .,. s ---'-- r-. . - . - --_- -
•
The National Register of Historic Places lists one property within a one -quarter mile
radius of the project areas. This is NR# 89001203, Huntington Beach Municipal Pier,
Main St. and Ocean Ave., Huntington Beach, declared 8/24/89.
The California State Historic Resources Inventory lists numerous properties within a
one -quarter mile radius of the project areas. A copy of the listing is enclosed. Properties
that fall within the one -quarter mile radius of the project areas are highlighted. Most of
these fall within the radius of the project area in downtown Huntington Beach, in the
vicinity of the coast..
The listings of the California Historical Landmarks of the Office of Historic
Preservation, California Department of Parks and Recreation, indicate that there are no
California Historical Landmarks within a one -quarter mile radius of the project area
The California Points of Historical Interest identifies no properties within a one -
quarter mile radius of the project area.
PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS:
Five surveys and/or excavations have been conducted within a one -quarter mile
radius of the project areas (see enclosed map and bibliography). Two, 0-880 and 0-998,
are located within the project areas.
Please forward a copy of any reports resulting from this project to our office as soon
as possible. Due to the sensitive nature of site location data, we ask that you do not
include record search maps in your report. If you have any questions regarding the
results presented herein, please feel free to contact our -office at (310) 825-1980.
Invoices are mailed approximately two weeks after records searches. This enables
your firm to request further information under the same invoice number. Please reference
the invoice number listed below when malting inquires. Requests made after invoicing
necessitate the preparation of a separate invoice with a $ IS. 00 handling fee.
Enclosures:
M
Map
(3�
Bibliography
()
Site list
M
Site records
( )
Survey reports
{X)
Confidentiality Form
( )
Invoice # 6131
Sincerely,
ScarIett Hite
Staff Archaeologist
•
•
APPENDIX C
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7/1BJ96wL-V*G63VJMT0C.WPDw
Appendix C - Sensitive Elements of Biological Diversity Reported from or Potentially Occurring to the
City of Huntington Beach
Element Name
Level of
Common NameAclentilic Name
Occurrence
Concern'
Comment "
NATURAL COMMUNITIES
Southern Foredunes
Along PCH between Beach Blvd.
High
Some natural re-establishment occurring along
and the Santa Ana River, Hunting-
PCH; restoration efforts in effect for mitigation for
ton Reach Wetlands
widening of PCH by Caltrans.
Southern Dune Scrub
Babbitt Island in Bolsa Chica,
High
Very little left in the region as suitable habitat is also
Huntington Beach Wetlands
prime development land.
Southern Coastal Salt Marsh
Present at Bolsa Chica and Hun-
high
Protection and restoration efforts are on -going in
tington Beach Wetlands
the City.
Southern Mixed Riparian Forest
Extirpated because of channeliza-
Low
Restoration of this community would require exten-
tion
sive changes to the flood control facilities of the
City.
PLANTS
Los Angeles Sunflower
Last seen in Orange County in
Low
Species likely extinct because of modiftcation of
Hellanthus nuttall i parlshll
1933
habitat.
Ventura marsh milk vetch
Listed In "La Bolsa", not recorded
Low
Likely extinct, small possibility that it is on the Seal
lanoslsslmus
in recent surveys (last seen 1882)
Beach Weapons Station.
Salt marsh bird's -beak
All known Orange County popula-
Moderate
While surveys have not found this species, the salt
Cordylanthus m. maritlmus
tons at Newport Back clay
marsh habitat restoration projects offer opportunity
for its reintroduction.
+ Level of concern for the City of Huntington Beach:
High: Policies and actions by the City should be used to preserve the element.
Moderate: There are potential occurrences of an element or for its restoration within the Planning Area; policies should
support preservation/restoration activities.
Low: Unlikely any City action useful in preservation/restoration of the clement.
6A"6A%\%SG6WiIt141o1AGYAPP*
Appendix C - Sensitive Elements of Biolo lca� iversi Reported from or Potentinll Occurring In the
App 8 h' p Y 8
City of Huntington Bench, Continued
Element Name
Level of
Common Name/Scientific Name
Occurrence
Concern*
Comment
aphanisma
Not seen In Orange County since
Moderate
While not seen, potential for occurrence in the
Aphanlsma blitoldos
1932
coastal bluffs of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands.
Gambel's bittercress
In "swampy sites" of Iluntington
Low
Ibttirpated from Orange County. Unlikely candidate
Rorlppagambelii
Beach, last seen in 1908
for reintroduction.
Orange County 71ukish rugging
Known from Newport Beach
l,ow
Lack of suitable habitat in the City for this species.
Chorlrantbe staticoldes cbrysacantba
Southern spikeweed
Known from flood control than-
Moderate
Although habitat has been destroyed by channeliza-
Hemlxonla parry! australls
nels, mouth of the Santa Ana
Lion there is a potential for this species to occur in
River, formerly in Westminster
the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and elsewhere in the City.
and Garden Grove
Southwestern spiny rush
Pound in Bolsa Chica, and else-
High
Threatened by reduction of habitat by urbanization.
Juncus acutus lopaoldll
where in the City
Gairdner's yampah, Squaw root
Formerly found near the Dolsa
Low
Presumed extirpated from Orange County.
Parldarldlag. galndnM
Chica Gun Club (1932)
Sanford's arrow -head
Freshwater areas of Huntington
Moderate
Least seen in 1975, chance that with preservation of
Sagltlarla sandjordll
Beach and East Garden Grove-
habitat, the plant will be maintained.
Winteraburg channels
Estuary sea-blite
Present at Dolsa Chica Salt Marsh
High
Threatened by reduction of habitat by urbanization.
Suacda asteroa
* Level of concern for the City of Huntington Beach:
High: Policies and actions by the City should be used to preserve the element.
Moderate: There are potential occurrences of an element or for its restoration within the Planning Area; policies should
support preservation/restoration activities.
Low: Unlikely any City action useful in preservationlrestoration of the element.
4/ Wdm1:1R$G63fttft10LOGYAPP» 2
Appendix C • Sensitive Elements of Biological Diversity Reported from or Potentially Occurring in the
City of Huntington Beach, Continued
Mement Name
Level of
Common Name/Scientific Name
Occurrence
Concern*
Comment
crown -beard
Found near Arch Beach (outside
N.A.
Without further studies as to whether plants are
Yarbaslna dlsslta
Planning Area)
found in the: Planning Area, the level of concern is
unknown.
ANIMALS
Monarch butterfly
Roost trees found in the vicinity of
High
Proposed development of Bolsa Chica may threaten
Dartausplexlppus
Bolsa Chica
roost trees.
Oblivious tiger beetle
Bolsa Chica
high
Proposed restoration projects may create short
Clclndela lateslgnata obllviosa
term disruptions during implementation, but in-
creases in habitat are beneficial.
Gabb's tiger beetle
Locational information sup-
High
Proposed restoration projects may create short
Clcfndelagabbf
pressed, but likely in coastal
term disruptions during Implementation, but in-
saltmarsh habitats.
creases in habitat are beneficial.
Gravid tiger beetle
Only known location has been
high
Proposed restoration projects may create sho t-
Clclndela blrticollirgravlda
extirpated; may occur in other
term disruptions during implementation, but in-
saltmarsh habitats.
creases in habitat are beneficial.
Frost's tiger beetle
"Huntington Beach" Salt Marsh
lligh
Proposed restoration projects may create short-
Clclndela senlllsjrcwi
(exact location suppressed by Cal-
term disruptions during implementation, but in-
ifornia Fish and Game)
creases in habitat are beneficial.
California brackishwater snail
Shells collected in Bolsa Chica
High
Threatened by habitat modification, either by devel-
Y'yonla imitator
Wetlands and at fioisa Chica
opment or flood control projects.
Beach
+ Level of concern for the City of Huntington Beach:
lligh: Policies and actions by the City should be used to preserve the element.
Moderate: There are potentlal occurrences of an element or for its restoration within the Planning Area; policies should
support preservation/restoration activities.
low: Unlikely any City action useful in preservation/restoration of the element.
Q2&V644ARSGd301E M010L:OGYAPP* 3
Appendix C • Sensitive Elements of Biological Diversity Reported from or Potentially Occurring in the
City of Huntington Beach, Continued
Element Name
Level of
Common Name/Scientific Name
Occurrence
Concern•
Comment
tidewater goby
Found In shallow areas of bays,
Moderate
Potential candidate for introduction as part of wet-
Eucycloglobius newberryl
lagoons and estuaries. Unknown
land restoration projects.
if populations extirpated or ex-
isted in the past.
San Diego coast homed lizard
No recorded occurrence in the
Moderate
Probable resident in the upper mesa areas (Sea-
Pbrynosoma cononatum blatnvlllei
Planning Area, found from
cliff), Seal Beach and West Seal Beach
Ventura County to lower Califor-
nia
Silvery [California[ legless lizard
Not recorded In the Planning Area
Moderate
Because of the existence ofsuitable habitat (sand
Aniella p. pulcbra
dunes) may he a resident,
Great blue heron
Common forager at BOlsa Chica,
l ligh
While there are no rookery areas, threats to forag-
Ardea berodlas
no known rookery sites in the
Ing areas by development are possible.
Planning Area
Snowy egret
Foraging at Solsa Chica and Santa
high
While there are no rookery areas, threats to forag-
4retta tbula
Ana River
ing areas by devclopment are possible.
Black -crowned night -heron
Foraging In Talbert lake area
Moderate
Restoration of the freshwater marsh and riparian
Nycticorax nyctiorgac
areas near Central Park may provide new foraging
areas, but nesting unlikely.
Cooper's hawk
Common fail transient
Moderate
The Planning Area lacks nesting habitat; but this
Acclplter coopanY
species can use the grassland and marsh areas to
forage.
• Level of concern for the City of Huntington Beach:
High: Policies and actions by the City should be used to preserve the element.
Moderate: There are potential occurrences of an element or for its restoration within the Planning Area; policies should
support preservation/restoration activities.
Low: Unlikely any City action useful in preservatlon/restoration of the element.
y2"61Xt:1R5G63%01 "Io1,OGYJV P*
0
1 rrvPl of cnncern for the City of 11untinitton Beach:
Appendix C - Sensitive Elements of Biological Diversity Reported from or Potentially Occurring in the
City of Huntington Reach, Continued
glement Name
Level of
Common Name4clentific Name
Occurrence
Concern*
Comment
Bank swallow
Last seen In the Seacllffarea In
low
Unlikely except as a migrant
Riparia rlparia
1918
black swift
Seen regularly in the Planning
Moderate
Unlikely except as a migrant
Cypseto ides ttiger
Area as transient
least Bell's vireo
No known occurrence In the Plan-
Low
Unlikely except as a migrant
Viso ball! pusillus
ping Area
Caiiiornia gnatcatcher
NW- known occurrence in the Plan-
Low
No suitable habitat in the Planning Area
Yo:goptila californica
ning Area
western yellow -billed cuckoo
No known occurrence in the Plan-
Low
Unlikely except as a migrant
Coccyeusam&Hcanus occldentalis
ning Area
Belding's savannah sparrow
Nesting areas in pickleweed
High
Threatened by changes in tidal regimes in wetlands
Passemulus sandwicbewls baldingi
marsh of Bolsa Chiea, Huntington
areas from channelization and stream inflow regula-
Beach Wetlands, and Talbert
tion. Restoration projects may create new habitat.
Marsh
Pacific pocket mouse
Believed extirpated north of the
Low
Habitat may be present; however, large-scale resto-
Porogttathus longimr mbris pacificus
San Joaquin Hills In southern Or-
ration would be required to reintroduce this ape-
ange County
cies.
• Level of concern for the City of Huntington Beach:
High- Policies and actions by the City should be used to preserve the element.
Moderate: There are potential occurrences of an element or for its restoration within the Planning Area; policies should
support preservation/restoration activities.
Low; Unlikely any City action useful in preservation/restoration of the element.
6A"69I,1RSG630 ffM10WGYA?P- 6
0 0 9
•
Excerpts From Report on the
Plan Amendment 1996
•
•
� Huntington Beach Redevelopment Plan
Preliminary Report Excerpts on the
Physical and Economic Blighting
Conditions of
Huntington Center
•
•
SECTION B
A Description of the Physical and Economic Blighting
Conditions Existing in the Project Area
This section of the Preliminary Report describes the blighting conditions that continue to exist
within the Project Area.
