HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnvironmental Review Board - Environmental Impact Report Com /a�
_c
Huntington Beach Historical o5ociety,..
March 6, 1988
City Council
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
Atten: Wes Bannister, Mayor
Dear Sir:
The Huntington Beach Historical Society has recently received information from
Community Services Commission regarding the environmental problem that is
causing depletion of the ozone layer, namely the use of items made from
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). We are particularly concerned about the continued
use of strofoam cups which are made from CFCs.
The Society has discontinued the use of strofoam cups and wish to give their
support to the concept of discontinuing their use.
Sincerely,
Pat Reider, Recording Secretary,
for Guy Gazzardo, President
pr
1'
19820 Leach Boulevard. liunfington Beach. California 92648
t '
t TO: ORANGE COUNTY. PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: TOM LI.VENGOOD - PRESIDENT HOME COUNCIL
Plv�
SUBJECT: EIR 81-250 3.12 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
How can the County level of government make a decision on the devel-
opment of the 1 ,609 acres of Bolsa Chica, that has such an impact on the
City of Huntington Beach?
Beach Blvd. within the City Limits in 1978, was experiencing ai_iddi-ly
average traffic in a 24 hour period as high, as 57,000 vehicles.
ALTERNATIVE NO. ONE
Largest increase on Bolsa Chica and Ellis - no amount given.
Generate 120,960 vehicle miles of travel per day.
ALTERNATIVE NO. TWO
Warner Ave. east of Edwards, 48,000 vehicles anticipated. Street
can't handle capacity.
Some motorists would use Slater and Ellis. The key phrase "The additional
traffic would, however, incrementally increase traffic noise and potential
safety concerns along these predominantly residential routes".
Generate 365,390 vehicle miles of travel per day.
ALTERNATE NO. THREE
•Relocation of PCH.
Bolsa Chica Street would carry an estimated 35,000 to 50,000 vehicles per
day south of Warner• Ave. - approximately the same as Beach Blvd. Bolsa Chica
would have to be upgraded to 8 lanes. Traffic would be more than double than
the existing traffic.
Another quotable quote - "The combining of Warner Ave. traffic with
other traffic projected to use Bolsa Chica St. and PCH both non-project
and project would result in potentially substantial overloading of these
roadways in the area".
• t ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING ,COMMISSION - .CONT.
Ellis could become a main arterial with approval of County S City (a pre-
dominantly residential route) .
Warner and Ellis - is projected to have 33,000 to 47,000 vehicles another
Beach Blvd. !
Alternate No. 3 would create 424,860 vehicle miles of travel per day.
GALLONS OF GAS, FUMES, CARBON MONOXIDE.,-.CREATED BY THE PROJECT
Gallons Per Day Gallons Per Year.
Alternative #1 8,060 2,941 ,900
Alternative #2 24,360 89891 ,400
Alternative #3 28,320 10,336,800
None of these alternatives can be acceptable to the residents of
Huntington Beach. We don't need 3 or 4 Beach Blvds. crossing through
residential areas of our community.
The cost to'-.the taxpayers under these proposals is staggering,
monetar ! ly-: and environmentally.
There is no freeway direct access to the Bolsa Chica, and any pro-
posals must be under the reality of limited access of existing streets to
reach freeways.
The City of Huntington Beach should take immediate action to annex the
Bolsa Chica, to that a plan can be developed that enhances the area for the
residents of Huntington Beach, and the thousands of people that visit the
area.
r
• CITY. OF HunTmGT0n BEAC �,�
�� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
• P. 0. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92M (7141 536-5271
E !Cl
D
TO: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrato MAR 2 4 1978
FROM: Edward D. Selich, Director of Planning
DATE: April 3, 1978 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
SUBJECT: 208 Milestone Report ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:
The City of Huntington Beach has been requested by SCAG to approve
the final draft 208 Milestone Report Document by passing a
resolution and forwarding the City' s action onto SCAG.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Planning Department recommends approval with comments of the
final draft 208 Milestone Report Document.
