Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLake Street Project - Environmental Impact Report 89-3 - EIR i LAKE STREET PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 89-3 aC6 �a a a m CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MARCH 1989 .Z City of Huntington Beach * 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA92648 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Building Division 536-5241 Planning Division 536-5271 " March 24, 1989 To: Interested Parties SUBJECT: DRAFT EIR 89-3; LAKE STREET PROJECT Dear Interested Persons : Enclosed for your review is Draft EIR 89-3; Lake Street Project . The 30-day Draft comment period is March 27, 1989 to April 25, 1989 . Comments should be submitted no later that April 25, 1989 , to Ruth E. Lambert, City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 . Sincerely, � Ruth E. Lambert Assistant Planner REL : lab y State of California OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 NOTICE OF COMPLETION FORM Project Title Draft EIR 89-3; Lake Street Project Project Location-Specific - A site bounded by-Lake street xxon the west, Yorktown Avenue on the north, an abandoned rail oa �6ifht-of-eet mhlof Yeet east twn Aof Lakue enStreeSoon the east and a lot line approxi- Prolect. Location-City Project Location-County City of Huntington Beach Orange County Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project This project is a request to demolish/remove three (3) existing historical structures from the subject area and subdividing the lot to construct six(6) single-family residences. The proposed project is located in the Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Area. Lead Agency Division City of Huntington Beach 2000 .Main Street., Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Address Where Copy of EIR is Available See above , Planning Division, Community development Department Review Period March 27 - April 25, 1989 Contact Person Area Code Phone Fension Ruth Lambert (714) 536-5271 Revised Jitnuary 1995 DRAFT ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 89-3 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 89-02-01-01 PREPARED BY: City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 MARCH 1989 EIR NO. 89-3 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT SUMMARY/MATRIX (TO BE PROVIDED WITH DRAFT EIR) ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY/MATRIX (TO BE PROVIDED WITH DRAFT EIR) 1 . 0 INTRODUCTION 1 . 1 General Purpose 1 . 2 Environmental Procedures 1 . 3 Project History 1.4 Incorporation by Reference 1 . 5 Project Sponsors and Contact Persons 1. 6 Major Issues 2 . 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 . 1 Project Location 2 . 2 Project Characteristics 2 . 3 Project Proponent/Property Owners 2 .4 Phasing 2 . 5 Project Objectives 2 . 6 Permits and Actions 2: 7 Lead and Trustee Agencies 2 . 8 Related projects 3 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION 3 . 1 Earth Resources 3 .2 Historic Resources 4 . 0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 4 . 1 No Project Alternative . 4 .2 Onsite Retention of Historic Structures/Alternative Project Location 4 . 3 Relocation of Historic Structures 5 . 0 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5 . 1 Short-Term use Versus Long-Term productivity 5 . 2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes 5 . 3 Growth Inducing and Cumulative Impacts ii t l a. 6 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARIES 6 . 1 Impacts Found Not to be Significant 6 . 2 Impacts Mitigated to Level of Insignificance 6 .3 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts 6 .4 Mitigation Measures 7 . 0 REPORT PREPARATION RESOURCES 7 . 1 Organizations and Persons Consulted 7 . 2 Preparers and Contributors to the Report 7 . 3 References APPENDICES APPENDIX A - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND REVIEW 1. Initial Study and NOP 2 . NOP Distribution List 3 . Responses to NOP APPENDIX B - REPORT ON HISTORICAL STRUCTURES, THIRTIETH STREET ARCHITECTS, INC. APPENDIX C - CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATES OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE THREE BUILDINGS LOCATION AT 1980 LAKE STREET, THIRTIETH STREET ARCHITECTS, INC. iii r t r a LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1 REGIONAL LOCATION EXHIBIT 2 LOCAL VICINITY EXHIBIT 3 USGS MAP EXHIBIT 4 PROJECT SITE EXHIBIT 5 RELATED PROJECTS MAP EXHIBIT 6 LAND EXCHANGE MAP EXHIBIT 7 PARITAL ONSITE RETENTION PLAN LIST OF TABLES TABLE A PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS TABLE B CUMULATIVE PROJECT IMPACTS iv LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1 REGIONAL LOCATION EXHIBIT 2 LOCAL VICINITY EXHIBIT 3 USGS MAP EXHIBIT 4 PROJECT SITE EXHIBIT 5 RELATED PROJECTS MAP EXHIBIT 6 LAND EXCHANGE MAP EXHIBIT 7 PARITAL ONSITE RETENTION PLAN LIST OF TABLES TABLE A PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS TABLE B CUMULATIVE PROJECT IMPACTS iv 1 � SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS HISTORICAL IMPACTS LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE IMPACT SCOPE MITIGATION AFTER MITIGATION Demolition of all onsite- Project Specific Mitigation measures Project-Specific historic buildings will and Cumulative 1 through 4 in and cumulative eliminate the remaining Section 3.2 shall impacts cannot be examples of metal oil indus- be implemented mitigated to a level try buildings from 1920-1930 of insignificance oil boom Demolition of the Project Specific Mitigation measures Project-Specific structures will result and Cumulative 1 through 4 in and cumulative in the loss of structures Section 3.2 shall impacts cannot be that are examples of a be implemented mitigated to a level distinctive architectural/ of insignificance construction type from the oil boom era Demoliton of the structures Project Specific Mitigation measures Project-Specific will eliminate their and Cumulative 1 through 4 in and cumulative historical association Section 3.2 shall impacts cannot be with a prominent individual be implemented mitigated to a level in the history of of insignificance Huntington Beach Project implementation Project Specific Mitigation measures Project-Specific will result in loss of and Cumulative 1 through 4 in and cumulative three structures potentially Section 3.2 shall impacts cannot be eligible for National be implemented mitigated to a level Register listing of insignificance Project will incrementally Cumulative Mitigation measures Project-Specific contribute to the reduction 1 through 4 in and cumulative of the number of remaining Section 3.2 shall impacts cannot be historic resources in the City be implemented mitigated to a level of insignificance SEISMIC IMPACTS LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE IMPACT SCOPE MITIGATION AFTER MITIGATION Project implementation may Project Specific Mitigation measures Project-Specific subject proposed residences 1 through 5 in impacts can be to seismic hazards associated Section 3.1 shall mitigated to a level with the Newport-Inglewood be implemented of insignificance Fault zone v 1 ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY Environmentally Superior Under Alternative to the Project Consideration No Project Yes No Onsite Retention and Yes Yes Reuse of Structures Relocation and Yes Yes Reuse of Structures Alternative Project Yes Yes Location vi (0826D) 1 . 1. 0 INTRODUCTION 1 . 1 GENERAL PURPOSE This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addressess potential environmental impacts of the Lake Street project (EIR 89-3) consisting of the demolition of three historic structures and the construction of six single-family residences . The project is located in the Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project Area in the vicinity of the Civic Center facilities near the intersection of Lake Street and Yorktown Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach, Orange County, California . The applicant has requested the certification of an Environmental Impact Report and approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 13920 . The City of Huntington Beach has principal responsibility for the . projects approval and supervision. Consequently, the City is the Lead Agency for the preparation of this EIR. The materials contained in this EIR are intended to serve as an informational document for decisions to be made by the City of Huntington Beach and other responsible agencies regarding the proposed project. 1. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES This EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) , as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 210000, et seq. ) , and the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Qaulity Act of 1970, as amended (California Administrative Code, Section 15000, et . seq. ) . . The EIR has been focused as provided for in Section 15063 (c) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines . The purpose of this action is to focus the environmental impact report on the effects of the proposed project on certain earth and historic resources of the site. 1. 