At the time the Existing Plans were adopted, the City Council concluded that each of the
Constituent Areas were blighted; the blight analyses of these Constituent Areas are contained in
the Reports to the City Council for each of the areas listed below, and are incorporated into this
Preliminary Report by reference:
• Yorktown -Lake Redevelopment Project: "Report to the City Council on the
Yorktown -Lake Redevelopment Plan" documenting blight for the Yorktown -Lake
Redevelopment Project adopted on September 20, 1982;
• Talbert -Beach Redevelopment Pro'ect: "Report to the City Council on the
Talbert -Beach Redevelopment Plan" documenting blight for the Talbert -Beach
Redevelopment Project adopted on September 20, 1982;
Main -Pier Redevelopment Project: "Report to the City Council on the Main -Pier
Redevelopment Plan" documenting blight for the Main -Pier Redevelopment
Project Original Area on September 20, 1982 and the "Report to the City Council
on the Main -Pier Redevelopment Project -Plan Amendment No. 1" documenting
blight for the Main -Pier Redevelopment Project Added Area adopted on
September 6, 1983;
• Oakview Redevelo meet Project: "Report to the City Council on the Oakview
Redevelopment Plan" documenting blight for the Oakview Redevelopment
Project adopted on November 1, 1982 and the "Report to the City Council for
Amendment No. One to the Oakview Redevelopment Project" documenting
blighting conditions for the July 5, 1989 Amendment; and
Huntin on Center Commercial District Redevelo ment Project: "Report to the
Council -Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Plan"
documenting blight for the Huntington Center Commercial District
Redevelopment Project adopted on November 26, 1984.
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. Redevelopmenr Agency ojthe Ciy of Huntington Beach
August, 1996 B-1 Preliminary Report
Properties No Longer Blighted
Section 33354.6(b) of the Law requires that a redevelopment agency identify in a preliminary
report any portions of a project area that are no longer blighted. Due to the completion of
redevelopment projects within the Talbert -Beach and Yorktown -Lake Areas, the Agency has
removed physical and economic blighting conditions affecting approximately 55 acres, or 8%, of
the 619-acre Project Area.
Although the Law does permit the Agency to remove nonblighted properties from the Project
Area, such a disposition would severely impair the Agency's ability to pay its obligations. These
obligations include debt service on four separate loan agreements with the Huntington Beach
Public Financing Authority with respect to the $33,495,000 1992 Revenue Bonds ("1992
Bonds"). The 1992 Bond indenture prohibits removing territory without bond holder approval.
Preliminary analysis indicates that if these are removed, tax increment revenues would drop and
impair the Agency's ability to meet bond revenue pledge commitments from these areas.
Further, the Plan includes road improvements, traffic signals, police facility renovations, and
other improvements that will benefit the entire Project Area, including the Yorktown -Lake and
Talbert -Beach Areas. Therefore, the Agency is unable to remove any territory from the Project
Area at this time.
Existing BIighting Conditions in the Project Area
Despite the Agency's best efforts, many blighting conditions that were evident when the Existing
Plans were adopted are still present today. These conditions include the following:
• Defective Design and Character of Physical Construction,
• Faulty Exterior Spacing,
• High Density of Population and Overcrowding,
0 • Inadequate Provision for Sanitation Facilities,
Rosenow Spevacek Croup, Inc Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
August, 1996 113-2 Preliminary Report
• Age, Obsolescence, and Deterioration,
• Subdivided Lots of Irregular Form, Shape, and Size,
• Inadequate Public Improvements and Facilities, and
• Social and Economic Maladjustment
Historically, redevelopment of the Project Area has been directly facilitated by the Agency. In
order to mitigate the remaining blight within the Project Area, the Agency desires to intensify its
efforts through an expanded redevelopment program. The Plan enables the Agency to enact new
projects and programs to remove remaining physical and economic conditions.
Huntin on Center Area
The Huntington Center Redevelopment Project Area was established in November 1984 as a
means to improve deteriorating and substandard commercial properties. The Huntington Center
Area includes office and retail uses, including the 960,000 square foot Huntington Beach Mall
C'Mall" }. The Mall comprises 58 acres, or 36.3% of the total acreage of the Huntington Center
Area A 23% drop of assessed values in this area between 1990 and 1996 has undercut the
Agency's ability to fund needed improvements. This funding shortfall, coupled with an inability
to incur debt after November 1996, inhibit the Agency's ability to remove blighting conditions,
including:
• the increasingly obsolete and deteriorating Mall,
• traffic congestion on Edinger Avenue, Center Avenue, and Beach Boulevard, and
• awkward lot configurations on Edinger Avenue.
•
In 1982, the Mall (then named Huntington Center) was found to be one of the poorest performing
regional malls in the Los Angeles basin. At that time, the Mall generated taxable sales as much
as 64% below shopping centers of comparable size. Since that time, many regional shopping
centers of the same vintage in Orange County have either undergone a major renovation or been
demolished and replaced with a different retail development; many of these centers compete for .
Rosenow Spevacek Group, !nc. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Hunfiggion Beach
August, 1996 B-3 Preliminary Report
the same shoppers as the Huntington Beach Mall. In 1987, the Mall expanded by 13%, or
107,332 gross leasable square feet, adding a Mervyn's department store, a food court, and
additional in -line shop space. Despite this expansion, sales at the Mall have continued to fall. In
1983, the Mall generated $85,067,000 in taxable sales, or approximately $98 per square foot. By
1995, sales volume declined to $82 per square foot.
According to an analysis of taxable sales trends of shopping centers in the market area compiled
by Hinderliter de Llamas and Associates (" WL"), the Mall has steadily declined in the face of
other centers' solid performance. Exhibit B-] presents a summary of the Mall's taxable sales
volumes versus that of nearby centers. Between 1992 and 1995, taxable sales decreased from
$116,272,400 to $78,743,800, or nearly 32.3%.
The Mall's declining sales also impact nearby retail uses along the Edinger Avenue Corridor
according to the Edinger Corridor Economic Market Study ("Edinger Corridor Study") prepared
by Cunningham and Associates in October 1995. The Mali, located on the north side of Edinger
40 Avenue, attracts shoppers to retail uses on the south side of Edinger Avenue. The Edinger
Corridor Study found that as sales declined by 34% at the Mall between 1992 and 1994, sales in
the Edinger Corridor declined by 21%. (Approximately one-half of the retail uses along the
Edinger Avenue Corridor are located within the Project Area.)
These sales statistics are indicative of the declining viability of the Mall as a location where
consumers shop. In 1995, the Orange County Register conducted a survey of consumer attitudes
towards fifteen regional retail centers frequented by County residents. Tables B-1, B-2, and B-3
enumerate consumers' attitudes towards the Mall. The Register survey found that the Mall lost
more shoppers than any other center in the survey. The reasons why consumers shopped Iess
frequently at the Mall included the following:
• variety of stores limited,
• favorite store closed, and
• getting run down.
Rosenow Spevarek Group, Ina Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
August, 1996 13-4 Preliminary Report
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project
Preliminary Report
EXERPTS FROM 1995 ORANGE COUNTY CONSUMER ATTITUDE SURVEY
MALL SHOPPING FREQUENCY (1994 TO 1995)
Shopping Center, Location Shopped Shopped Net Gain
More Less or Loss
In 1995 in 1995
1. MainPlace, Santa Ana
12.5%
4.2%
8.3%
2. Brea Mall, Brea
10.6%
6.5%
4.1 %
3. Westminster Mail, Westminster
10.6%
7.1 %
3.5%
4. Fashion Island, Newport Beach
6.7%
3.6%
3.1 %
5. Laguna Hills Mall, Laguna Hills
8.9%
6.0%
2.9%
6. Tustin Market Place, Tustin
1.8%
0.4%
1.4%
7. Buena Park Mall, Buena Park
6.6%
5.9%
0.7%
8. Crystal Court, Costa Mesa
0.5%
0.1 %
0.4%
9. Anaheim Plaza, Anaheim
1.6%
1.4%
0.2%
10. Los Cerritos Center, Cerritos
12%
2.1 %
-0.9%
11. South Coast Plaza, Costa Mesa
17.8%
21.1 %
-3.3%
12. Mission Viejo Mall, Mission Viejo
5.2%
9.2%
-4.0%
13. The City, Orange
0.6%
4.8%
-4.2°%
14. Mall of Orange, Orange
2.8%
8.2%
-5.4%
}}�, v�ru..tY3,'/Nf�'ji n�'.iK..:. ��!{..py. •w�y....;w'{.�Y. 'gym x1 - -- -r -- /i�T .. Q[%„Y? �-M$'i$`.f.� ti j
Si�r�.'Y \V.�M■i�n'. �/�:i'f�l�� {�{-. �<]r,-r':.��-f1..--�%2::.w4.-+-�=Ky"...-. �--M--F-x.Y�.=�a�.----•-.
Source: Orange County Register
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project
Preliminary Report
EXERPTS FROM 1995 ORANGE COUNTY CONSUMER ATTITUDE SURVEY
REASONS FOR SHOPPING LESS FREQUENTLY AT HUNTINGTON BEACH MALL
Reason Huntington Average Score Difference
Beach of Orange County
Mall Score Shopping Centers
Variety of stores limited
Favorite store location closed
Location not convenient
Getting nun down
Source: Orange County Register
48.3%
19.7%
28.6%
28.1 %
9.6%
18.5%
20.2%
32.0%
-11.8%
5.6%
5.2%
0.4%
•
•
Rosenow Sptvacek Group, Inc.
Register Survey B Prdrpt 811/% 1 of 1
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project
0 Preliminary Report
•
EXERPTS FROM 1995 ORANGE COUNTY CONSUMER ATTITUDE SURVEY
CONSUMER ASSESSMENT OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MALL
Attribute Huntington Average Score Difference
Beach of Orange County (HB Mall vs. OC Centers)
Mall Score Shopping Centers 1995 1994
It's convenient
73.1 %
77.2%
-4.1 %
2.5%
Convenient/adequate parking
69.4%
61.7%
7.7%
13.1%
Pleasant atmosphere
47.8%
64.0%
-16.2%
1.2%
Has well-lit/safe parking
43.6%
50.2%
-6.6%
11.2°%
Feeling of security/safety
40.9%
50.6%
-9.7%
-0.8%
Up-to-date. attractive appearance
39.6%
60.9%
-21.3%
-13.8%
Good choice of stores (1)
33.7%
58.5%
-24.8%
-22.7%
It's fun to shop
25.8%
39.9%
-14.1%
-9.3%
Convenient layout of stores (1)
24.3%
34.7%
-10.4°%
-3.1%
Special mall events
21.5%
17.6%
3.9%
15.8°%
Good restaurant selection
17.1%
37.9%
-20.8%
-11.4°%
Activities for children
7.6%
15.9°%
-8.30%
-8.3%
Notes: (1) Lowest score of all fifteen shopping centers in survey.
Source: Orange County Register
Rosenow Spevaoeh Group, Inc.
Register Survey A PreN* SUM 1 or 1
EXHIBIT B-1
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
PRELUVRNARY REPORT
Quarterly Sales Tax Volumes
of Nearby Shopping Centers
L]
•
•
' U-f' T -g fir.: THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
danw
anawa m :=J:: MALLS - 13 QUARTER HISTORY
'Romw Chart Description: This chart compares safes tax revenues within specified Geographic area(s) of the City to similar GEO areas
in 6 other jurisdictions. The prior 12 quarters are shown for historical reference purposes.
Comparison Ciao Qsuners Shown Reflect The Penod In Which The Safes Occurred 5
South Coast Plaza
Outlets = 244
Los Cerritos Center
Outleu = 192Afta a
n Place -Santa Ana
.....................
rashion Island
--- • - - - --
Outlets =192
Westminster Mall
Outlets r. 20Y
Buena Park Mall
Outlets =160
Huntington Ctr
Outleu = 76
0
n .
, •-sir! . _a r. ;-
S.
.00
r.