ANALYSIS :
Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
requires the preparation and implementation of areawide water
quality management plans. The Environmental Protection Agency and
the State Water Resources Control Board have designated SCAG as the
responsible 208 planning agency for the South Coast area (which
includes Orange County and the western portions-, of Los Angeles,
Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties) , and have awarded SCAG
approximately $2. 8 million to complete the areawide plan by
November 1, 1978 .
Specifically, Section 208 requires the development of a comprehensive
and continuing areawide waste treatment management planning process
which addresses the following priority issues: (a) water quality
problems caused by nonpoint sources (e.g. surface runoff) , (b) the
relationships between air and water quality, (c) the development of
institutional arrangements necessary for 208 plan implementation.
The County of Orange as well as other agencies within the SCAG
Region entered into cooperative agreements with SCAG to have performed
various work tasks. The final draft 208 Milestone Report reflects
a culmination of the work tasks performed under the 208 Phase I
Work Program.
The Milestone Report is a summary background report of . the data
collected under Phase I of the 208 planning efforts. The report
addresses seven broad topics:
Policy and Institutional Framework
Population, Housing, Employment and Land Use (PHEL)
ry
Floyd G. Belsito
.208 Milestone Report
Page 2
Water Quality Conditions
Utility System Overview
Air Quality Conditions
Non Point Sources Assessments
Water Quality Management Issues
SCAG is requesting that all cities, counties, and water quality
related special districts take action to approve the Milestone
Report.
Respectfully submitted,
141-1
(L.U-�u -
Edward D. Selich
Director of Planning and
Environmental Resources
EDS:RB: s
• EnviRonmEnTAL REYIEW BOARD
'AAF3 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH•CALIFORNIA
P.O. BOX 190 92648
1 1 1
TO- Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:_ Environmental Review Board
i SUBJECT: EIR No. 7.5-1 (Huntington Harbor Capacity Study)
DATE: December . 19 , 1975
i
ATTENTION: David D. Rowlands, City Administrator
i
i
History
On November 21, 1974 , the State Lands Commission issued a moratorium
and refused to issue boat dock leases within the State waterways. of
Huntington Harbor. -"The moratorium Was to take effect until such time
as the City prepared a comprehensive Environmental' Impact Report to
assess the cumulative effects of the ultimate development of the
i harbor area.
i As a result of the moratorium, the City, upon the urging of major
Huntington Harbor -property owners, arranged a meeting with various
concerned State -agencies. That meeting was held on April 30, 1975, and
the City of Huntington Beach was designated as Lead Agency. The main
purpose of the meeting was to establish the scope of the EIR. The
following governmental agencies attended this meeting:
Department of Fish and Game
f State Lands Division
U.S. Corps of Engineers
Orange County Department of Harbors and Beaches
Orange County Flood Control District
City of Huntington Beach
California Coastal Commission (South Coast Region)
A draft EIR was received. from the consultant on. September" 5, 1975, and
was distributed through the State Clearinghouse for review and comment.
Comments were received, and- the final EIR was prepared. The final
EIR was received by the Environmental Review Board .on December 5, 1975,
and adopted on December 91 1975 . Copies of the final EIR were distrib-
uted to all agencies and individuals who had supplied comments to. the
i draft. On December 16, 1975 , the draft and final EIR's were transmitted
to the City Council of Huntington Beach to allow sufficient time for
review prior to approval action.
i Discussion of Relevant Planning Matters
The attached map of the Huntington Harbor area indicates the previous
environmental documents that have been. processed and approved by the.