3 PROJECT HISTORY The Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Plan was prepared in response to the City' s desire to improve, upgrade, and revitalize the area. This Plan was adopted by the City Council in 1982 . The proposed project is consistent with the objectives and actions of this Plan. An Environmental Assessment/Initial Study was prepared by the City for the project . This study indicated that the project may have potentially significant impacts on the environment and that an EIR was required. Possible significant project impacts were identified for historic resources . Specific concerns included project impacts f to three metal industrial buildings constructed in the 1920s . These structures had previously been identified in the City' s 1986 Historic Resources Survey Report . The Notice of Preparation (NOP) was sent out on January 23 , 1989 . Subsequent to the distribution of the NOP, additional information indicated that significant impacts may result in the area of earth resources/seismic issues . Consequently, this EIR addresses significant project impacts to earth and historic resources . 1 .4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE The following documents are incorporated by reference into this report . - Environmental Assessment/Negative Declaration No . 88-20 - Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project Plan - City of Huntington Beach Historic Resources Survey Evaluations - Historic Resources Survey Report, City of Huntington Beach, September 1986 . These documents are available for review and inspection at the City of Huntington Beach Department of Community Development during regular business hours . 1. 5 PROJECT SPONSORS AND CONTACT PERSONS The Lead Agency in preparing this Environmental Impact Report is the City of Huntington Beach. The historic consultant to the City is Johnson Heumann Research Associates, Inc. of Los Angeles . The project applicant is Pacific Coast Homes . Preparers and contributors to this report are listed in Section 7. 0 . Key contact persons are as follows : . City of Huntington Beach Ms . Ruth Lambert Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach Department of Community Development 2000 main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5271 Draft EIR No. 89-3 -2- 1 . 6 MAJOR ISSUES The major issues identified in previous environmental assessments are the project impacts to the earth resources (seismic issues) and onsite historic resources . No other significant project impacts are anticipated. 2 . 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 . 1 LOCATION The proposed project is located in the vicinity of the Civic Center facilities near the intersection of Lake Street and Yorktown Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach, Orange County, California (Exhibits 1, 2 and 3) . The project site is located within the Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project area . Specifically, the project site is bounded by Lake Street on the west, Yorktown Avenue on the north, an abandoned railroad right-of-way 170 feet east of Lake Street on the east and a lot line approximately 270 feet south of Yorktown on the south. The project site boundaries are shown on Exhibit 4 . 2 . 2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The proposed project consists of the construction of six single-family residences on approximately one acre. The homes range in size from approximately 2,466 square feet to about 3 , 275 square feet . The architecture is representative of the bungalow and prairie house styles found in the existing neighboring Oldtown residential area . The site plan for the proposed project is shown on Exhibit 4 . Table A details the characteristics of the project. An environmental assessment was prepared for the project . Environmental information identified significant project impacts for earth resources (seismic issues) and cultural resources (historic structures) . These concerns are raised as the project is located within the Newport-Inglewood Fault Hazard Zone and project implementation will result in the demolition of three existing historic structures . The EIR analyzes the potential effects of the proposed project on these resources . 2 .3 PROJECT PROPONENT AND PROPERTY OWNERS The project proponent is Pacific Coast Homes, located at 2120 Main Street, Suite 260, Huntington Beach, California, 92648-2499 . The property owner is Pacific Coast Homes . 2 .4 PHASING The developer anticipates that construction will start in Spring of 1989 . This start date is based upon acquisition of City approvals and permits . Construction will occur in one phase lasting approximately four to six months . Draft EIR No .- 89-3 -3- T.YIL SON • �' O MILES SuRSANN ' LY - I hI'� oD 30 M1. GLQNDALL I I•ASADENL TCOrw•.- 1 ARCADDIIA CMCAVONGA C. fAN OTEYILE CITT SALDMIN , S= O CLAACA•0 0 1 1 .ASRICL TARN ICO\•.NA ([ ;1 LLB O V j Y 1 oop i O C G ` �g ro 1 EL YO•ITE O .w Ti.... ""wT fA\ !E•TNLRON': O 10 NTCLAIR IDOL `wNl Y.O CST Poo.. NTAAIOO •�•\. 1 COVINA LI LOS NC(LES 60 - -c A 10 .yIA11 .o Yo NA ep� Inc�f rR• WALNUT O UV O 'y f OCN...o : 1 USC OCOMMEACE 20 MI. aAR J -I 11 NVNi14470N 7•1 % ?1 ►AANO LOS ANGELES Ate. COU Saj "4 1 CLEM000 DO.NET SANTA FE V O OvA1Nca ORANGE COUNTY eLcfl -! CAL STATE COLLEGE ���90�r✓C 1� . AT FUUERTOR 57 , -- " NORWALN ,y0 r �, F— I TORSA LINDA .0 �-••� � •e ..a R. L 11 IRR• GAAOEMA ART FRMT . ow.FULLERTON; :/ CORONA T O BLVD. _ 91 .� % iLAC(NTIA !1�(.NSIGF 91 9 JBULK NI.0 PS.LL 0 T •�G N/1 0\F\ LARE.00D TO ANCE O Z,.;�� O Sth 1� • ♦ 9 I VILLA ` .v.w. w • .• Ib, ' O'AAR �O\G ..L F G 2 t CAL STATE LLEG-E^ .►} Y•.• •••.•••,.. 1 Zl J• 'ACR`� 'i...�Yil.. gyp•` WIN ng Eon C �- ••�` —— LONG T•NO.r N 22 SAMTA rn C J ANL LjV( TUSTIN SAN PEDNI; BLACK '• `? •�\•• ••wESTEN.• 55 40 PROJECTSITE '• SRN) � •OSTA�����/////� ,• T • MESA( 1 ` ' C.IRVINE VICINITY MAP , o . of CPS HUNTINGTON BEACH \� LLCUNA ■EACN 1a Exhibitt Regional Location huntington beach planning division 11 ' V .Nn < u 0 0 1600 �200 t7 bOLSA c = ARGOSY Or_ < 1 Z OMF.Z 8 �\ EDINGER HEIL 'WARNER WARNER �•\ SLATER TALBERT _ ELLIS I- u o ` 4 � a � �•.� GARFIELD r S /YORKTOW N 4�y Vp ADAMS a / It 4 3 s r a r NDIANAPOliS ATLANTA HAMILTON BANNING r r Exhibit 2 Local Vicinity HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION i r . � �°(�o•o. 'b it 1°!�- � d=' �,�.: . ,. . _ w I AM 00 oNN ol W t j o 07�° 00 O i IIc^`I°o. _,I't3,' c' 'o' i• ,1 ` °� o b '��: ,' O 10 ) O ��)O • Oti0 it P 50 ^i( o ,0 0 0 °•pro°pro.°° 000 o ° ° —+. �•�:�°: ..o ° o� .o° ° ,: ' 0 , ; o�MA 00-1 (o�"•I o 0 0• o I•o f o�o 7 0 0,°° •• ° o �l O� i•....._�j��o�IfgF J� l d i oo ° c AVo �• 0 f"�s .. 10 0 o C•. o C / y' o• J�°•T c�o,� T•� •' 't oo,� v,�...•.' 00 0 0 • j , CO : oar °° �•�• -- ° ri 4(1� 0 0 0 O O Kn - • ••O ° O O•� O S Oi 0 0 0 3r � � .�. o ° ° o.. e i 'o t +Y�c '(r, �. 0 �o o� o Fz :.it I ttµ 4�-;yq.' p1£. O•.7'. .;LS' O.. O 5 O • O ••O ^ ' i O O ��y Y,. ,� �I r .erg 4�04 '"Py ir�t* ° • (�• x c� "aa � ��c g "use � �:,a ti �o '�ria0 �''o^ �� 0 ° , ,I I �w���;#�•{ �,P � -�p -tr .t � ;�.'�p€ off' "y"4�, .�+ hFt�°+,�. 0 0. o ° o ` rr ooO: t II _ w lax 6, Ada.. ✓ o o \r 6OO 30 q, fir{ RK T 0wN 4vE I. i I CV -� i =/sz ai t _ bTE Di/�pLdt'HEO KEG 4. ti5z i. 7POS' A i 1 ti ,gGGEY 1' A. 44 .Ifff �j�; .•i' I �. Exhibit. 4 ACIMk wo mw Project Map huntington beach planning division 2 . 5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES Section 15124 of the California Environmental Quality Act requires that a statement of project objectives be included in the EIR. These objectives are 1) to improve and enhance the general area through appropriate development uses and 2) to provide quality housing for the City of Huntington Beach. 2 . 6 PERMITS AND -ACTIONS PROPOSED ACTIONS 1. Certification of the Environmental Impact Report. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the City, as Lead Agency, certify the adequacy of the EIR and certify that the decision-making body has reviewed and considered the information contained within the EIR prior to reaching a decision on the project. 2 . Approval of Tentative Tract Map No . 13920 . Project implementation requires the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 13920 so that the project site can be subdivided into six lots . PERMITS AND ACTIONS Permits and actions covered by this EIR include approval of Tentative Tract Map No . 13920 . Modifications to this project are not included in the EIR. 2 . 7 LEAD AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES LEAD AGENCY The Lead Agency is the City of Huntington Beach. This Agency will use this EIR in the decision-making process for this project. City of Huntington Beach: Ruth E. Lambert Assistant Planner Department of Community Development City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5271 TRUSTEE AGENCIES This EIR serves to provide environmental information to particular agencies . These include: 1. California State Office of Historic Preservation 2 . Caltrans Draft EIR No . 