2.320-000
2.oEd.00o
UF
a+....
1.624.000
1.392.000
f,160.000
926.WD
696.000
964.000
BLOW
OIL,
41h Qtr Its QU 2nd QU 3rd Qv Wf QU 1st Qu 2nd Qv 3rd Qc 4th Qtr tss Qu tad QU 3sd Qa 4th Qc
'92 93 94 94 94 1 .95 95 93 95
Overall, consumers surveyed rated the Mall well below average in desired attributes of shopping
centers; the survey ranked the Mall last in two attributes, including good choice of stores and
convenient layout of stores.
Another reason for the continued decline of the Mall is its poor physical condition. In June,
1996, Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. C'RSG") conducted a parcel -by -parcel land use and blight
survey. At the Mall, the RSG field survey noted the deteriorating facade and parking lot. The
anchor spaces occupied by the Broadway and Montgomery Ward reflect a 30-year old design,
and the entire Mall is tired and uninviting by today's standards. Based on an analysis of building
permits, the original 823,000 square foot structure of the Mall has not undergone substantial
rehabilitation since the Agency adopted the Existing Plan in 1984. Table B4 itemizes the
building permits issued for improvements to the Mali over the past 12 years.
Inside the Mali, the number of vacancies of the in -line stores is overwhelming. Of the 74 in -line
shops, 50% were vacant. In the Broadway wing of the Mall alone, 14 of the 19 in -line stores
were vacant. Photo B-1 was taken on a Friday, June 7, 1996, at about 5:00 p.m., and shows
numerous vacant store spaces and the Mall virtually devoid of any shoppers.
Rosenow Spevaeek Group, Inc Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
August, 1996 13-5 Preliminary Report
•
PHOTO B-1
�,_.?r ... max: .i ;;n.•, ;~' �•.PU.
Broadway wing of the Mall. As of June 1996, one-half of the in -line stores at the Mall
were vacant_
In addition to vacancies of the in -lime stores, the Mall is faced with an uncertain future for the
Broadway anchor space. Following the acquisition of the Broadway department store chain and
subsequent consolidation of the Broadway and Bullock's department stores by Federated Stores
in 1995, the new owner announced plans to close the Huntington Beach location in August 1996.
This announcement marks the second anchor tenant to abandon the Mall in the past 36 months;
J.C. Penney closed its location at Huntington Beach Mall in favor of Westminster Mall in 1993.
The prospects of finding a new tenant that could utilize the Broadway space are discouraging,
given the consolidation trend of department stores, and a shift in consumer shopping preferences
towards open-air discount centers.
Exhibit B-2 is a copy of an April 1996 article from the Orange County Re ister that describes the
woes of retailers at the MaII. According to the article, one tenant (Radio Shack) lost $30,000 last
year and has signed a short-term lease in the face of the Mall's uncertainty. According to City
0 staff, most of the in -line store spaces are leased on a month -to -month basis.
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
August, 1996 B-6 Preliminary Report
TABLE B4
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project
Preliminary Report
BUILDING PERMIT HISTORY
IMPROVEMENTS TO HUNTINGTON BEACH MALL SINCE 1984
Date Permit No. Project Description Permit Value
1986 Projects $ 3,281.001
n/a Addition of skylights to common area n/a
1/17/86 Retail addition of $2,927 sf Mervyn's anchor store n/a
3117/86 Retail addition of Broadway entry n/a
8/25/86 Retail winglfood court addition (74,841 SO S 2.915,285
10/16/86 Construct decorative drywall $ 10,000
12/1/86 Regional center expansion $ 355.716
1989 Proiects $ 70,383
2/13/89 Renovation of JO Penney exterior front enterance $ 24,533
6/19/89 Reroof hot mop 30,000 sf $ 45,000
6/30/89 Remodel food court n/a
8/30/89 Addition to Center Court stores (6 stores 300-800 sf) n/a
1215/89 One illuminated mall sign $ $50
1990 Proiects
916190
Commercial improvements for administrative offices
$
40,000
1012190
Corridor extension
$
900
11/13/90
Channel letters - one sign
$
750
1991 Projects
$
10,000
5130/91
Repair exterior wall
$
10,000
1993 rotects
$
10,000
4/5/93
Extending two shops - tenant bulkhead extension
$
10,000
1995 Proiects
$
106,641
1120195
Seismic strengthing of outside store canopy
S
6,457
1/20/95
Seismic strengthing/roof repair of fire center
$
35,519
6/16/95
Tear off existing roof and reroof
$
64,665
TOTAL PROJECTS
$
3,478,025
Note: Excludes tenant improvements for anchors, shops and outlying pads.
Source: City of Huntington Beach Building Department Building Permit Records
•
Roserow Spevaa* Group, Inc.
Ma Impmements PreW 8V M 1 or 1
•
Irrespective of the fate of the Broadway space, the Mall property is in dire need of a substantial
redevelopment effort to reestablish its viability as a regional retail location. The property owner
is constrained from making major modifications to the Mall structure to accommodate new
tenants due to the Mall's construction. Because the underlying expansive soils do not support
major buildings or foundations, the Mall had to be constructed on pylons below the surface.
According to City staff estimates, expansion of the Mall outside of the current footprint would
require similar engineering work that could increase construction costs by 30%. Due to low
occupancy rates, the Mall cannot generate sufficient resources to fund these additional costs.
Given the Mall owner's limited ability to improve the Mall, the Agency desires to assist the
property owner with a major renovation of the Mali that will reposition the Mall and reestablish
its economic viability.
Section E of this Preliminary Report indicates that the direct and financing costs associated with
the Mall repositioning and other Project Area commercial rehabilitationleconomic development
programs could be $250 million. As discussed in Section D, without the Amendment/Merger,
the Agency will only collect another $75.1 million of nonhousing tax increment revenue.
Therefore, repositioning of the Mall cannot be undertaken by the Agency in the absence of the
proposed Amendment/Merger because the cost of such a repositioning would exceed the amount
of revenues available to the Agency under the Existing Plan. The Existing Plan also limits the
amount of bonded debt to $26.45 million in the Huntington Center Area; the Agency has issued
$12.62 mullion of bonded debt for the Huntington Center Area to date. Thus, the Existing Plan
permits the issuance of another $13.83 mullion. Because the costs of redeveloping the Mall
exceed the remaining bonding capacity, the Agency will need to increase the amount of bonded
indebtedness that can be incurred for the Huntington Center Area.
Another goal of the Existing Plan for the Huntington Center Area was to correct infrastructure
deficiencies which caused traffic congestion. In 1984, the intersections of Edinger Avenue and
Beach Boulevard, and Center Avenue and the Interstate 405 ramps were operating at or below
9 minimum standards; these conditions persist today. Traffic operation is measured using a level
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Ina Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
August, 1996 B-7 Preliminary Report
of service ("LOS") scale from LOS A, meaning free flow of traffic, to LOS F, meaning extreme
congestion and delays. As a general criteria, the City's acceptable level of service is LOS C for
arterial links, and LOS D for signalized intersections. According to a traffic study conducted by
the County Environmental Management Agency in 1994, this intersection continues to operate at
LOS E. The Center Avenue/Interstate 405 intersection has become more congested over the last
10 years, decreasing from LOS D in 1984 to LOS E in 1994. Also, Beach Boulevard is currently
operating at LOS F through this portion of the Project Area, according to the Draft
Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") for the Project prepared by LSA Associates.
Lots on the south side of Edinger Avenue, between the railroad right-of-way and Beach
Boulevard, lack internal circulation and sufficient parking due to mixed ownership. The lack of
integration between these retail and office properties create excessive curb cuts on Edinger
Avenue for ingress and egress. Because vehicles must use Edinger Avenue when traveling to
adjacent stores, traffic on Edinger Avenue is congested. Mixed ownership also poses a barrier to
shared use of parking lots on individual parcels, causing some retail properties to be
underparked. Pursuant to conversations with commercial brokers in the area, lack of parking, as
well as the underperformance of the Mall, cause prospective tenants to discard the vacant 50,000
square foot retail space as a viable Iocation.
Section E of this Preliminary Report includes a listing of the on -site and street improvements to
improve traffic circulation in this area.. Due to the lack of tax increment revenues, the Agency
has not been able to work with property owners on the south side of Edinger Avenue to construct
needed on- and off -site improvements. Therefore, infrastructure projects have been deferred to
the future. The Plan will allow the Agency to utilize tax increment revenues from other portions
of the Project Area to improve traffic circulation in the Huntington Center Area Another benefit
of the Amendment/Merger is the extension of the time period to incur debt. Without the
Amendment/Merger, the Agency will not be able to incur indebtedness to finance infrastructure
improvements because the Existing Plan prohibits the Agency from incurring debt after
November 1996. The Plan enables the Agency the ability to finance these improvements in the
future by extending the period to incur debt to 2014. 9
Rosenow Spevacek Croup, Inc. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
Augmt,1996 1" Preluninary Report
I W4 6. 11:1
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
PRELIMINARY REPORT
April 1996 Article from Orange County Register
Regarding Decline of Huntington Beach Mall
•
0
GtVIHG UP: A shoe hove at tht Htvnlington Reach MAD holds a 9ang-00of-0lx eq safe. A MKYs c milli m CWW boost OW Gang SWIL
UNCERTAIN FUTURE
RETAIL: The rebuilding of Huntington Beach Fall hinges an whether Federated will close Broadway.
ey QQYEN OWN Orange Cour+ry aego"
Froze Ht/"toa Reads
The via Is Htmtu4xon Beach's singie
Largest business and is second only to the
Car dealerships in generating rcvmue for
40
The
future of the Hunungtm
Beach Ma remains in limbo as
Federated Departmeol Stores
weighs whether to close the
snuff's Broadway store or only
the City.
David B;�a the atry's director of eco-
nomies and redcrdopas mt. said the Mau
generated hearty it-g million in tat reve-
nue m the early Ims. Last year, it brought
to a record iow ii00 m.
ers ono ciry onieur• eager is rcnu,w tric
mall but needing Fedcfa;eWs decis on to
ppaanntt to a strategy- Federated acquired the
Broadway chain in October and sus an.
uomlced the fate of all but four of its R2
stores.
Federated will atmotmee its ciewioo for
the lane Orange Cooney Broadway before
the cod al the year. said spokeswoman
Mary Ann SluAw t. Previously. Federated
announced plans to core" a Broadway
Stores to Macy's end five to Bloomuigdaks.
Others were sold off or turned into warn
bouaes.
A Macy's conversion la Huntington
999999�
a pawerral se.1ling point isditional mall sores to tepop• neater, which fa sae-thirdv. tM loss of another an-
ould probably kid to a rsposiboning
of the mail. poe ibly as a disamxt and en.
tertaintrient mecca -
'we're har[glag an the decision they have
]o make," mall spokeswoman Linda Soo-
monstine said The owner. MCA Hanting[on
Or Associates. is considering addiag restan-
cants end cinemas to bring back the
Frowds that deserted the mall after J.C-
ty moved to the Westminster Mall in
vember t993
- The threat of losing anotber bit store has
many merchants wondering about the
WAI1WG fT OUr: Rad'o 9wdl mulager
_David Johnson, hotding a swnple of 14 vgrq
rays Cie atone lost MAM lass year.
mall's ability to attract
" fbe day penney's left the mall was
downhM." said Marsha Baumam . owner of
Cardo's Footwear, who is moving her baal-
aess Monday to a strip shall In Laguna
Beach. "it's a sbock to walk through. It's
empty like a thou town. It doesn't even
feel like a mall."
Radio Stack. wtuch usually OVU up fa
five- to loyear leases. rtwwedfor otly die
year in 19". said store maaagw David
Johnson. whose store heat f20 ON I&st year.