City. In addition, the tentative tract maps for the area are also
noted. In effect, this Huntington Harbor Capacity Study (EIR 75-1)
summarizes the environmental effects of the presently approved projects
and, in .addition, predicts. additional and cumulative environmental
effects of the anticipated development of properties presently unimproved
(i.e. , approximately 37 acres) . .
i =
Mayor and City Council
HH EIR 75-1
Page 2
In conclusion, it is the opinion of the Environmental Review Board
. . that the EIR deals very adequately and effectively with the past,
present, and future conditions of the Harbor boating safety, water
quality, ultimate boating capacity, and additional traffic considera-
tions on Pacific Coast Highway should total harbor plans be implemented
as presently anticipated. The report indicates that the future
planned development in the harbor area will not result in a substantial
adverse effect upon the physical environment, and that the.mitigation
measures put forth should be used as development criteria.
Recommendation
It is therefore recommended that the City Council adopt EIR 75-1
and issue the Notice of Determination.
Respectfully submitted,
6
ames W. . Palin, Secretary
Environmental Review Board
JWP:MAT:df
Attachment
/ yA,A '►
•+ J !I'tii'��5'I�r:L•ik, �ti��y5�fi1�r i
40�'���
We
21>
,�, / � "'�'+ I'�515�''I'ff�'Y;I�I��,!51 '' r5l'•'f���� I
/', ✓ 'fl--1 r�r�n�1}..II gin,,: of F
Ir,
16
i7 ,4P ��+C' '6`. /•• � 5i1;1,4y, `•ii5 Itil�[l: , hid +
11 y i' ., ,�[. r? ,I;II 'Slili I ,•4'ri51 fiY'1'i�V f,,.y
00
�155 _ �I
+/ • `�l�I� {Y"�I • 15;i55.•a,�SSI'.I y55'yyi;i''yi'S'S!'+' '•�T � .
♦ ,sue $},� ? LI'I.r•' 'i51 n n+5, Y�
sVV 5'=1
,irllli. r'S;?"
Mai
•' \•V � ` ..i'�54 � '�'I � i'' —1 11 1
r , '•`// I ,fl •/T^Ve_y: � i I �Itu1"1lf51;"''';;,:�i.,,i, I
r�•yl III'IyI 51'h*15�,.
.I•ri5:,i5' �I!'r15554'i
y x14i�t15y4 1^A1 f.'051. 45i ISi''I I'�i'ri4� 1
,I. I
00
ey
-------------
11��5h5M u5'1 YY5y1�55� �r r•'A <a •,, A I y r
1' I II i4,�i5 I ti'I.
_ •• � rid • • I.�} S�' ,uy,'
••\ 1�Ir45 '11 , ,tO I1�I
t � f,:rit•I�Ib i111iA'I \ • ,lil�'ll'' i �2:���1 I /—
• � • I��!!�I!1. .�i:i ii 5i l� � J
I :., i�'lil!r•f'rl;r;ti;i�'rir'' ', yili4l 1'�
r , !GN•NNEL' I li4i''.rti r �'��,5i5�7; I i'I 1,'I ii 1, � , �•;.
,15f5 15{.L'+5,It,ll d 5 Il I�'i5'��•
,'i'�i\ih'I�� '15iC15: I I' I!I. 151''4�i1 •�
1 I.
•• � ,;f'S,.'I 1,la;r;�il�i�
OO � MIMOO• �• �,e� ..�.L�.. .. I I
I ,
1
I I
I
----- ----- ' I
s I
r I I
` I
1 �
I I
• mIMM• tnry , I' .
I I
; 1 1
I 1 I I
I I I I
1
• EnYlROnMEnTAL REVIEW BOARD
/ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH•CALIFORNIA
�- P.O. BOX 190 92648
na
�1
,sl
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Environmental Review Board
DATE: July 10 , 1974
SUBJECT: EIR 74-2 - Proposed widening and realignment of
Gothard Street between Warner Avenue and Garfield Avenue
APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, Department of Public Works
BACKGROUND:
Environmental Impact Report No. 74-2 for the 2 . 2 mile improvements
along Gothard has been prepared to allow the City of Huntington
Beach to pursue an EDA grant for such improvements and to assist and
encourage industrial development along the Gothard corridor.