89-3 -4- 2 . 8 RELATED PROJECTS There are two projects in the area that may affect or be affected by the proposed project . Project locations are shown on Exhibit 5 . 1 . Tract No. 13569 . This project includes the construction of 80 single family residences, re-routing and vacation of portions of certain streets and alleys, and a land exchange. 2 . Proposed Civic Center parking facility. A 105-space parking facility is a future proposal for the area west of the proposed project . At present, this project is in the conceptual stage and specific project information is unavailable. The future parking area is bounded by the extension of Seventeenth Street, Park Street, Lake Street and Yorktown Avenue. This land will be acquired through the land exchange arrangement associated with the creation of Tract No. 13569 . Draft EIR No. 89-3 -5- PROJECT AREA FUTURE CIVIC CENTER PARKING jz 17 - Ir,.'. Yr '{'� i i �j Ff- APPROVED TRACT I MG9 Exhibit. 5 Related Projects Location Map huntington. beach planning division TABLE A PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS General Plan Existing General Plan Medium Density Residential Proposed General Plan No change Zoning Existing Zoning O1dTown Specific Plan District Two, Civic District Proposed Zoning No change Development Gross Acreage Approximately one (1) acre Existing Development Vacant industrial buildings Proposed Development Six single family residences Source: City of Huntington Beach Draft EIR No. 89.-3' -6- 3 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS. MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION 3 . 1 EARTH RESOURCES EXISTING CONDITIONS SITE DESCRIPTION The site is located within a geographic region of Huntington Beach, California, known as the Huntington Beach Mesa, a wedge-shaped, upland area which rises abruptly from sea level approximately 85 feet to its highest point near the intersection of Edwards Street and Garfield Avenue. Specifically, the site consists of approximately 1 acre located east of the City of Huntington Beach Civic Center. The site is a relatively flat, gently sloping area with existing elevations ranging from approximately 45 to 55 feet above sea level . Site drainage is controlled mainly by sheet flows and underground improvements and drains to the south (Exhibit 3) . . LOCAL GEOLOGY The subject site, as well as the entire City of Huntington Beach, is located near the southeastern boundary of the Los Angeles Basin. The Los Angeles Basin is a structural depression filled with a stratigraphic succession of about 14 , 000 feet of marine clastic sediments, marine and continental deposits, and recent alluvial and coastal deposits . The Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone passes diagonally through the City of Huntington -Beach. Geotechnic studies of the project area (previously incorporated by reference) , investigated subsurface conditions by drilling several borings . These borings indicate that the site is underlain by both continental and marine terrace deposits . Testing in the northern portion of the site revealed the deposition of man-made fill . A grade& fill berm, associated with the abandoned railroad right-of-way, is located along the eastern boundary of the site. Roadway backfill was found during trenching investigation and is located along the northerly site boundary between Yorktown Avenue and the existing buildings . Based on a review of the U.S.G.S. , Newport Beach Quadrangle, topographic map, dated 1965, 17th Street previously extended from its present terminus at Yorktown Avenue, approximately . 25 miles northeast along the north side of the northernmost building . At this location, a 17th Street underpass below Southern Pacific Railroad existed (the tracks have since been removed for residential development) . Draft EIR No. 89-3 -7- Exact fill depths are not known since accurate city records were not kept. However, the fill is estimated to vary between 5 and 20 feet in depth, with fill depth increasing to the east where the underpass was located. SEISMICITY The site is, located in the seismically active Southern California region. There a-re no known active faults on the site, however, the site is located within the Newport-Inglewood Fault Hazard Zone as designated by the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972 . Fault trenches were dug to evaluate the presence of active segments on the project site. One trench was excavated in Lake Street in association with the installation of a 20-inch water main. A second north/south trench was excavated adjacent to the Lake Street and Yorktown Avenue intersection. During this fault trenching and field exploration, no fault offsets within the topsoil or exposed portions of the terrace deposits were observed, indicating there has been no historic activity at this location. However, due to the presence of man-made fill along the northerly site boundary, it was difficult to evaluate the possibility of active faulting at this location. Analysis of possible earthquake accelerations at the site indicate the most significant event would be a 6 . 5 magnitude earthquake occurring on the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. The accelerations produced at the site by a maximum probable magnitude 6 . 5 earthquake on this fault would equal or exceed in intensity and duration, those events on any known fault. Geotechnic studies state that a magnitude 6 . 5 earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone could produce a peak ground acceleration on the order of 0 . 62g at the site with the duration of strong motion exceeding 25 seconds . Repeatable high ground acceleration from a 6 . 5 magnitude earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone is estimated to be on the order of 0 .40g. PROJECT IMPACTS The site may have several potential geotechnical constraints . The site is suitable for development provided special consideration is given to these constraints in the design and construction of the proposed project. Geotechnic studies were conducted for the project site as a part of the environmental assessment . The primary geotechnical concerns related to the proposed project include the following: 1 . Permanent alteration of existing topography and soils through cut and fill grading activities . Draft EIR No . 89-3 -8- a 2 . Seismic hazards associated with the proximity to the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. The following discussion provides a description of general geotechnical impacts associated with the proposed project . LOCAL GEOLOGY Implementation of the project will alter existing soils and topography conditions through proposed cut and fill grading activities . However, no soil will be transported on or off site. The maximum height and grade of cut or fill will be, on average, less than one foot . No significant impacts are anticipated SEISMICITY This site is located within the Newport-Inglewood Fault Hazard Zone as designated by the Alquist-Priolo special studies zones . A geotechnical study was performed for the project . Subsurface testing was conducted for a portion of the site. No fault offsets within the topsoil or exposed portions of the terrace deposits were observed, indicating there had been no historic activity in the tested area . The northerly portion of the project site was not assessed in the preliminary report. Due to the presence of man-made fill in this area it was difficult to evaluate for the occurrence of active faulting in this area. Evidence obtained during field investigations of other project areas suggests there is no active faulting in the untested area, however, prior to the issuance of a permits this area will require testing. MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures are provided in order to mitigate the geotechnic constraints in the project area. 1. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities . 2 . The northerly portion of the project site which was not investigated for evidence of faulting in the preliminary geotechnical studies, shall be field tested prior to the issuance of any permits . Evidence of faulting will require that the project be returned to the Planning Commission for further study. Draft EIR No. 89-3 -9- 3 . The preliminary geotechnical report, additional reports from the untested portion of the site, and recommendations for the acceleration to be used for designing the structures on the site (or a statement that the adopted Uniform Building Code is adequate for the seismic design of the structures on the site) shall be submitted to the Public Works Department. 4 . The Public Works Department will obtain an independent analysis of the completed geologic report. The cost of this analysis will be paid by the applicant . When the report had been amended to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, the City will file the report with the State Geologist . 5 . Construction drawings along with calculations and the approved geologic report shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development to complete the permit plan review. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of the City policies and mitigation measures will mitigate project impacts to a level of insignificance. 3 .2 HISTORIC RESOURCES EXISTING CONDITIONS HISTORY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH The City of Huntington- Beach is located on a portion of the Las Bolsas Spanish Land Grant. The land was granted in the 1790s to Manuel Perez Nietos and includes areas of Huntington Beach, Garden Grove, Westminster and Fountain Valley. In 1834, the grant was divided among Nieto ' s heirs and a small six mile square rancho, Bolsa Chica, was created. This area was used for grazing livestock and later for raising agricultural crops . A five-mile strip of beach located within the rancho boundaries was. called Shell Beach as numerous clam shells were found in the area. Midway along this beach, the backland swelled into a low mesa. This mesa was the original townsite of Huntington Beach. Prior to the turn of the century, religious revivals and conventions were held in the area . The small community was known as Shell Beach until 1901, when it was renamed Pacific City. The name change was a result of the formation of a local real estate syndicate which formed the West Coast Land and Water Company and purchased 1500 acres for town development. This company, the forerunner of the Huntington Beach Company, laid out streets and lots in a forty acre tract surrounding the area of the present Main Street . It was the company' s intention to create a west coast resort similar to New Jersey' s Atlantic City. Draft EIR No. 89-3 -10- 1 ' During the period of early town development, rural areas to the southeast, east, and north of the City were sparsely settled with farmers raising crops of celery, sugar beets, lima beans , chili peppers and barley. In 1902 , West Coast Land and Water Company holdings were sold to a Los Angeles company and the Huntington Beach Company was formed. At this time, the name of the City was changed from Pacific City to Huntington Beach. This was a goodwill gesture to H.E. Huntington who owned a substantial amount of Huntington Beach Company stock and the Pacific Electric Railroad (the "Red Car") . Following the turn of the century, several developments occurred in Huntington Beach. In 1903, the first wooden pier was constructed by the Huntington Beach Company at the end of Main Street. The Red Car from Long Beach arrived in the City in 1904 and real estate and building activity developed. In February 1909 , the City was incorporated and in 1914 a new solid concrete pier was opened. Downtown businesses continued to flourish and recreational services such as a salt water plunge, beach concessions and a community band stand were developed. In 1919 , Standard Oil Company leased 500 acres in the northwest area of the City from the Huntington Beach Company. On August 1, 1920, the first oil well, A-1, was brought in with production at 91 barrels a day. More drilling continued and additional wells were started. An oil boom frenzy developed and within one month the City' s population increased from 1, 500 to 5 , 000 people. On November 6, 1920, Standard Oil brought in Bolsa Chica No. 1, a history-making well . This well alone produced an estimated four million cubic feet of gas and 1, 742 barrels of oil per day. This oil discovery was highly .significant as it was the first strike of the great west side of the productive Los Angeles basin fields . With this well, the importance of the Huntington Beach oil field was established and the City' s first oil boom was underway. The City' s population increased rapidly and numerous oil corporations were formed. Oil stocks were issued and, as a result of a national advertising campaign, people were bused in to invest in the City. The first oil boom lasted approximately one year and then excitement died down. With the first oil strike in 1920, Huntington Beach became recognized as an important oil town and oil operations continued to flourish in the following years . Recreational beach activities also persisted. Pacific Coast Highway was completed in 1926, recreational beach areas were developed for beachgoers, and surfing activities began. The City' s second oil boom occurred in 1926 between Eighth and Twenty-third Streets in the townlot area. Houses and other structures were moved to other locations in the City to allow for Draft EIR No. 89-3 -11- . oil development on the lots . Waste by-products from the wells destroyed most of the trees planted for beautification, and the area was almost completely devoted to oil activities . In 1930, a third City oil boom took place. During this strike, oil was discovered and extracted from the off-shore tideland ocean pool . Slant, or "whipstock" drilling methods were used for the first time to tap off-shore oil reserves from beach and bluff surface drilling sites . The result of this innovative technology was the extraction of oil resources and the preservation of recreational activities along the beach. The final oil strike came in 1953 and was located near the commercial and townlot areas . Additional residences and structures were removed to allow further oil development . After World War II, the city began to grow, and rural farming areas were slowly developed . The population grew more rapidly after the early 1970 ' s and oil operations were consolidated and, in some cases, removed. Redevelopment efforts have increased in recent years with a focus on downtown and townlot areas . THE BOWEN COMPANY During the City' s oil boom of 1920, S.R. Bowen established the S.R. Bowen Company to service oil operations in the area. Building records indicate that company activities began in December 1921, with the construction of a machine shop on a lot leased from the Huntington Beach Company at the corner of Seventeenth Street and Lake Street (Now Yorktown Avenue and Lake Street) . Articles from the Huntington Beach News dated January 12, 1923 and January 25, 1924 , and building records indicate additional construction of a blacksmith' s shop and a warehouse. These records indicate the company was highly successful and flourished as a result of the rapidly expanding oil industry in the City. The company provided a valuable service to the oil industry because it manufactured oil drilling tools that assisted in reducing costs and allowing more profitable returns from wells . Specifically, the company made "fishing" tools for drillers to retrieve unwanted objects from well bores . - As the easily accessible pools of oil close to the surface were drained and drillers were forced to delve deeper searching for profitable caches of oil, the importance of fishing tools increased as deeper wells required greater financial commitment . With increased investments into a well, it became more economical to invest funds to retrieve broken pipes or drill bits rather than to drill new and deeper wells . Consequently, the Bowen Company' s market for their patented fishing tools expanded with continued oil developments . The Bowen Company has been credited with the invention of the Bowen Mechanical Jar (a device to retrieve broken drill bits) , the Power Swivel (machinery used to rotate pipe) , and the Bowen L & L Spear Draft EIR No. 89-3 -12- f (a tool to retrieve broken pipe from wells) . Employment levels for tool production in 1923 were reported at 30 employees working on a 24-hour schedule of three shifts . The utility and success of these tools is still in evidence today as Bowen Tools, Inc. is continuing to manufacture their fishing tools from their headquarters in Houston, Texas . In addition, the Company still controls the largest share of the work market for the oil production tools - that they produce. A complete description of the history of the Bowen Company is included in The Story of the American Oil Industry. Samuel R. Bowen, founder of the Bowen Company, was active in the community as well as a successful businessman. Historical information indicates that Samuel Bowen was elected Mayor of Huntington Beach in 1928 and served a three-year term. He was a veteran of World War I , a member of the Huntington Beach American Legion Post, and president of the Huntington Beach Rotary Club and the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce. Apparently, Samuel Bowen was well respected in the community as the City Council passed a resolution upon his death on August 6, 1944 stating that. Samuel Bowen was "a highly respected citizen, a just and upright man and a faithful and efficient officer and servant of the people. " In addition, the Council closed City Hall for half a day on August 9 so that City employees and officials could pay their respects . PROJECT SITE Architectural Description The Bowen building complex consists of three metal clad industrial buildings located at the southeast corner of Yorktown Avenue and .Lake Street as shown on Exhibit 4 . At present the structures are vacant and in a dilapidated condition. A recent structural assessment of the buildings indicated that in some areas interior safety conditions are questionable. The following architectural description is abstracted from a previous report included in Appendix B. The complex of industrial buildings consists of three metal-clad industrial buildings . The largest of these is located at the north of the property and closest to the intersection (Building A) . This two-story industrial. building and the side-facing gabled roof are clad in corrugated metal sheets . A row of one-over-one double hung windows occupy the second floor and are grouped in pairs and trios on the building ends . The same windows are used in singles on the front facade, with four smaller windows in the south half. All are trimmed with a wide wood surround, painted in a contrasting color. The first floor windows are metal-framed, 12-light and stationary. The north end and the northerly part of the main facade are dominated by these large windows and a freight door which is located on the north end of the building . Draft EIR No. '89-3 -13- V.