City offiesals want to see the malt m
vamped faro a safes -tax powerhouse Their
ideas range from supply filling vacancies
and remodeling to demolishing the mail
and turning it mto a "power center" filled
with big -box discounters such as Cossm and
Wal-Mart-
Into th[ old Penney location At the end of
Septcmbcr, and BafMi & ,blc Bookselt-
ors mOctober, which filled theroold Barker
Bra& location in a ft
to building neat to
Cw=t City and Suptes.
overall. sales tax provAts $16 million of
the ary's SW mdlm operating budget.
man **,anti said they're working with
the city but cannot move forward until Fed-
erated announces the Broadwaj s late -
"I'm sure the city has a different dpinioa
cc things, but the owacrmhlp of the mail has
esperseoa is the tadwtry. ' Sonooastioe
told. "Deoiolishmg (tbe mall) is Vint an W
tioa that we're interested in or looking at
Mt time. They don't own the mall: '
She and any changes to the mail must be
approved by anchor anent Montgomery
ward. Memyn's. Broadway and Burlington
Cat Factory. a discoot outlet that ICU
linos and clothes.
-Yin must have anchor stores to be a
major plaru." said Esmad Adtbi, dirtxtor
of the Center ror Economic Researeb at
Chapman University_ He said anchor stores
-- drag shoppers and tenants- Tye big stones
band customer loyalty. while smaller stares
give shoppers variety.
"Fa a mall to be successful it must ex-
pand its choices and make itself more
f4at ire WALL fags 2
0
MALL: wait is torturous Tor malt, city
•
•
la0ua I
modern and o0me op with new
ideas to attract customer$."
Adhbi said. nottag dot's been the
■ vacant
s:
strategy of shopping power-
es
11110r ws SMLL IN
houses South Coast Plasa m Can
.
SEcum
' LIMBO
to Mesa and MainPtace In Santa
�T�4:�
Huntington geuih Mal =
Employees and shoppers say
::;:r ownimareumwaiwV
.9eetnt renovations make them
, . • - ••t- forfedefatedstoresto
' `'
optimistic the store will stay.
A new security system was
NhOFITGOMER7
► s
�;".: + ,r ,, dmde whether they'll
added and employees have been
cDitmn The Broadway
brira trained to Opel On an updated
WARDt
? store into a Macy'$,
register system, said Roger
Payne- an assistant cosmetic
department manager for the
Broadway-
"if there closing. 1 doa'I
thinktheywould beD��if1i0R
er into the stare." he sa,d. He
added that the store has been re
�` :�{ a".
+ c
Hocking merchandise regularly '
also Said Broadway'
, 66010GOfIlEllt!
WARD
`
••'3•�r �nr' _ - -
emylrs
yeses have told them their i
Broadway cards will soon coo
vets to trtacr i-
The Zyear-old mall. South of
the San theto {14MI rreeway.
has %0.0W square feet of retail
BLOOPOGM CON '
space. In fiscal l"i it thrived at
rAC70RY
full occupancy- By 1"6. leased
space bras dropped to 6S percent.
Some r$ shoppesay Bas rn
Noble. wbith also se11s music
and has an adjacent Statbucks
'
Coffee. has attracted new
r•-�
toMera.
"I have
-
-
'-
1
an affinity for the mall
since Barnes gr Noble started
here: " said Howard CaMon. SJ•
.i2
•�
o( Tustin while waiting for his
,� 4s`-
friends near the Palm Court food
<^'
BROADWAT
area In the mall- "1 used to trot
Qn'�Mw ,,•
come here.'
The bookstore's manager.
Donna McCune, the mailer
pi l�,
�a _ �'t�,'
a.oridGsirrltri�
fi+ t
QQorr
Qs+.rr.ra�;r.ti?+
said
has found its niche in orange
��� � +^��I. •�
.. {
;�" ` '; .� fy=. "y��� _.r r
r-
'•Tbe concept is fairly new to
���i.ts.r-'- .
Orange County." she said "Our
The oranpeeoruyLiTnii, t
store is doing phenomenally
r
well. we've but our initial sales
pIsm"
economic director Bigp. He said
complex to draw atstomers. between two successful malls. L
Mall owners say overall sales
the city has Edentirted a range of
re. may be soax combine- Westminster is two mils away c
are on the rise. in part because or
options to the owners, including
dos (at the changes) in btu mall sad South Coast is about tight y
the Im pZro�mt economy to
rtmodelingorrec'onstructingthe
to make ecommIc Sense," he miles." !
Orange County-
mall. simlar to Anaheim Plaza-
said. Weaminster Hall• a l.2 mil. t
Sonnonstma. who provided
Richard Bruckner, a redevel-
Q mall bntsineds doesn't pick lion sguare•fow regional mall r
ytar.todate sales Increases on
opmer,1 mans4er for Anaheim.
11P.the city uaacquirethe proFi- with in stores. blossomed after v
ore mthan a dozen merchants in
said Anaheim Plata faced a sim•
err under eminent domain. said a to renovation to 19P. said
the mall. said the increase
tsar sitltation is Im. when more
Biggs- Spokeswoman Stephanie Green.
ranged from g percent for Sees
than half of the stores were
"it's never our first prefer truintaEautg a 90 percent occu• C
Candy to It percent for Claire's
closed after Miawn's left and
ma, he raid."1l'e'rtweltiagto paw rate or better since t99t1. c
Boutpue. on accessory stare.
The rood court showed At 10 per-
Ibe Broadway was deciding
set what the owners will do.It'sa Gran attributes the mall's e
cent increase. zbt added.
whether to stay.
collaborative effort-" succe to having!iron anchor
'
Mall owners Nave's agree-
The property owner and the
Haatingtoo Beach City Coon- stores such as obinsmhs May.
F
to bring
city decided to demolish the mail
nlagr manDaveGarofalodiseed SearsandJ-C-Penneyandscon•
r
rtitGrillnt
a family style Italian
restaurant, to the corner of
and rebuild it asan nags tar re•
tad cmter anchored by Val•
that tftr acquisition,is an option. Gant variery or pmmorr.n.-!loch
sarmeftut7, ypr-o5 Eaxteregg apd, toxy.k
Beach and Edinger, formerly the
Fitt of a Chevten gas station. The
Ma rt. Comp USA and Ron press
For Less. The plaza reopened m
mil m "saoittAIl'm'Tthe _ oekbiia :' .'-,.r -.
budget and would not be abk to A&M and Green say the malls H
restaurant will open in July.
late 19K
finance the probem. as exist in close Proximity. c
Some say the improvement
"Oar ales bare more than
Biggs Said analmr problem is "I think ifs oompem:ive but a
has been slow.
*mbled since the (Hall re-
the mall'! kK#nan. &tan complementary," said
"I don't think the city can at.
opened." Bruckner said
"it's not in a good eempedUve Green "we have shoppers that b
ford to wait much loriger to we
Btggssaid whichever dircctioc
locatwointhe marketinterms of are braltoboth centers since
the current owners do some-
the mall take, it needs more ru•
malls in the resists." be said. don't bavc a large duplication of
thing." said Huntington Beach
taurants and a movie tbeater
"Hunbacmon Beach is squi-W ttorn."
r
i3
E
Redevelopment Agency
Broad Goals and Objectives
•
a)0
a)CL
CLcD
0 CD
w C
go
O
n
CD
<a
45
N
•
City of Huntington Beach
Broad Criteria and Objectives
for
Huntington Center
Owner Participation Agreement
In order to negotiate an Owner Participation Agreement for the
redevelopment of Huntington Center, it is recommended that the
City establish a set of broad criteria and objectives by which
proposals can be measured and shaped. This outline presents
staffs proposal for the key criteria.
ti.
Financial
Provide positive cash flow to City General Fund (net of cost of
service).
Provide positive cash flow to the Redevelopment Agency, net of any
costs associated with the project.
". Minimize public funds invested into the project.
Limit investment to a defined feasibility gap that is funded by the
Owner and repaid over a 20-year term from a share of project
revenues.
+: Consider linking repayment of defined feasibility gap to an incentive -
based formula (i.e., higher public revenues warrant repayment of a
higher negotiated defined feasibility gap, if needed).
9
Financial
(continued)
Owner to be responsible for all site preparation / clearance and
development costs.
Provide for protection of Agency's expected tax increment revenues
against future downward assessments.
* Minimize the Agency's cost of funds (repayment of defined feasibility
gap) through appropriate public finance mechanisms at the Agency's
election.
Development
Assure development of a high -quality regional -serving retail
and entertainment project.
+� Assure the project sets the standard desired for future
development in the Edinger Corridor.
Provide adequate traffic and circulation improvements that
ensure free movement of traffic in the area given the additional
traffic generated.
Ensure that the intersections of Beach & Edinger and I-405 &
Center Avenue are improved as attractive gateways to the City.
Development
(continued)
Coordinate land use and development standards to ensure
future incorporation of the Montgomery Ward parcel.
Environmental
Minimize impacts on surrounding areas.
* Provide new jobs and economic opportunities to residents of
the region.
(g:dcb projccts:1 Mcritcra)
A*-Mmew t do, /y
0CL
• C
om
N C
� a
a C
Edinger Corridor Economic Study
CJ
,d11xMmen't- A0./y
Cunningham & Associat_es
MUN"AL MANAGEMENT CONSUL'1'1NG
Submitted to. -
City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
October, 1995
673 Tom Bonita - Newpod Bach. California 92660 - 714/644-7304 - FAX 714(644-9357
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. Introduction.................................................................................................................... 3-4
2. General Plan update.......................................................................................................4.6
3. Related Studies...............................................................................................................6-8
4. Trade Area Characteristics............................................................................................. 8-9
5. Retail Trends ..................................
..............................................10-12
6. City/Redevelopment Agency Initiatives......................................................................13-15
0
7. Tenant Attraction Marketing.....................................................................................15-17
r]
S. Public Improvements..................................................................................................17-19
9. Conclusion/Recommendations...................................................................................19-20
1
ATTACHMENT'S
Page
A. Sales Tax Generated by Huntington Beach Mail............................................................. 21
B. General Plan: Subarea Map............................................................................................ 23
C. Huntington Center Revitalization Workshop:
Auto and Pedestrian Entry into Mall ............................................................................... 25
D. Trade Area Map: 5-Mile Ring........................................................................................ 27
E. Huntington Beach Mall/Edinger Corridor
TotalRetail Sales............................................................................................................. 24
F. Huntington Center Redevelopment Project !
Area Assessed Valuation/Tax Increment Revenue.......................................................... 3I
G. Huntington Center Redevelopment Project Area Map .................................................... 33
H. Edinger Corridor - Ddsting Conditions........................................................................... 35
L Edinger Corridor - Recommended Improvements.......................................................... 37
•
2
• INTRODUCTION
•
The Edinger Corridor Econonuc Market Study addresses both near and long-term economic
development considerations related to the North Huntington Beach Business District area located
adjacent to the I-405 Freeway. Straddling Edinger Avenue, a major east -west traffic arterial, the
corridor is dominated by retail -commercial land uses, and incorporates the Huntington Center
Redevelopment Project area. Increasingly, large discount retail outlets are choosing to locate along
Edinger or at the Huntington Beach Mall, a 900,000 square foot regional shopping center which forms
the primary retail nucleus of the area
Despite its strategic geographic location and strong consumer demographics, the Edinger Corridor has
suffered declining retail sales performance in recent years. Exacerbated by the relocation of the
in 1993 annual sales tax revenues generated b the Huntington Beach
J.C. Penney department store g y gt
Mall have slipped from a high of $1.28 million in 1990 to its current level of $827,000 for calendar year
1994. Penneys departure is indicative of the challenging situation faced by the mall in particular, and
the surrounding retail area in general. (Attachment `A')
The attached map delineates the boundaries of the Edinger Corridor for the purposes of this study.
(Attachment `B') The corridor finks Edinger Avenue to Beach Boulevard in the vicinity of the 405-
Freeway. This intersection represents the City's primary northem retail anchor with the downtown
business district serving as its southern anchor. The area is important to the Citys economic base both
Kj
for this reason, and because it accounts for 10.3% of the Citys approximately $15 minion total annual !
retail sales tax revenues from all outlets.
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
The City is currently undergoing an update of its General Plan, the policy document which governs
long-range planning and development issues. Several elements of the Plan, including Land Use,
Ciradation, Urban Design, and Economic Development, are concerned with future growth along the
Edinger Corridor.