The Environmental Impact Report, as prepared by Environmental Impact
Profiles, consultant for the City of Huntington Beach, and authorized
by the Department of Public Works, was filed in draft form with the
city on February 25, 1974. A public hearing was held on May 21, 1974 ,
to solicit public comment. The Public Antiquities Salvage Team 6
(PAST) was engaged by the city to investigate and salvage artifacts
from those portions of ORA 367 and ORA 185 which lie within the
area which would be affected by construction of the ultimate project
to the full rights-of-way. The final Environmental Impact Report
was filed with the Environmental Review Board on June 12 , 1974 , for
review and final action. This final impact report was distributed
to the City Council on July 5, 1974, for its review prior to formal
transmittal of the Environmental Review Board' s action.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
In addition to those mitigating measures as set forth in the EIR 74-2 ,
the Board offers the following:
1. The city should pursue underground utility district (or districts)
along that portion of Gothard Street abutting the Central City
Park.
1
Gothard Street - EIR 74-2
Page 2
2. The city should undertake a comprehensive study of the ultim-
ate use of the Bruce Brothers pit. This study should outline
the-type of use as well as the ultimate elevation of the
finished grade within the pit itself, so that a determination
could be made on the precise alignment of Gothard Street in that
vicinity and the need for compaction to carry a portion of the
right-of-way.
3. When trees are necessarily removed because of the widening of
this thoroughfare, replacement trees should be of sufficient
size and quantity so as to soften the industrial uses and com-
plement the Central Park complex. Every attempt should be made
to save specimen trees.
4. There should be no alternatives chosen for the alignment of
Gothard south of Ellis until the Land Use Alternative Study for
the planning reserve south of Central Park is adopted by the
City Council.
5. Prior to any grading operations on the west side of Gothard in
the vicinity of ORA 367 and ORA 185, the PAST team or equivalent
reputable archaeologist/paleontologist groups shall be retained
to observe the grading operations, so that any resource material
uncovered may be preserved and .salvaged. Procedures for grading
in these sensitive areas should be directed by such specialists.
6. In addition, the Board recommends that the city pursue with the
owners of the property located at the southeast corner of Slater
and Gothard a Precise Plan of Street Alignments for the small-lot
subdivision, to assist this area to develop with more desirable
and aesthetic industrial uses which would be more compatible
with the Central Park. Also, the city should pursue M1-A zoning
on the property to facilitate uses, types of structures, and
landscaping setbacks which would be more complementary to the
Central Park complex.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Attached herewith is a copy of comments received from the EIR Review
Committee of the Environmental Council, dated June 21, 1974 , in which
Gothard Street - EIR 74-2
Page 3
the committee recommends that the June 12 final Environmental Im-
pact Report be rejected, based upon the consultant' s non-response
to the committee' s conclusions as outlined in the final EIR, page
143.
It should be pointed out that the EIR has been prepared to allow the
city to pursue an ' EDA grant for street improvements on Gothard to
facilitate industrial development and establish a more realistic
tax base for the City of Huntington Beach. The Board, therefore,
cannot concur with the Environmental Council in its comments on
whether the project warrants the expense at this time. It should
be noted that, although the Planning Commission is pursuing and
studying large-lot residential zoning, this project has the "domino"
effect whereby the first domino has to fall into position before
additional studies can be implemented. This theory also relates to
the Environmental Council' s comments on Talbert and Ellis, as to
the possible effects that realignment and/or termination of those
streets could have upon the Gothard street section as well as its
final alignment.
It should further be pointed out that the project as proposed does
not include, at all locations, final curbs, gutters, and sidewalks,
but only facilitates two lanes of traffic in each direction; there-
fore, if there is a need once additional studies are undertaken for
a realignment and/or increase street section, it can be accomplished
following those decisions.
It should also be pointed out that this project may have an adverse
impact upon the environment because of its growth-inducing effects
and the industrial. development to follow. However, there are over-
riding considerations which can be taken into account:
1. The goals and objectives as contained in the Policy Plan and
adopted by the city to encourage industrial development.