• The interior of this building includes industrial shop space on the first floor and office space on the second floor . The first floor consists primarily of a single large open space, except for employee restrooms and a small office with a built-in slant top desk, possibly used for drafting . The second floor consists of a series of office spaces and includes a bathroom with shower and a kitchenette area . The walls are finished with railroad board wood paneling and the floors are covered with vinyl tile flooring in the entry areas and carpeting in the office areas . At the rear of the main building are two single-story gabled roof buildings clad in corrugated metal . The first of these is attached to the main building and linked by a freight door. . The second is attached but unconnected and includes a high central bay. Both buildings are framed, unfinished inside, and have elaborate exposed wood trussing supporting the roofs . Building B is the middle of the three buildings and is believed to have been the first of the three buildings to be built, in December, 1921. (A newspaper article dated November, 1921, announces a "new industry" to be built by Samuel Bowen which will manufacture well-drilling tools) . This building features a prominent stepped parapet on the front facade, with a band of wood trim at the top of the parapet. This building is also metal clad and also had double hung windows trimmed with wide wood surrounds . Rolled roofing has been added over the metal roof. The windows vary in size and in groupings, with mostly single windows on the first floor. A walk-in door and a freight door on a metal track are located on the front facade. The interior of Building B has been partitioned in the front one-fourth of the space to create offices at both the first and second floor levels . The remainder of the interior consists of a single large industrial workspace. The walls are framed, but finished only by the exterior corrugated metal. The extensive wood trusswork supporting the roof is visible from the interior. Building C consists of two sections, each with front-facing gabled roofs topped with long narrow cupolas . The rear section of the building is taller than the: one in front, but both are clad with corrugated metal siding. The corrugated metal roofs have been covered by rolled roofing. Both cupolas have front-facing gabled roofs and louvered sides . The front facade is dominated by a centered sliding freight door, suspended from a metal track, and flanked by a pair of 18-light stationary windows . Windows of the same size and style are used on the sides of the building. A gabled roof, which is open beneath, is attached to the north side of the building, at the second story level. This building expanded the company' s machine operations and included a welding shop and forge. Newspaper articles and building records from 1923 and 1924 describe the addition of a blacksmith shop to the S.R. Bowen Company. The articles describe a "traveling crane" , Draft EIR No. 89-3 -14- which possibly operated on the curved iron I-beam supported at the base of the roof trusses still found in the front section of this building . The interior of the building is divided into the two main sections, each having a high central bay, provided by the cupola . As with the other buildings, the interior is framed and the exterior metal and the wooden trusses supporting the roof are exposed. Historical Significance In 1986, the City commissioned an historical resources survey which evaluated historic structures in the City. This survey evaluated the Bowen buildings as important historic resources . At the time of the survey, a total of six metal oil structures were identified. At present, only the Bowen Buildings remain. The survey classified the Bowen structures as well-designed buildings which research may demonstrate as having a relationship to important events or persons in local history. Further, the survey indicated that the buildings may be candidates for the National Register, depending on the results of the research. In 1988, the City commissioned a study to translate all of the 1986 survey results into National Register categories using national standardized criteria . This survey evaluated the subject structures and determined that all three appear eligible for individual listing on the National Register. Historical significance of the structures is based on their importance as an architectural type characteristic of early oil development in Huntington Beach and their association with a locally important and prominent person. Additional information on the historical significance of the structures was provided in a separate study (Appendix B) . The National Register of Historic Places is the Federal Government ' s official list of historic properties worthy of preservation. Authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Register program coordinates and supports public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect historic and archaeological resources . Properties listed in the National Register include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. These resources contribute to an understanding of the historical and cultural foundations of the Nation. National Register criteria for resource evaluation are stringent and standarized. A resource must possess the quality of significance based on historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural attributes . Significance may be at the local, state, or national level . In addition, a resource must meet at least one of the following criteria. The resource must: A. be associated with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or Draft EIR No. 89-3 -15- B. be associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Finally, a resource must possess integrity. Integrity is defined as the authenticity of a property' s historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during the property' s historic or prehistoric period. If a property retains the physical characteristics it possessed in the past, then it has the capacity to convey association with historical patterns or persons, architectural or engineering design and technology, or information about a culture or people. The National Register criteria specify that integrity is a quality that appeals to historic and prehistoric resources in seven ways : location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Location Location is the place where a historic resource was constructed or the place where a historic event took place. Location involves relationships that exist between the resource and place, relationships that may be important to understanding why the property was created or why something happened. Except in rare cases, the relationships between the resource and its natural and man-made surroundings are destroyed if a historic resource is moved. Design Design is the composition of elements conveying a sense of cohesiveness through compatible height, scale, texture, and color. Principal aspects of design include organization of space, proportion, scale, technology, and ornament . The design of buildings, structures, and objects reflects historical functions and technologies as well as aesthetics . It includes such considerations as structural systems, massing, arrangement of spaces, fenestration pattern, textures and colors of surface materials, and type, amount, and style of ornamental detailing. ' It can also apply to spatial relationships among all features, visual rhythms of features in a streetscape or landscape, the layout and materials of passageways such as walks or roads . Draft EIR No. 89-3 -16- Setting Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Setting illustrates the character of the place in which the resource played its historical role. The physical features that constitute the setting of a historic property may be natural or man-made and may include topographic features, vegetation, simple man-made features, and relationships of a building to