The intersection ofBeach Boulevard/Edinger Avenue(1405 Freeway represents the focal point ofwhat
is commonly known as the North Huntington Beach Business District. The Land Use Element
identifies this area as the CVs only "Regional Commercial Cone." Six distinct subareas comprise this
key business district:
• Huntington Center (Huntington Beach Mall)
• Corporate Center (One Pacific Plaza)
• Edinger Corridor
• "Old World"
• `Student Canter"
• Transit Center
4
•
0 The Element defines the area -wide functional role of the regional core as follows: "Enhance
:7
Huntington Center, the E %tx Corridor, and adjacent properties as a key focal point of regional
commerce." Specific land uses which are permitted and encouraged within the overall district currently
include:
• Commercial General (CG)
• Commercial Office (CO)
• Commercial Regional (CR)
• Mixed Use Horizontally Integrated Housing (MH)
The land use designations slated for the six subareas by the Land Use Element are intended to faci itate
both new development and rehabilitation of existing structures which will encourage the emergence of
the Edinger Corridor/North Huntington Beach Business District as a significant major destination
within the larger West Orange County region. At its optimum level of development, in terms of land
use type, density, and design, the area is envisioned to be a commercial hub integrating retail, office,
and multi -family residential uses. Haigh volume discount or "big box" retail, in particular, is viewed as
an appropriate market niche for the area which could serve as a catalyst for other desirable
development and economic growth.
The Economic Development Element of the Coal Plan is especially important to the Edinger
Corridor because of its focus upon the financial contribution made by the area to the City's overall
5
economic health and vitality. This Element provides the framework and direction from a long-range 0
pWLning perspective for the creation of various "economic development strategies" designed to achieve
more immediate objectives related to expansion of the local tax base, business attraction and retention,
and job creation In addition to a recently completed citywide Economic Development Strategy, this
Element has provided the impetus for the Edinger Corridor Economic Market Study as well as an
Economic Development Long -Range Opportunities and Constraints Analysis. Each of these strategies
contribute to the implementation of the general economic development goals outlined within the
Economic Development Element.
RELATED STUDIES
In addition to the City General Plan, several other important studies related to the Edinger Corridor
have been completed, thereby attesting to its prominence from a community development perspective.
The following historical documents have been utilized and referenced for the purposes of this report:
• "Precise Plan of Street Improvements for Edinger Avenue" (April, 1992)
• "Huntington Center Revitalization Workshop (December, 1990)
• "Huntington Beach Center Signage and Orientation Workshop (June, 1990)
• Edinger Corridor Study (September, 1989)
Each of the aforementioned reports have contributed sigti8car* to the facxual knowledge bass
regarding this key subsector of the overall Huntington Beach economy. In the 1990 Revitalization
21
• Workshop, one alternative development scenario envisioned a major expansion of the shopping mall,
•
with an accompanying widening of Edinger Avenue wttich is analyzed in greater detail by the 1992
Precise Plan for Street Improvements. As illustrated by the following design concept borrowed from
the workshop report, (Attachment `C') the mall could be expanded toward Edinger onto the open
expanse currently utilized for surface parking thereby creating a much closer orientation to the street.
In addition to two new anchor stores, this scenario recommended that an 8-screen multiplex of movie
theaters be included. The plan assumed the realignment of the 405 Freeway southbound off -ramp at
Beach Boulevard which has yet to occur and is considered to be important from a circulation
standpoint to the long-term economic viability of both the mall and the Edinger Corridor.
The workshop and other studies were conducted prior to the relocation of J.C. Penneys and the recent
sale of The Broadway chain to Federated Department Stores bringing the future of the Huntington
Beach Mall store into question. A new Federated -owned department store (e.g., Macy's or Bullocks)
is a possibility as a replacement for The Broadway, although declining sales activity at the mall since
the time of the workshop has brought the entire concept of a traditional retail shopping center into
question. The addition of large discount retail stores like Burlington Coat Factory and Barnes and
Noble Books to the center are basically in line with the workshop's recommendation for an emphasis
on the mid -line promotional center market. The appropriateness of the mall expansion toward Edinger
and the addition of theater streets have not been altered by the changing general economy. This
appears to be an economically viable, and inevitable, future market focus for the mall. An alternate
7
scenario could involve the complete or partial demolition of the existing Mall and its replacement with is
a development specifically designed to enhance a discount retaillentertainment theme.
TRADEAM CHARACTERISTICS
As illustrated by the attached trade area map (Attaciunent `D'), the Edinger Corridor faces heavy retail
competition within the 5-mile ring radiating from the Beach Boulevard/Edinger/I405 intersection. In
addition to the Huntington Beach Mall, the inunediate area is saved by one other super regional
shopping center, the 1 million -plus square foot Westminster Mall, which is only one mile away and just
over the city boundary. Despite being looted approximately seven miles away in Costa Mesa, the
manunoth South Coast Plaza Center also comes into play from a competitive standpoint due to its
relatively any access from Huntington Beach along the I405 Freeway. Tbree regional centers - The
Pavilion and the Westminster Center in Westminster, and the Garden Promenade in Garden Grove -
range from 300,000 to over 500,000 square feet in gross leasable area, thus adding signiScant
competition to an already saturated mid -range retail market trade area.
It is interesting to note, however, that all of the above mentioned mail competition is concentrated
toward the Cit}/s northern end along the I405 Freeway, while its strongest demographics are apparent
to the south nearer to high -income, beach -oriented residenfW areas. The nearest major shopping
opportunities, besides the Edinger Corridor area, for these coastal residents are Fashion Island in
Newport Beach to the south and Marina Pacifica in Long Beach to the north (which is currently being
•
8
4Prennovated). Each of these centers leave something to be desired for the Huntington Beach consumer,
•
either due to lack of geographic accessibility, competitive pricing, and/or range of product choices.
Huntington Beach's consumer demographic prof le is impressive and largely untapped in terms of feted
sales potential. Recent studies estimate the City's total retail sales leakage - that is, road purchases
made by city residents outside city boundaries - at between $80 million to $250 million annually.
Conservatively, this outflow amounts to at least $1 million per year in potential sales tax revenue being
lost to the City General Fund.
Huntington Beach residents are affluent and highly educated, two consumer traits which spell
tremendous additional economic potential for the Edinger Corridor area. Recent demographic analyses
of the resident population reveals the following general trends:
• High income ($53,000 median household)
• Low unemployment (5%)
• High education (321/6 college graduates)
• High "white collar" employment (71% professional/managerial)
• High owner -,occupied housing (55% home owners)
• High housing values (S236,000 median)
Source: Focus: Orange County, 1995 and Urban Decision Systems
9
•
RETAIL TRENDS
Previous studies have indicated that the greatest shave of retad sales leakage from the City is occurring
in three key subsectors - restaurants, apparel, and general me xhandise. The Edinger Corridor area has
an excellent opportunity to capitalize on these gaps in the existing retail trade sector. As mentioned
previously, the corridor is beginning to emerge as a significant large discount retail center. In addition
to Burlington Coat Factory and Barnes and Noble, key national tenants include Circuit City, Office
Depot, Staples, Men's Warehouse, Home Depot, Toys R Us, Mervyds, and Kids R Us. The presence
of such name retailers can serve as a catalyst for attracting srmilar tenants as well as complimentary
users bike restaurants and theaters. One regional shopping center which has been v successful in this
e& PP g �Y
regard is the Tustin Marketplace which began with mainly big box retail tenants and evolved into
something greater than the sum of its individual parts by bringing in trendy restaurant and
entertainment -oriented uses in the latter stages of development.
This trend may be viewed as what has been aptly termed the "dernalling of America", whereby
traditional enclosed, twin department stone anchored shopping centers are gradually► changing into
more open air, -oriented gathering places. This new atmosphere affords consumers the
opportunity to Participate in a total shopping exparierwe including browsing, &iM and entertainment
•
10
within an easily accessible, outdoor environment. Fashion Island at Newport Center and the Century
City Plaza adjacent to the Shubert Theater are good local examples of the new directions which retail
shopping areas are taking in the 19Ws and beyond. Because of its discount retail emphasis, the Tustin
Marketplace may be closer in flavor, and therefore a more appropriate general model for the Edinger
Corridor.
The Huntington Beach Mall is the acknowledged retail anchor of the Edinger Corridor/North
Huntington Beach business district. Operated by the Mace Rich Company, this 1960's vintage mall
faced an ongoing trend of decline and loss of market share, but has shown recent signs of stability. The
Burlington Coat Factory and Barnes and Noble leases should help provide direction for other retail
growth along Edinger. Occupancy rates, which had recently slipped to an all-time low of 65 percent,
will be bolstered by the addition of these major tenants. Likewise, 4th Quarter, 1994 sales, traditionally
the most acme 3-month period during the year, were down by 34 percent from 1992. This negative
trend also served to pull down retail performance in the Edinger Condor reflected by a 21 percent
decline over the same period for the area as a whole. (Anachment `E') Finally, property tax re<renues
to the City have decreased, as well as tax incnernent revenues to the Redevelopment Agency which are
down by 43 percent, mainly due to a substantial drop in assessed value of the mall real estate.
(Attachment `F')
11
The mall needs to be the primary catalyst for change if the erner&g make -over of the Edinger •
Corridor is to achieve any large measure of success. In order for this change to occur, it appears to be
essential that the mall be at Ieast renovated, and hopefully also enlarged. In the alternative, the Mall
could be partially or completely torn down and rebuilt in a more RuKdonal configuration which would
serve to improve its retail shopping VabXq. As indicated earlier in this report, the mall buildings could
benefit by being physically and archidechavMy oriented more towards the Beach BoulevardT-fter
Avenue intersection. Access and visibility from the I-405 Freeway also should be upgraded and
improved in order to effectively draw customers into the area. The presence of the mall, especWly if a
department store continues to occupy the Broadway space, could provide a tremendous advantage to
the general discount retail orientation of the corridor by offering a measure of higher end comparison
shopping opportunities in the important apparel and general merchandise categories. Under the
preceding scenario, a major missing link for the mall would be the incorporation of movie theaters into Is
the tenant base mix. On the other hand, a decWon by Federated Stores to perrrnanently close the
current Broadway location could be a blessing in disguise by allowing the discount retail/entertainment
theme to emerge unfettered by the presence of a single, higher -end traditional department store anchor.
With or without the traditional department store, the mall and the corridor need movie screens in order
to offer the optimum range of shopping/entertairtment alternatives. The addition of theaters more or
less automatically attracts restaurant uses to the immediate vicinity which would complete the circle of
desired venues available to shoppers along the Edinger Corridor, and help to enhance and define the
regional core area envisioned by the City General Plan..
•
12
•
CITYIREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1MTI4 TIVES
Without exerting undue influence over private business market forces, the City of Huntington Beach
and it's Redevelopment Agency are in an excellent position to provide policy leadership and direction,
as well as offer economic development incentives designed to assist the Edinger Corridor/North
Huntington Beach Business District in achieving its greatest potential.
As indicated by the attached map (Attachment `G`), a key portion of the Edinger Corridor area is
included within the boundaries of the Huntington Center Redevelopment Project Area The existence
of the redevelopment area provides the City with an important economic development tool which can
be utilized to assist with revitalization efforts along the corridor. Under California Law, the
• redevelopment process allows a locally controlled agency to 1 property tax increment revenues
P P cY P� P PAY
•
which can be directed in a number of specific ways. Redevelopment agencies can conduct any of the
following activities in order to reduce physical and/or economic blight conditions:
• Issue bonds backed by future tax increment revenues
• Acquire private property in order to assemble future development sites.
• Reduce or subsidize land costs in order to encourage desirable private development.
• Make loans to construct improvements or rehabilitate private property.
• Fund necessary public infrastructure improvements in support of private development.
13
Adopted in 1984, the Huntington Center Project Area is only now beginning to approach the 0
achievement of its stated redevelopment goo!;. In recent years, the Project Area has been hampered by
declining real estate values which have had the effect of eroding the annual amount of tax increment
revenues accruing to the Agency. Consequently, the area is suffering from a negative cash flow
situation on an annual basis. Up to this point in time, fund balance cash reserves have been
appropriated in order to stern the tide of losses which amounted to nearly $1.5 million for the 1994/95
fiscal year. At the current rate, fund balance reserves are projected to be significantly reduced by the
conclusion of the 1998-99 fiscal year. The Agency is taking a number of steps to arrest and hopefully
reverse this alarming trend. These include the possibility of merging the Agency's five existing project
areas in order to improve the overall balance sheet, as well as amending certain provisions of the areas
underlying plans to extend various time and dollar limitations imposed upon it, including the power to
acquire private property through the eminent domain process. !