2. The establishment of a balanced tax base and the economic bene-
fits to be realized from industrial development.
3. The establishment of employment centers within the City of Hunt-
ington Beach for the Huntington Beach labor pool and, in so
Gothard Street - EIR 74-2
Page 4
doing, the elimination of the need for commuting 30-35 miles
to a place of employment.
4. Ref: My communication dated May 16, 1974 : The response "i"
as contained within the final Environmental Impact Report
(pages 136 through 138) on the overall reduction in emissions
to be realized through federal and state controls to become
effective prior to the 1985 date used in the calculations should
be referred to in regard to overriding considerations on air
emissions.
ADOPTION:
The Environmental-' Impact Report for this project was adopted by
the Environmental Review Board on June 25, 1974.
CONCLUSION:
Based upon the information contained within the final EIR as well as
the recommendations and findings set forth by this transmittal, the
Environmental Review Board recommends that the City Council adopt the
EIR 74-2. The Board further recommends that the City Council attach
a statement of overriding considerations (as outlined by the Board
in this transmittal) in its final action on adoption of this report.
Adoption of this report will permit the city to pursue further the
EDA grant for these street improvements.
It should be pointed out, pursuant to Article 951, that industrial
uses are subject to discretionary acts, and each use as it is proposed
along this corridor will be subject to environmental evaluation by
the city.
a
James W. Palin, Secretary
Environmental Review Board
JWP:df
Attachment: EIR Review Committee Comments of June 21, 1974
To: Environmental Review Board
From: EIR Review Committee
Date: June 21, 1974
Topic : Gothard Street Improvement Final EIR
While the public comments are included in this Final EIR, there
does not appear to be any response to the comments by the con-
sultant, On this basis, and because none of the issues raised
in the first EIR Review Committee comments as detailed on page
143, last two paragraphs in this final EIR have been responded
to, justified, or mitigating measured proposed, the EIR Review
Committee requests that this June 12 Final EIR be rejected.
EnYlRo MEf 1TAL REVIEW BOARD
A CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH-CALIFORNIA
/ # P.O. BOX 190.92648
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Environmental Review Board
DATE : March 18 , 1974
SUBJECT: Huntington Beach Industrial Park (EIR 73-16)
APPLICANT : Lusk Company
LOCATION: A 407-acre Industrial Park project bounded by Bolsa
Avenue on the north, Springdale Street on the east ,
Edinger Street on the south, and Bolsa Chica Street
on the west
BACKGROUND :
This EIR for-the 407-acre Industrial Park has been pre-
pared to allow future plans to be .filed for development of the
remaining portion of the industrial park. The Environmental
Impact Report as prepared by Westec Services , Inc . , consultants
for the City of Huntington Beach, was filed in draft form with
the city on December 26 , 1973 , and an addendum thereto was filed
on March 81, 1974 . These two volumes comprise the final report
and are transmitted herewith to the City Council . The draft EIR
was distributed to solicit public comments , and the Board held a
public hearing thereon on February 26 , 1974 .
This two-volume Final EIR is transmitted to the City Council for
adoption to allow subsequent uses to be constructed in the park
without the filing of additional environmental documents at the
time each individual activity is proposed. However, it should be
noted that the report is general in- scope and has not addressed
any specific plans or future street alignments for the area.
Therefore, the Environmental Review Board, pursuant to the pro-
visions of CEQA, retains the right to review all subsequent plans .;
and Precise Plans of street alignments for determination of their
environmental impact prior to approval by the City.
Lusk Industrial Park EIR
Page 2
This report has analyzed the general environmental effects of
the total Industrial Park, at the specific request of the City,
to point out the cumulative problem areas of both the existing
and future projects .