other features or to open space. For an individual building, these. relationships could be the number and density of buildings or structures around the property. For a district, those relationships concern the surroundings of the district as well as the natural features within the district ' s boundaries . Materials Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited in a particular pattern or configuration to form a district, site., building, structure, or object in a particular period in the past . The integrity of materials determines if an authentic historic resource still exists . Workmanship Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture of people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of craftsman' s labor and skill in constructing a building, structure, or object, or altering, adapting or embellishing a site. Worksmanship is important as it provides evidence of the technology of the craft, illustrates the aesthetic principles of a historic or prehistoric period, and reveals individual, local, regional, or national applications of both technological practices and aesthetic principles . Examples or workmanship in historic buildings include tooling, carving, painting, graining, turning, or joinery. Feeling Feeling is the quality a historic resource has in evoking the aesthetic or historic sense of a past period of time. Feeling depends upon the presence of physical characteristics to convey the historic qualities of time and place. It may require that an appropriate setting for the property be present . Association Association is the direct link between a property and an event or person for which the property is significant . If a property has integrity of association, then the property is the place where the event or activity occurred. The property needs to be sufficiently intact that it can convey that relationship. Draft EIR No. 89-3 -17- • r Evaluation of Bowen Structures Evaluation of the Bowen structures using National Register criteria indicates that the buildings possess integrity and they have historical and architectural significance at the local level . • The structures are associated with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history because the structures are directly related to early oil industry development in Huntington Beach (Criterion A) . • The structures are associated with the life of a locally significant person; Samuel R. Bowen, former Mayor and officer in various civic organizations (Criterion B) . • The structures, although in a dilapidated state, embody distinctive architectural characteristics of metal oil industrial buildings from the early oil discovery period of Huntington Beach' s development . In addition, they represent the last known remaining metal oil industrial buildings from the early oil boom period of approximately 1920 to 1930 (Criterion C) . In addition, the historic structures retain historic integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. These structures are representative of an aspect of the early oil industry which was in part responsible for the development of Huntington Beach. PROJECT IMPACTS Implementation of the proposed project will result in the demolition of all historic structures on site. The demolition of these structures will have significant adverse impact on the onsite historic resources and the history of the City of Huntington Beach. HISTORY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Demolition of the Bowen Structures will result in the loss of three historic metal industrial buildings . These buildings are the last known metal oil industrial buildings constructed during the 1920s to 1930s oil boom period. These structures serve as examples from this important period in the history of the development of Huntington Beach. Demolition of these structures will sever the historical link between early oil activities of this period and present day activities . Historical connections with the past will be weakened by the loss of examples from the early stages of oil activities in the community. The loss of these structures as examples from an important period of oil development activity in Huntington Beach is considered a significant adverse impact. Draft EIR No . 89-3 -18 Demolition of these structures will result in the loss of structures that are examples of a former architectural and construction type that was common during the early oil development era . These structures have minimal alterations and retain their historical integrity. Loss of these structures as an example of an architectural type from this important historical period is a significant adverse impact . Demolition of these structures will result in the loss of structures associated with a prominent individual in the history of Huntington Beach. This individual, Samuel R. Bowen, was the founder of the Bowen Tool Company that operated from these buildings located on the project site. He invented and patented several drilling tools that were innovative and important to the flourishing oil industry in Huntington Beach and elsewhere in Southern California . In addition, he was a former Mayor of the City and a leader in numerous civic organizations . The loss of these structures and their direct association with this influential and prominent person during the. oil boom era in the history of the City is a significant adverse impact . Implementation of the project will result -in the demolition of three structures determined to be potentially eligible for individual listing on the National Register. These structures are considered to possess architectural and historical significance. The loss of the potential eligibility and recognition of these structures on the National Register is a significant adverse impact . CUMULATIVE HISTORIC IMPACTS Projects proposed or approved in the City affect the collective community historical resources . These historical resources include examples spanning all community functions such as residential, commercial, and industrial uses . Together these structures provide a physical record of the community' s economic, social, and political development through time as an early seaside recreational and oil boom town. Proposed or approved projects affecting historic resources are: o Main Pier Phase I o Main Pier Phase II o Downtown Parking Structure (200 Block Main Street-West side) o Parking/Commercial Project (300 Block Main Street-East side) o Rehabilitation Block (200 Block Main Street - East side) o Town Square o Huntington Beach Pier Project o Villa del Mar o . Heritage Square A complete description of these projects is available in Environmental Impact Report No. 88-4 and at the City offices, Economic Development Department and Community Development Department . Draft EIR No. 89-3 -19 r r With the exception of the Heritage Square and Rehabilitation Block projects, all existing on-site historical buildings will be demolished . The Rehabilitation Block project may result in the demolition of all on-site structures . A review of City demolition records of historic structures in conjunction with approved or proposed projects indicates a reduction in historic resources . These records indicate 19% of the historic resources surveyed in 1986 have been, or will be demolished due to approved or proposed projects . Table B describes the cumulative impact of proposed or approved projects on community historic resources that meet the National Register criteria for recognition. The proposed project will incrementally contribute to the reduction of the number of historic resources in Huntington Beach. This reduction in the overall number of historic resources in the City is a significant adverse impact . Implementation of the project will result in the demolition of the three historic metal industrial structures . The 1986 historic resource survey indicates that these structures are the last remaining metal industrial buildings from the oil boom period of 1920 to 1930. The loss of these structures as the last remaining examples from this period is a significant adverse impact . Draft EIR No . 89-3 -20- TABLE B CUMULATIVE PROJECT IMPACTS ON NATIONAL REGISTER PROPERTIES No. of Historic National No. of Historic Resources to be Percent to be Reg . Resources by Demolished by Demolished Category * Category Category by Category 1 2 0 0 2 4 4 100% 3 16 5** 31% 3D 36 28 78% Total of all Categories 58 37 64% * 1 = Individually listed in the National Register 2 = Determined individually eligible to the Register by the U. S. Department of the Interior 3 = Appears eligible for individual listing 3D= Appears eligible .for listing as a contributor to a potential National Register district ** Includes historic Bowen structures Data Sources : City of Huntington Beach Historic Resources Survey Evaluations. City of Huntington Beach, Demolition Records . Draft EIR No . 