Of equal or greater importance to maintaining the financial viability of the Project Area, however, is the
need to generate private real estate investment. This will result in expansion of the property tax base,
and hence, incremental revenues accruing to the Agency which can be used for redevelopment
purposes. Additional investment will also serve to bring more sales tax revenues to the City General
Fund thereby benefiting all residents. In order to help make this happen, the Agency must play an
active role in the economic development process by working to attract and retain those businesses
which contnbute the most of the Iocal economy in terms of jobs and tax base.
•
14
•
City government itself can also be a significant factor in the revitalization of the Edinger Corridor
through its planning and regulatory functions pertaining to zoning and land use. As discussed earlier in
this report, several Elements of the City General Plan directly impact the corridor's future direction and
focus. These documents provide a basic fiamework for such critically important issues as circulation,
A rage, and design. Taken in combination with various supplemental studies also descn'bed
previously, the Plan esserntiaUy covers that which needs to be done in order to complete the
revitalization of the Corridor area The next step as recommended by the General Plan is a Specific
Plan overlay which can be applied to individual panels of private property, as well as required public
improvements, throughout the corridor area The Specific Plan can go beyond general land use and
zoning requirements to require certain types of tenant uses on particular parcels. An example of this
relates to automobile service uses situated on the retail pads fronting Edinger Avenue. While such uses
might fit general commercial zoning criteria, they would not enhance the mixed use/entertainment-
oriented retail concept envisioned by various urban planners for the corridor area. Restaurants would
be much more desirable pad tenants in keeping with the preceding development theme.
TENANTATTRAMONMARKETING
As alluded to previously, the attraction of several types of commercial tenants are key to the ongoing
success of revitalization efforts within the Edinger Corridor/North Huntington Beach Business District.
The entertainment -oriented retail theme needs to include the Mowing venues:
15
• Major discount retail outlets, especially Apparel and General Merdmdise. !
• Restaurants, especially large national chains.
• Movie deters.
A coordinated taunt attraction marketing campaign needs to be undertaken as a joint venture between
major property ownersIlandlords. and the City Economic Development Department, which includes
both the Redevelopment and Business Development functions. With Mace Rich as the most important
link in the chain, the City should begin by compiling a major property owner list for the entire Edinger
corridor area This information is readily available from County Assessor data files. Once the list is
complete, City staff should directly contact each major property owner individually to discuss
anticipated future directions for the corridor area describing the advantages of the entertainment retail
theme, and the Citlls willingness to provide incentives, both financial and regulatory, to attract
particular tenants on a targeted basis. These incentives are detailed in the City Economic Development
Strategy along with objective rating criteria for gauging the level and extent of assistance provided. At
a minimum, specific incentives for corridor property owners and tenants should include:
• Assessment districts to assist with financing, parking, maintenance, security, promotions
• Low interest loans for new construction, building rehabilitation, and tenant improvements.
• Permit processing assistance for building improvements, landscaping, and business licenses.
•
16
• Once the basic incentive package has been developed and "sold" to the major property owners, direct
•
tenant solicitation can begot. The steps in the targeted attraction campaign should proceed along the
following schedule:
• Utilizing available computerized mailing services such as Retail Lease Trac and Inside Prospects of
California to compile contact fists in the identified tenant categories.
• Conduct initial promotional mailings to targeted prospects including economic/demographic data
and information on available incentives.
• Place follow-up phone calls to all respondents, as well as any highly desired prospects (.e. a
particularly appropriate restaurant or theater chain).
• Conduct site visits and city tours for interested prospects stressing business benefits of an Edinger
Corridor location.
The above -referenced tenant attraction process should be repeated on a continuous revolving basis in
order to demo rate the Citys commitment to achieving its economic development goals for the
Corridor area
PUBUCIMPROVEMEMS
The City General Plan and all of the previously cited related studies pertaining to the Edinger
Corridor/North Huntington Beach Business District have pointed to the need for significant additional
17
public improvements. Perhaps the most critical of these deficiencies relates the limited accessibility and
visibility of both the corridor and the mall from the I405 Freeway. (Attachment `H') The attached
circulation map aptly illustrates the difficulty which a shopper encounters when attempting to access
the corridor area The vicinity is hard to reach from either direction on the I-405, and is especially
confusing to reach from the southbound off -ramp which deposits drivers at the rear of the mall at
Center Avenue where a Ieft or right turn must be trade to reach Edinger or the mall. Moreover, the
mall and corridor is difficult to see from the southbound lanes and virtually invisible for those traveling
northbound. The impaired visibility is due to a combination of inadequate signage and overgrowth or
inappropriate freeway landscaping. The City is currently worldng with CalTrans on a landscape
improvement project in the vicinity of the south bound Edinger off -ramp which will be beneficial to the
area in general. As one altemative, the 1989 Edinger Corridor Study recommended a realignment of
the southbound off -ramp and a new public roadway leading through the mall directly to Edinger
Avenue. (Attachment `I') YAWe a new driveway entrance is planned at the rear of the Mall, the public
street alternative would be much more desirable from a circulation standpoint. A public improvement
project of this kind could be financed through Community Facilities District Bonds, secured by
property tax assessments. The study also proposed a signage program for the corridor which would
more attractively identify "gateways, public streets, and private uses." Along these lines, consideration
should be given to constructing an additional I-405 fremy readerboard sign situated to the north of
the existing auto dealer readerboard. Finally, a planned extension of Gothard Street, joining it with
•
18
• Hoover Street immediately to the west of the Mall, will significantly improve access from the north to
both the Mall and the Corridor.
The logic of the aforementioned circulation and signage recommendations remains today, and should
be implemented along with median landscaping and street scape improvements along Edinger Avenue.
The length of the corridor c urmntly has a barren look with little curb appeal for prospective shoppers.
Better signage and improved ingress and egress to and from businesses situated on Edinger would help
to crate an area -wide theme and enhance sales.
CONCLUSIONIRECOMMENDATIONS
The Edinger Conidor/North Huntington Beach Business District has the economic potential to truly
• become the Regional Commercial Core envisioned by the General Plan The combination of large
discount retail operations with movie theaters and dining opportunities could transform the corridor
into an attractive destination for comparison shopping and entertainment. While not the major focus at
this time, the integration of multi -&roily residential housing could serve to enhance the trade area
demographics thereby improving tenant attraction efforts. An aggressive public/private sector joint
tenant solicitation marketing campaign can provide the initial step in revitalizing the corridoes retail
base. Extensive public infrastructure, circulation, and streetscape improvements, along with a
comprehensive signage program, will serve to identify for shoppers and delineate the corridor area in
the process attracting additional tax base and jobs.
•
I9
rI
The Wowing recommended implementation measures will assist City government, and the private
business sector in achieving mutually beneficial economic development goals:
• Implement a joint city -property owner retail tenant marketing campaign targeted toward
large discount retailers, movie theaters, and restaurants.
• Adopt a property ovma enant incentive program designed to encourage new investment
and construction.
• Complete public improvements related to traffic circulation, landscaping, and signage to
increase access, visibility, and identity.
• Encourage expansion and redesign or replacement of the Huntington Beach Mall around
an entertainment/retail theme with buildings physically oriented more toward Edinger
Avenue.
•
• Formulate a specific plan overlay for private properties and for public improvements.
• Extend Redevelopment Agency time and dollar limitations in order to maximize available
economic development tools and prerogatives. In particular, maintain eminent domain
authority as recommended by the Project Area Merger/Amendment Feasibility Analysis.
•
20
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
SALES TAX GENERATED BY
Hi1NTINGTON BEACH MALL
Sales
Tax
$2 M
$1.5 M
$1.0M
$500 K
FA
Calendar
Year 1992 1993 I994
Soume: Umdediw, de Lamas & Associates
r�
21
#A
h +v lnew7l ,{/o . lb-
0
3
3
e�
r.
0
Five Year Implementation Plan
•
0
A r)VeA r/- /l/u, /5
Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Huntington Beach
1999-00 through 2003-04
Adopted: December 20, 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction...................................................................................................................1
Contents of the Implementation Plan.................................................................1
Background...................................................................................................................2
BlightingConditions.......................................................................................... 2
Goals of the Redevelopment Plan.................................................................... 3
Review of the Prior Implementation Plan.......................................................... 4
Anticipated Planning Period Projects and Programs................................................6
Nonhousing Programs......................................................................................9
Waterfront Project............................................................................ 9
CIMProject...................................................................................... 9
Edinger Corridor Improvement Study ............................................. 10
Economic Development Program ................................................... 11
Housing Programs.......................................................................................... 12
MercyHouse.................................................................................. 12
Shelter for Homeless...................................................................... 13
Bowen Court Project...................................................................... 13
Center Avenue Project................................................................... 13
Citywide Acquisition/Rehabilitation................................................. 14
Five -Year Budget........................................................................................................15
HousingUnit Estimates.............................................................................................18
•
•
Redcvelopment Agency of the i Five -Year Implementation Plan
City of Huntington Beach 1999-00 through 2003-04
•
Introduction
This document is the Five -Year Implementation Plan ("Implementation Plan") for the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach ("Agency") for fiscal years 1999-00
through 2003-04. This Implementation Plan presents the goals and objectives, anticipated
projects and programs, and estimated expenditures relating to the Agency's Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project ("Project").
Contents of the Implementation Plan
Section 33490 of the California Community Redevelopment Law ("Law") requires that the
Implementation Plan include the following information:
■ specific goals and objectives of the Agency for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment
Project Area ("Project Area"),
■ the specific programs, including potential projects, and estimated expenditures proposed to
be made during the next five years, and
n an explanation of how the goals and objectives, programs, and expenditures will eliminate
blight within the project area and will improve and increase the supply of housing affordable
to very low, low, and moderate income households.
The Law also requires that the implementation plan address the Agency's affordable housing
production needs and achievements; these items are specifically addressed in the Affordable
Housing Compliance Plan, which is found at the end of this Implementation Plan.
Redevelopment Agency of the 1 Five -Year Implementation Plan
City of Huntington Beach 1999-00 through 2003-04
Background 0
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach ("City") created the Agency in March 1, 1976.
Between 1982 and 1984, the Agency adopted five separate redevelopment projects, namely
Main -Pier, Talbert -Beach, Yorktown -Lake, Oakview, and Huntington Center. In December
1996, these constituent project areas were amended and merged to form a single, consolidated
Project Area. A map depicting the boundaries of the Project Area is included at the end of this
Plan as Exhibit "A".
Blighting Conditions
Redevelopment projects are established to remedy conditions of blight as defined by the Law
that is in effect at the time a redevelopment project is adopted. The Law's definition of what
constitutes blight have changed substantially since the constituent areas of the Project Area were
established in the early 1990s. The Law's current blighted definition is set forth below:
• Unsafe/Dila idated/Deteriorated Buildings. Buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for
persons to live or work. These conditions can be caused by serious building code violations,
dilapidation and deterioration, defective design or physical construction, faulty or inadequate
utilities, or other similar factors.
• Physical Conditions that Limit the Economic Viability and Use of Lots/Buildings. Factors
that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings or
lots. This condition can be caused by a substandard design, inadequate size given present
standards and market conditions, lack of parking, or other similar factors.
• Incompatible Uses. Adjacent or nearby uses that are incompatible with each other and which
prevent the economic development of those parcels or other portions of the project area.
• Lots of Irregular Shape, Inadequate Size, and Under Multiple Ownership. The existence of
subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and
development that are in multiple ownership.
• Depreciated/Stagnant Property Values, Impaired Investments. Depreciated or stagnant
property values or impaired investments, including, but not necessarily limited to, those
properties containing hazardous wastes that require the use of agency authority as specified
in Article 12.5 (commencing with Section 33459).
• Hi h Business Turnovers and Vacancies/Low Lease Rates/Abandoned Buildin sNacant
Lots. Abnormally high business vacancies, abnormally low lease rates, high turnover rates,
abandoned buildings, or excessive vacant lots within an area developed for urban use and
served by utilities.