RECOMMENDATION:
The Board offers the following mitigating measures for your con-
sideration;
A. Based upon the general information contained in the report on
the traffic to be generated by the total 407-acre industrial
park, the Board feels that , should the park be totally devel-
oped within one year, it would have a devastating effect upon
the existing systems . However, because of the economic bene-
fits from the development the Board feels that this -
signifi-cant impact can be minimized through a number of measures :
1 (through 6) : The Board concurs with the six mitigating meas-
ures offered within the EIR, Section 6 , page 133 ffl . , to
mitigate the adverse effects of the traffic generated from
the industrial -subdivision. In addition, the Board offers
the following measures :
7. . A comprehensive transportation study shall be undertaken to
provide a circulation plan for the industrial park which
can point out which of these mitigating measures will be the
most effective and will also lead to an efficient circula-
tion pattern within the development . This transportation
study would also be of benefit to the project sponsor.
8 . The project sponsor should be encouraged to establish car
pools within the project .
9 . Industrial parcels should be discouraged- from fronting
on the major and primary arterial highways .
10 . Controls should be placed on access points from all arterial
highways to industrial parcels within the park.
B. The Board concurs with all mitigating measures offered in the
report in Section 6 , page 129 , and recommends that the City pursue
Lusk Industrial Park EIR
Page 3
same through review of subsequent specific plans , tentative
maps , or precise plans of street alignments which .are pre-
sented for approval action by the City.
C. Additional Mitigating Measures :
The Board wishes to point -out that , while the consultant has
analyzed briefly the general impacts to be expected from var-
ious uses within the M1-A District (as depicted in Appendix C
in the addendum to the report) , the scope of the report was
not to analyze specific impacts from specific uses permitted
in the district . Therefore, the Board feels that it is in- .
cumbent upon the City to analyze those uses , and. recommends
that a comprehensive study be undertaken by. city staff on the
specific uses permitted by the District Ordinance , Article 951 ,
M1-A zone , to eliminate those uses that would have adverse
effects upon the environment , both from the standpoint of the .
community as a whole as well as that of the industrial park.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
A. Because of the need for housing for employees within the .. indus-
trial subdivision, the Board recommends that the City should
pursue and encourage low- to moderate_income housing , as out-
lined in the City's Goals and Objectives .
B. This project may have a significant impact upon the environ-
ment ; however, the Board feels that there are overriding consid-
erations :
1 . The Goals and Objectives as adopted by the City to encourage
industrial development.
2 . The establishment of a balanced tax rate , and the economic
benefits to be realized from an industrial development .
3 . The establishment of employment centers within the City of
Huntington Beach for its citizens .
Lusk .Industrial Park EIR
Page 4 .
ADOPTION:
The Environmental Impact Report for this project was adopted by
the Environmental Review Board on March 14 , 1974 .
CONCLUSION:
Based upon the . information contained within the two-volume report ,
as well as the recommendations and findings set forth by this
transmittal , the Environmental Review Board recommends that the
City Council adopt EIR 73-16 . It further recommends that the City
Council attach a statement of overriding concerns (as outlined by
the Board in this transmittal) in its final action on adoption of
this report. Adoption of this report will allow subsequent Admin-
istrative Reviews to be filed with the Board of Zoning Adjustments
for approval action.
GLJ
James W. Palin, Secretary
Environmental Review Board
JWP :df
Attachments : EIR 73-16 and Addendum
Environmental Council Comment dated March 13 , 1974
r-,
f
LAM Environmental Council
Le" CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
HUNTINGTON13EACH Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648
TO: Environmental Review Board
FROM: EIR Review Committee
Environmental Council
DATE : March 13, 1974
SUBJECT: LUSK INDUSTRIAL PARK - EIR 73-16
Additional Comment on the Lusk Park:
Appendix C should include a category for water, with the specific
impact to include such things as excessive volumes used, organic
wastes , metallic wastes , and information in regard to above-
average sanitary sewer input, Flood Control channel input, or
industrial waste line input.
Also in Appendix C , in Section A in the column for Air -- perhaps
cement products should be also be included in Category 3 , because
ofparticulates.
Margaret caril5erg
EIR Review Committee
MC:df
Dictated over the phone by. Mrs . Carlberg - March 13, 1974