89-3 -21- PROJECT SITE Implementation of the proposed project will remove all on-site structures . The integrity of the historic buildings will be eliminated. The demolition of the structures will include the removal of three structures that appear individually eligible for listing on the National Register and represent the last known remaining metal industrial structures from the 1920 to 1930 oil boom period of Huntington Beach. The .loss of these historic buildings is a significant adverse impact . MITIGATION MEASURES CEQA establishes a duty for public agencies to avoid or minimize environmental damage where feasible. The Act states, "A public agency should not approve a project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any significant effects that the project would have on the environment" (S 15021) . Mitigation measures are suggested to lessen the impacts associated with the proposed project. 1 . Comprehensive documentation of the project site, as it currently exists, shall be prepared prior to the issuance of any building, grading, or demolition permits . The documentation shall be in accordance with standards established by the Historical American Buildings Survey/Historical American Engineering Records (NABS/HAER) . The report shall be archivally maintained with provisions for public access . 2 . A plaque describing the historical importance of the site shall be constructed and donated to the City. The plaque shall be located at the southeast corner of Yorktown Avenue and Lake Street. 3 . The preservation and salvage of significant component parts of the structures for interpretation, display, or adaptive reuse shall be offered to the City. Removal of such items shall be at the project proponent ' s expense. 4 . As an indirect mitigation measure, a $2, 500 donation shall be made to the Huntington Beach Historical Society. These funds shall be used exclusively for the reproduction of the NABS documentation. Documents shall be deposited in the Society' s archives and collections with provisions for public access . LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The proposed project will have a significant effect on the history of the City of Huntington Beach and the on-site historic resources . Draft EIR No . 89-3 -22- These impacts can be lessened by the proposed mitigation but not eliminated. Consequently, these impacts should be viewed as unavoidable adverse project impacts . Cumulatively this project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will have a significant effect on the history of Huntington Beach, the identified collection of historic resources that meet National Register criteria for recognition, and- historic resources within the community in general . 4 . 0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that Environmental Impact Reports describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project . According to CEQA, the "discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a level of insignificance, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. " Reasonable alternatives are described and analyzed in the following section with the intent of evaluating alternatives that may reduce or eliminate significant adverse project impacts to a level of insignificance. 4 . 1 NO PROJECT CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate a No Project alternative (Section 15126(d) (2) . This alternative assumes that no development will occur on the site and the site will remain in its existing condition. While this alternative would preserve three historic structures and earth resources, existing adverse conditions would persist . At present, the structures are in a state of disrepair and are an unsightly nuisance. Additionally, structural analysis indicates that in some areas interior conditions -may be injurious to the public health, safety, and welfare. The continued deterioration of the structures and the persistence of questionable interior safety conditions is not considered environmentally beneficial . This alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project pursuant to impacts to earth and historical resources . However, this alternative should not remain under consideration during the review process, because it is infeasible as the existing conditions do not meet City standards . 4 . 2 ONSITE RETENTION OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES/ALTERNATIVE PROJECT LOCATION This alternative includes two aspects; the onsite retention of the historic structures and an alternative project location. Onsite retention addresses the feasibility of adaptive reuses and land acquisition options . Partial onsite retention is also discussed. Draft EIR No. 89-3 -23- , CEQA indicates that the EIR must address an alternative location for the proposed project . The alternative project location discussion addresses the incorporation of the project within an adjacent tract and relocation to adjacent vacant land. Partial relocation of the project is also discussed. 4 . 2 . 1 ON-SITE RETENTION OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES 1. ADAPTIVE REUSES A study was conducted to assess the feasibility of possible reuses permitted under the existing zoning. The uses analyzed include child care center/museum, senior hotel, and multi-family apartments . The study is included in Appendix C. Methods used in the reuse study include: 1) A field survey by an architects and a structural engineer to assess existing conditions; and 2) Conceptual estimates of construction costs to rehabilitate the structures to meet the State Historic Building Code and the Secretary of the Interior ' s Standards for Rehabilitation, and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (Standards and Guidelines) . Construction costs describe basic improvements required for all uses (shell constructions) and use-specific interior construction costs based on individual requirements Costs have been broken down by building by use to provide additional information. a . Child Care/Museum This adaptive reuse would provide a combination of museum and childcare facilities in one or more of the historic buildings . The museum use could include display areas, offices, a small theater, restrooms and a small retail gift shop for museum sales items . A child care facility as defined in the City Code is a nonmedical care facility for children under 18 years of age on less than a 24-hour basis (Division 9, Section 9634) . Child care and museum facilities are permitted under the existing zoning for the project site provided a Conditional Use Permit has been approved by the Planning Commission. In addition, Design Review Board ' s approval is required under the present zoning to assess project aesthetics . Additional review by the State and/or County may be required for the child care facility. Prior to installation of the use, shell and interior rehabilitation is necessary. Shell construction/rehabilitation is described in the reuse study and includes basic site, architectural, structural, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical work. Use-specific interior rehabilitation work includes new interior walls, HVAC, restrooms, and interior lighting . Cost estimates per building are included in the appendix and summarized below. Draft EIR No. 89-3 -24- Building A $ 513 , 078 Building B $ 418, 808 Building C $ 429 , 936 TOTAL $1 , 527 , 226 The advantages of. these adaptive reuses include the following. 1 . A child care facility would provide a needed service to families in the surrounding residences and neighborhoods and provide child care facilities in close proximity to the Civic Center. 2 . A museum facility would provide an appropriate reuse of one historic structure and. provide a location for items and documentation associated with the history of Huntington Beach. Disadvantages associated with this reuse include alterations to the historic structures as a result of rehabilitation work to accommodate the reuses . These impacts can be reduced to a level of insignificance of the Standards and Guidelines are followed for all rehabilitation work. In addition, one or both possible reuses may result in a more intense use of the site. Environmental impacts of these reuses that may affect surrounding properties include the possibility of increased noise levels, traffic and parking concerns, and aesthetic compatibility. Other disadvantages associated with this reuse include the loss of six single family residences . b. Senior Hotel This adaptive reuse would provide for a senior housing facility developed specifically for seniors . This facility could be designed as apartment rentals restricted to seniors or as an owner occupied senior apartment complex. The number of units created would depend on the distribution of bachelor, 1 or 2 bedroom units and the number of buildings rehabilitated for this use. This use is allowed under the existing zoning provided a Use Permit, approved by the Zoning Administrator, or a Conditional Use Permit, approved by the Planning Commission, has been granted. Design Review Board approval is also required. Variances for building setbacks, parking, and/or open space may be required. Type of entitlement is dependent on project size and design. Shell and interior rehabilitation are required for this reuse. These improvements are described in the reuse study. Cost estimates are detailed in the appendix and are summarized here by building . Building A $ 632, 645 Building B $ 522, 730 Building C $ 542 ,490 TOTAL $1 , 933 , 269 Draft EIR No . 