•
Redevelopment Agency of the 2 Five -Year Implementation Plan
City of Huntington Beach 1999-00 through 2003-04
• Lack of Neighborhood Commercial Facilities. A lack of necessary commercial facilities that
are normally found in neighborhoods, including grocery stores, drug stores, and banks and
other lending institutions.
• Overcrowding/Excess of Adult Businesses. Residential overcrowding or an excess of bars,
liquor stores, or other businesses that cater exclusively to adults, that has led to problems of
public safety and welfare.
• High Crime Rates. A high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to the public safety and
welfare.
The Law also characterizes inadequate public improvements as blight when the above conditions
are also present.
The Agency has previously documented blighting conditions that persist in the Project Area,
most recently in conjunction with the two plan amendments in 1996 and 1999. These persistent
conditions include deterioration, irregular subdivision of lots, age and obsolescence, inadequate
public improvements, and high crime rates relative to other areas of the City. The Agency's
proposed projects and expenditures outlined in this Plan will be evaluated in terms of how such
activities address these blighting conditions.
Goals of the Redevelopment Plan
Section 500 of the Redevelopment Plan delineates the Agency's community development goals
for the Project Area. These goals formulate the overall strategy for this Implementation Plan and
will serve as a guide for the Agency's activities during the next five years.
• Eliminate and prevent the spread of conditions of blight including: underutilized
properties and deteriorating buildings, incompatible and uneconomic land uses,
deficient infrastructure and facilities, obsolete structures, and other economic
deficiencies in order to create a more favorable environment for commercial,
office, industrial, residential, and recreational development.
• Expand the commercial base of the Project Area.
• Improve public facilities and public infrastructure.
• Improve inadequate drainage infrastructure.
• Improve and/or provide electric, gas, telephone, and wastewater infrastructure to
both developed and undeveloped properties within the Project Area.
Promote local job opportunities.
• Encourage the cooperation and participation of residents, businesses, business
persons, public agencies, and community organizations in the
redevelopment/revitalization of the Project Area.
Redevelopment Agency of the 3 Five -Year Implementation Plan
City of Huntington Beach 1999-00 through 2003-04
• Implement design and use standards to assure high aesthetic and environmental
quality, and provide unity and integrity to developments within the Project Area.
• Address parcels of property that are: of irregular form and shape, are inadequately
sized for proper usefulness and development, and/or are held in multiple
ownership.
• Remove impediments to land disposition and development through the assembly of
property into reasonably sized and shaped parcels served by improved
infrastructure and public facilities.
• Recycle and/or develop underutilized parcels to accommodate higher and better
economic uses while enhancing the City's financial resources.
• Promote the rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
• Increase, improve, and preserve the community's supply of housing affordable to
very low, low and moderate income households.
Review of the Prior Implementation Plan
The Agency's first implementation plan, adopted in October 1994, delineated a series of
nonhousing and housing projects and programs, the majority of which were initiated or fully
implemented during the planning period. The Agency's achievements over the past five years
include the following:
■ New Duke's/Chimayo's restaurants and Pier Plaza completed
■ Acquisition of full block site for Plaza Almeria, site clearance and relocation complete, and
construction approximately 90% complete.
■ Selection of developer and approval of disposition and development agreement with
CIM/Federal for development of blocks 1041105
■ Acquisition of all mobile homes and clearance of former Driftwood mobile home park;
construction of Waterfront project expansion initiated.
■ Plans completed for the widening of the McFadden/1-405 ovcrcrossing.
■ Completed plans for Gothard-Hoover connection.
■ Rehabilitated 158 residential units in the Oakview subarea.
■ Approval of 1996 Amendment/Merger of five separate project areas
■ Approval of 1999 Redevelopment Plan amendment to extend eminent domain within blocks
104/105 of Main -Pier subarea.
■ Demolition of the fire damaged Standard Market Building and construction is nearing
completion on anew 9,500 square foot replacement structure.
Redevelopment Agency of the 4 Five -Year Implementation Plan
City of Huntington Beach 1999-00 through 2003-04
•
•
•
Anticipated Planning Period Projects and Programs
The following narrative describes the nonhousing and housing programs proposed for the next
five years. Anticipated program expenditures are based on projected tax increment revenue
expected for FY 1999-00 to FY 2003-04. Greater or Iesser funding may be available, depending
upon actual assessed valuation changes in the Project Area.
Table 1 below summarizes the Agency's proposed programs. A more detailed description of
each project and program follows this summary matrix, along with a five-year budget forecast
showing projected resources and expenditures.
Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Huntington Beach
Five -Year Implementation Plan
1999-00 through 2003-04
Estimated
Program Time Frame Goals Achieved Blight Mitigated Agency Cost
NONHOUSING PROGRAM
Waterfront Project Ongoing Alleviate and prevent the spread of blighting conditions Inadequate public improvements $ 7,000,000
Expand commercial base of Project Area Social and economic maladjustment
Improve public facilities and infrastructure
Promote local job opportunities
Remove impediments to development
Redevelop underutilized parcels
CIM Project Begins in 2003-04 Alleviate and prevent the spread of blighting conditions Defective design and character $ 707,022
Expand commercial base of Project Area Age, obsolescence and deterioration
Improve public facGlities and infrastructure Irregular lot subdivision
Promote local job opportunities Inadequate public improvements
Implement compatible design and use standards Social and economic maladjustment
Remove impediments to development
Redevelop underulilized parcels
Address irregular and undersized parcels
Edinger Corridor Begins in 2003-04 Alleviate and prevent the spread of blighting conditions Defective design and character $ 340,000
Expand commercial base of Project Area Age, obsolescence and deterioration
Improve public facilities and Infrastructure Inadequate public improvements
Promote local job opportunities Social and economic maladjustment
Implement compatible design and use standards
Remove Impediments to development
Economic Development Ongoing Alleviate and prevent the spread of blighting conditions Defective design and character $ 8,400,000
Program Expand commercial base of Project Area Age, obsolescence and deterioration
Improve public facilities and infrastructure Inadequate public improvements
Promote total job opportunities Social and economic maladjustment
Implement compatible design and use standards
Remove impediments to development
TOTAL FIVE YEAR NONHOUSING PROGRAM COST $ 16,527,022
Estimated
Program Time Frame Goats Achieved Bight Ktigaled Agency Cost
HOUSING
Mercy House 2002.03 Work to increase the supply of very low, low and Not applicable 250,000
moderate income housing opportunities
Shelter for Homeless 2002.03 Work to increase the supply of very low, low and Not applicable 760.000
moderate income housing opportunities
Bowen Court Project 1999-00 to 2000-01 Work to increase the supply of very low, low and Not applicable 1,800,000
moderate income housing opportunities
Center Avenue Project 2002.03 Work to increase the supply of very low, low and Not applicable 650,000
moderate income housing opportunities
Cltywlde Acqulsltlon Rehab Ongoing Work to increase the supply of very low, low and Not applicable 7,140,000
moderate income housing opportunities
TOTAL FIVE YEAR HOUSING PROGRAM COST S 10,590,000
GRAND TOTAL $ 27,117,022
SNonhousing Programs
Waterfront Expansion (Hilton Grand Coast Resort Project)
This project is under development on a 38 acre parcel adjacent to the existing 296-room
Waterfront Hilton. It will include a 520-room hotel, 50,000 square foot conference center and
a 13,000 square foot retail center. The project will feature Mediterranean architecture with
abundant landscaping, fountains, swimming pools and two tennis courts. On an adjacent
parcel will be developed a residential project of approximately 177 homes in duplex and
cluster configuration. A future phase calls for an additional, third, hotel of about 300 rooms.
Expenditures
During the five-year period, the Agency anticipates expending approximately 57.0 million to
repay advances for this project.
Plan Objectives the Project Will Address
• Alleviate and prevent the spread of blighting conditions
• Expand commercial base of Project Area
• Improve public facilities and infrastructure
• Promote local job opportunities
• Remove impediments to development
• Redevelop underutilized is parcels
Conditions of I
Slight the Project Will Address
g
• Inadequate public improvements
• Social and economic maladjustment
•
CIM Project
The Agency and CIM have entered into an Disposition and Development Agreement to
facilitate the redevelopment of blocks 104/105 in downtown Huntington Beach. The CIM
project involves development of mix of retail, restaurant and hotel uses, replacing
undeveloped and obsolete uses at this location.
This project will involve displacement of nine residential rental units, consisting of seven (7)
one -bedroom units and two (2) two -bedroom units. Section 33490(a)(3) requires that this
Plan identify the proposed locations suitable for replacement dwelling units, should
displacement occur. The Agency's Replacement Housing Plan for the project, adopted on
May 3, 1999, indicates that in fact the Agency's affordable housing activities have generated a
surplus of 315 replacement units, and that the project's replacement housing needs will be met
by this surplus. The location of the Agency's replacement housing units are itemized on
Table 2 below.
Redevelopment Agency of the 9 Five -Year Implementation Plan
City of Huntington Beach 1999-00 through 2003-04
Expenditures
During the five-year period, the Agency anticipates expending approximately $787,022 on
this project. Project -generated tax revenues will offset the majority of these costs.
Plan Objectives the Project Will Address
• Alleviate and prevent the spread of blighting conditions
• Expand commercial base of Project Area
• Improve public facilities and infrastructure
• Promote local job opportunities
• Implement compatible design and use standards
• Remove impediments to development
Conditions of Blight the Project Will Address
• Defective design and character
• Age, obsolescence and deterioration
• Irregular lot subdivision
• Inadequate public improvements
• Social and economic maladjustment
Edinger Corridor Improvement Study
The Agency is undertaking steps to enhance the Edinger corridor in the Huntington Center
subarea. During the planning period, the Agency will conduct a land use, zoning, and market 40
study for this area. The study will also evaluate circulation, ingress/egress, and new
development opportunities in the area.
Expenditures
During the five-year period, the Agency anticipates expending approximately 5340,000 on
this project.
Plan Objectives the Project Will Address
• Alleviate and prevent the spread of blighting conditions
• Expand commercial base of Project Area
• Improve public facilities and infrastructure
• Promote local job opportunities
• Implement compatible design and use standards
• Remove impediments to development
Conditions of Blight the Project Will Address
• Defective design and character
• Age, obsolescence and deterioration
Inadequate public improvements
• Social and economic maladjustment
0
Redevelopment Agency of the 10 Five -Year Implementation Plan
City of Huntington Beach 1999-00 through 2003-04
•
r�
•
Economic Development Program
Beyond those projects identified above, the Agency is also pursuing other economic
development projects throughout the Project Area. Because these projects are still in a
formative stage, specific project parameters and any subsidies are not yet available. However,
all projects under the Agency's economic development program are oriented towards the
elimination of Project Area blighting conditions, expansion of the community's economic
base, and other Redevelopment Plan goals.
During the planning period, the Agency estimates that additional economic development
projects which could be implemented include, but are not limited to, Huntington Center, the
31-acre Pacific Coast Highway project, the Atlanta/Beach project, the Fourth Block East infill
project, and the Beach/Edinger project.
Expenditures
During the five-year period, the Agency has allocated approximately 58.4 million to
implement economic development programs, contingent upon specific project needs.
Plan Objectives the Project Will Address
• Alleviate and prevent the spread of blighting conditions
• Expand commercial base of Project Area
• Improve public facilities and infrastructure
• Promote local job opportunities
• Implement compatible design and use standards
Remove impediments to development
Conditions of Blight the Project Will Address
• Defective design and character
• Age, obsolescence and deterioration
• Inadequate public improvements
• Social and economic maladjustment
Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Huntington Beach
Five -Year Implementation Plan
1999-00through 2003-04
•
Category 0 Bedroom 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom Total
Very Low Income
Emerald Cove
32
132
0
0
0
164
313 11 th Street
0
5
4
0
0
9
7812 Barton
0
0
4
0
0
4
Five Points Senior Villas
0
32
0
0
0
32
17372 Keetson
0
0
2
2
0
4
17382 Keelson
0
0
3
1
0
4
17361 Koledo
0
0
5
0
0
5
17371 Koledo
0
0
5
0
0
5
17422 Queens
0
0
4
0
0
4
17432 Queens
0
0
4
0
0
4
17291 Koledo
0
0
4
0
0
4
17351 Koledo
0
0
4
0
0
4
Ronald Rd- Habitat (7862 Ronald Rd.
0
0
3
0
0
3
Bridges (7611 Nichols)
0
0
3
0
0
3
0
Low Income
Ocean View Estates
0
0
24
0
0
24
Brisas del Mar
0
2
8
4
0
14
725-731 Utica Av-
0
0
36
0
0
36
0
Moderate Income
Bnsas del Mar
0
6
14
10
0
30
Five Points Senior villas
0
16
0
0
0
16
Pacific Park Villas
0
0
25
0
0
25
Cape Ann
0
0
0
102
44
146
Promenade
0
0
28
52
0
130
6
Source: Keyser Marston Assoc+ates
Housing Programs
Mercy House Project
Preliminary plans call for six units of transitional housing for single parents with children.
This project will be located on a vacant parcel (northeast corner of Elm Street and Cypress
Avenue) owned by the Redevelopment Agency in the Oakview project sub area.
Redevelopment Agency of the 12 Five -Year Implementation Plan
City of Huntington Beach 1999-00 through 2003-04
Expenditures
Based on projected resources, the Agency anticipates expending 5250,000 during the five-
year planning period.
Plan Objectives the Project Will Address
• Work to increase the supply of very low, low, and moderate income housing opportunities.
Shelter for Homeless
Shelter for the Homeless is a nonprofit provider of shelter, transitional and permanent housing
throughout Orange County. Shelter for the Homeless is currently looking for both new
construction and acquisition -rehab opportunities in Huntington Beach to complement existing
projects located in the Oakview neighborhood.
Expenditures
Based on projected resources, the Agency anticipates expending $750,000 during the five-
year planning period.
Plan Objectives the Project Will Address
Work to increase the supply of very low, low, and moderate income housing opportunities.
Bowen Court Project
The Agency owns a vacant parcel across from the Civic Center, in the Yorktown -Lake project
sub area. This site has entitlements for a twenty-one unit senior rental apartment project. All
of the units are planned for very low-income seniors. Merit Housing Development
Corporation, a nonprofit based in Orange, California, is the developer of the project.
Expenditures
Based on projected resources, the Agency anticipates expending an additional 51,800,000
million during the five-year planning period. This project assistance consists of a $900,000
loan, and a $900,000 grant for underwriting development costs.
Plan Objectives the Project Will Address
• Work to increase the supply of very low, low, and moderate income housing opportunities.
Center Avenue Project
A Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with Pacific Development Company
governs this Agency -owned vacant parcel located in the Huntington Center project sub area.
The ten year (beginning in 1993) DDA commits the Agency to a maximum of $650,000 for a
housing project on the site. To date, there has been no project submitted by the developer and
Redevelopment Agency of the 13 Five -Year Implementation Plan
City of Huntington Beach 1999-00 through 2003-04
approximately three years remain on the DDA. Based on the size of the parcel and the current
zoning, it appears that an efficiency apartment project of approximately eighty units may be
suitable for the site.
Expenditures
Based on projected resources, the Agency anticipates expending $650,000 during the five-
year planning period.
Plan Objectives the Project Will Address
• Work to increase the supply of very low, low, and moderate income housing opportunities.
Citywide Acquisition/Rehabilitation Program
The Agency proposes to invest its affordable housing resources in acquisition and
rehabilitation projects throughout the City. These activities would permit the Agency with the
greatest discretion to upgrade deficient and substandard housing units. Currently, the Agency
expends approximately $500,000 annually on this program, which results in an average of 7
acquisition and rehabilitated units each year. With additional housing resources projected
over the next five years, the Agency can expand the impact of this program in order to meet
City housing production goals pursuant to the Housing Element's regional housing needs
assessment.
Some of these funds may be allocated to Orange County Community Housing Corporation
(O.C.C.H.C.) to acquire and rehab multifamily rental apartment units, primarily for very low
and low-income families. O.C.C.H.C. currently owns thirty-two units in four and five-plex
properties in the Oakview area.
Assuming the Agency expends the entire $7.14 million projected to be available for this
program, as many as 102 units could be rehabilitated.
Expenditures
Based on projected resources, the Agency anticipates expending $7.14 million during the five-
year planning period.
Plan Objectives the Project Will Address
• Work to increase the supply of very low, low, and moderate income housing opportunities.
•
Redevelopment Agency of the 14 Five -Year Implementation Plan
City of Huntington Beach 1999-00 through 2003-04
•
•
Five -Year Budget
Tables 3 and 4 present a preliminary five-year budget for the nonhousing and housing
programs, respectively. Tax increment revenues were conservatively estimated based on a
2.0% increase in secured assessed values plus development of the Waterfront, CIM, and Plaza
Almeria projects. The budget also contains other project revenues, including interest
earnings, rental income, and transient occupancy tax reimbursements. Expenditures were
based on the 1999-00 budget, and include bond debt service, loan and advance repayments,
and administrative costs.
In total, the Agency anticipates expending S16,527,022 on nonhousing programs, and
$10,590,000 on affordable housing programs.
Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Huntington Beach
15
Five -Year Implementation Plan
1999-00 through 2003-04
1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04
Beginning Available Fund Balance
4.145.036
4.153.982
4,189.621
4.150,487
4,176.806
Revenues
Tax Increment Revenue 11
4.663.806
5,389.781
6.164.675
6.457.467
7.325,264
30.000.991
Interest Earnings
227,977
228.469
230.429
228.277
229.724
1.144.876
Main Pier Misc Revenue
1.838.500
1,808.100
2.494,500
2,6M300
2.883.500
11.684.900
bubtotal
Map sour
Expenditures
Debt Service - H8PFA
2,612,206
2,623.166
2.620,379
2.629.669
2,624.029
13,109.449
Transfer to General Fund
700.000
700.000
700,000
700.000
700.000
3,500.000
Debt Service - Huntington Nall Bank
95.000
95.000
95,000
95.000
95.000
475.000
Abdelmuti Contract
135.000
135.000
135.000
135.000
135.000
675.000
Parking irv4ieu fees
-
-
300.000
-
-
300,000
Pass Through Agreements
64.309
213,106
219.508
226,123
232.952
955.998
Statutory Taxing Agency Payments
-
1.376
4.134
7.030
31,045
43.585
Operating Expenses
964.822
1,013,063
1.063.716
1,116,902
1.172.747
5.331.251
Miscellaneous Expenses
10,000
10,000
10.000
10.000
10,000
50.000
ERAF Loan Repayment
-
-
731.000
-
-
731.000
Housing Fund Repayment
-
-
1.350,000
-
1.350.000
Capital and Special Projects 11
Waterfront Project
1,400,000
1,400.000
1,400,000
1,400,000
1400,000
7.000,000
CIM Project
-
-
-
787,022
787,022
Edinger Corridor
340,000
-
-
-
340.000
Economic Development Progra
400.000
1.200.000
300,000
3.000,000
3.300.000
8,200.000
n ru
Ending Available Fund Balance
4,153,982
4,189.621
4.150.487
4.176.806
4,127.499
11 Assumes 2% secured assessed value
growth, plus phased development of Plaza Almena, Waterfront residential,
and CIM
No revenues generated by implementation of the Economic Development
Program are included in this forecast, to avoid overstating
potential nonhousing revenues.
•
0
Redevelopment Agency of the 16 Five -Year Implementation Plan
City of Huntington Beach 1999-00 through 2003-04
•
r1
1
2
3
4
5
Total
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
Beginning Available Fund Balance
3.172,754
2,685.144
2.682,209
2,713.836
2,729,401
Revenues
Tax Increment Revenue /1
1,165.951
1.347.445
1.541.169
1.614,367
1.746.576
7,415,508
Interest Earnings
174.501
147.683
147.521
149.261
150.117
769,084
Five Points Seniors Villas
38,000
38.000
38.000
38.000
38,000
190.000
ERAF Loan Repayment
-
-
731.000
-
731.000
Housing Fund Repayment (MP)
-
1,350,000
-
-
1.350,000
Subtotal 1.378.453 1.533,128 3.807.690 1,801.628 1.934.693 10455,591
Total Resources
Expenditures
Operating Expenditures
Property Tax Collection Charge
Transfer to Emerald Cove
Housing Projects
Mercy HOUSE
Shelter for Homeless
Bowen Court
Center Avenue
Citywide AcquisitionlRehab
4.551,207 4.218.272 6,489.899 4.515.464 4,664.093
20.500 20.500 20.500
10.563 10.563 10,563
35,000 35.000 35.000
1,800.000 - -
1,470,000 3,710,000
20.500
20.500
102,500
10.563
10.563
52.815
35.000
35.000
175,000
250.000
-
250.000
750,000
750.000
-
-
1.80o.aoo
650.000
-
650,000
70,000
1,890,000
7,140,000
Total Expenditures 1.866.063 1,536,063 3.776.063 1.786,063 1.956.063 10.920.315
Ending Available Fund Balance 2.685.144 2.682,209 2.713.836 2,729.401 2,708,030
11 Assumes 2% secured assessed value growth, plus phased development of Plaza Almeria, Waterfront residential, and Cl
Redevelopment Agency of the 17 Civc-Year Implementation Plan
City of Huntington Beach 1999-00 through 2003-04
Hosing Unit Estimates 0
Section 33490(2)(A) of the Law requires that the implementation plan address housing fund
revenues and expenditures, as well as any applicable housing production activities over the
next five years. These elements are included in the Agency's Amended Ten -Year Affordable
Housing Compliance Plan, incorporated herein by reference.
In addition to these data, Section 33490(2)(B) requires variot;s estimates of housing unit
production over the time frame of the next five years, next ten years, and over the duration of
the Redevelopment Plan. These estimates are included in Table 5 below.
Plan
Time Frame
Current
S Years
10 Years
Duration
As of
1999 -
1999
1982 -
Sep-99
2003
2008
2024
Total Market Rate d Affordable'Jnits Projected
(H8S Sec 33490(a)(2)(Byl))
New Construction
n1a
n/a
289
2,166
Substantial Rehabi;itation
n/a
n/a
-
Price Restricted
1`11a
nfa
-
Total
n1a
n/a
289
2,186
Affordable Housing Production Requirement
(H8S Sec. 33490(a)(2)(B)(ii))
Low and Moderate Income
n1a
n!a
26
207
Very Low Income
n/a
nla
17
146
Total
43
353
Units Developed to Meet Production Requirement
(H8S Sec- 33490(ax2)(B)(iii))
Low and Moderate Income
155
n1a
n1a
n/a
Very Low Income
247
n/a
nla
n1a
Total
401
n!a
n1a
n1a
Units to be Developed by Agency
(H8S Sec. 33490(a)(2XB)(iv and v))
Low and Moderate Inoome
n/a
-
n/a
n1a
Very Low Income
n/a
-
n/a
n/a
All Others
nta
-
n1a
n1a
Total
n/a
-
n/a
n/a
11 'n1a' means not applicable by Redevelopment Law
•
Redevelopment Agency of the 18 Five -Year Implementation Plan
City of Huntington Beach 1999-00 through 2003-04
RCA ROUTING SHEET
INITIATING DEPARTMENT:
Economic Development
SUBJECT:
Huntington Center
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
October 2, 2000
•
•
RCA ATTACHMENTS
STATUS
Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable)
Not Applicable
Resolution (wlexhibits & legislative draft if applicable)
Attached
Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits
Not Applicable
Contract/Agreement (wlexhibits if applicable)
(Signed in full by the City Attorney)
Attached
Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc.
(Approved as to form by City Attorney)
Not Applicable
Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney)
Not Applicable
Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000)
Not Applicable
Bonds (If applicable)
Not Applicable
Staff Report (If applicable)
Not Applicable
Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable)
Not Applicable
Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial
Not Applicable�A
EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS
REVIEWED
RETURNED
FORWARDED
Administrative Staff
( }
( (L }
Assistant City Administrator (Initial)
( )
( }
City Administrator (Initial)
( }
( )
City Clerk
( )
EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM:
sir/ , � _ _ / � t � !J/ �. �. _ ✓� _ _ 1 _ "� �
or uus vuran xi oz9 U