89-3 -25- The advantages of this adaptive reuse include the ability to provide additional housing units for the community' s senior population. City housing data indicate a shortfall of existing and future housing units available for seniors . Additional housing units made possible under this reuse alternative would assist the City in providing needed units . Associated services required by seniors are located in close proximity to the project site. These include access to transportation services, shopping and grocery services, and community facilities . Medical facilities are located approximately 1 1/2 miles away. The disadvantages associated with this reuse include a more intense use of the site than the proposed project and the loss of up to six single-family residences . Depending on project scope and design, environmental impacts resulting from this alternative use include possible increases in noise and traffic levels . Although senior projects traditionally generate lower traffic volumes than other multi-unit projects, the size of the project could result in traffic levels that equal or exceed levels anticipated by the applicant ' s project . Other possible concerns include aesthetic compatibility with surrounding properties and on-site parking needs . Demands on other community services are expected to approximate the project service levels . c. Multi-Family Residential This reuse would provide a number of residences that could be designed as apartment rental units or as owner occupied apartment/condominium units . The project scale would be dependent upon the mix of 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units and the number of rehabilitated structures involved. This use is allowed under the existing zoning with Design Review Board approval and provided a Use Permit or a Conditional Use Permit has been approved. The type of entitlement is dependent upon project size and design. Some variances may be required. Shell and interior rehabilitation would be required for this reuse. These improvements are described in the appended reuse study. Costs for rehabilitation work for each building is detailed in the appendix and summarized below. Building A $ 662, 220 Building B $ 550,420 Building C $ 571, 220 TOTAL $2 , 019 , 264 The advantages of this type of reuse include the provision of additional housing units for the community. Regional housing data suggests that the City will be unable to supply the number of housing units needed in the near future. Also, with increasing land and housing costs, affordable housing is difficult to obtain. Consequently multifamily projects, with lower per unit costs, Draft EIR No. 89-3 -26- . provide one of the few remaining mechanisms to develop moderately priced housing . Density bonuses allowing extra units can be granted provided these units are earmarked for moderate to low-income families . Reduced per-unit costs in conjunction with a density bonus may provide a financial incentive to allow "for sale" low/moderate income units . In addition, units targeted for these income markets may receive redevelopment funds pursuant to state law for moderate and low-income housing . Disadvantages associated with this alternative use include a loss of six single-family residences and a more intense use of the site than the proposed project . Also, depending on project size and design, there may be environmental impacts to the surrounding properties . These include the possibility of increased traffic and on-site parking needs, elevated noise levels, aesthetic compatibility and additional demands on public services . Impact levels in these areas may exceed those of the applicant ' s project. 2 . LAND ACQUISITION Land acquisition is an important consideration in the analysis of adaptive reuse for the project site. The rehabilitation cost estimates previously cited do not include land acquisition costs . Possible land-acquisition options include: 1) land retention and structure rehabilitation by the applicant; 2) acquisition by the City/Redevelopment Agency; or 3) acquisition by a third party for rehabilitation. a . Land Retention and Structure Rehabilitation by Project Proponent The project proponent has expressed a desire to development the land for single-family residences as described in the proposed project . The applicant has expressed no interest at this time in developing community facilities (such as a museum and/or child care facilities) or a senior or multi-family residential complex. This land option is infeasible and should be discarded from consideration in analysis of this alternative. b. Land Acquisition By City/Redevelopment Agency Acquisition of the project land by the Redevelopment Agency of the City is a possible option. This acquisition would be consistent with the Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Area Plan objectives and proposed actions as detailed in S 2 . 1. Additionally, rehabilitation of structures within the area for residential, semi-public, non-profit, and institutional uses is consistent with the Plan (S 2 . 3 . 1, S 3 . 3) . A portion of tax increment funding would be available with the development of an alternative providing residential units to moderate, low, or very low income families . Draft EIR No . 89-3 -27- City acquisition of the land would compensate the applicant for the land value but not the increased value once the proposed project is completed. To rectify this situation, the City could recommend that the applicant apply for a density bonus of six residential units on a future development project in the City. The City/Redevelopment Agency could also acquire the project land through a land exchange. One of the components of a recently approved project. '(Tract 13569) involved a land exchange between the developer and the City. Exhibit-6 details the land exchange associated with that project . The large block of exchanged land adjacent to Yorktown Avenue and Lake Street is directly across the street from the project parcel with the three historic structures . One of the reasons for the land exchange was to provide the City with an adjacent parcel of land for the future development of additional Civic Center parking. At present, the parking facility is conceptual and finalization of this land exchange is pending. One acquisition option could entail a land exchange between the applicant and the City of a portion of the newly exchanged property depicted on Exhibit 6 and the project parcel with the historic structures . This may allow the applicant to develop six single-family residences although not on the original location. If the project site were acquired by the City through a land exchange, a revision to street and alley location in Tract 13569 may also be necessary. In addition, this land exchange would require that a portion of the future Civic Center parking area be developed elsewhere. c. Acquisition by a Third Party for Rehabilitation of Structures Another land acquisition scenario consists of the sale of the project site to another party for rehabilitation of the structures . This option appears difficult to accomplish in a timely manner as a buyer/rehabilitator may take some time to locate. 3 . PARTIAL ONSITE RETENTION OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES Partial retention of the historic structures is a variation of the full onsite retention/reuse alternative previously discussed. Under this alternative, one or two structures might be retained with reuse. This alternative could result in a project consisting -of less than six single-family residences . One scenario for partial retention is shown in Exhibit 7 and could include the demolition of the two southerly structures (Buildings B and C) , the relocation of the proposed alley, and the creation of three single-family residences . 4 . 2 . 2 ALTERNATIVE PROJECT LOCATION This alternative describes other locations for .the project . These include: 1) incorporation of the project within adjacent Tract No. Draft EIR No. 89-3 -28- -77 LA,N� ��� s�MM�'c1Z•y PROJECT AREA Deer--rb crry 55,A&0 oo . C st i• III ; -�� Exhibit` 6� Land' Exchange Map huntington beach planning division J � ALLEY. RETAIN FOREnt 1 ,= 5 ALLEY j� 4D • 41.6 H. - �, 17 P / Exhibit. 7 Partial Onsite Retention OF huntington beach planning...division 13569 , 2) incorporation of a portion of the project within Tract No. 13569 and location of a portion of the project on the west side of Lake Street across from the historic structures, and 3) partial relocation of the proposed project . 1. INCORPORATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT WITHIN TRACT NO. 13569 This option includes the incorporation of the six residences within the adjacent tract . Implementation of this option would necessitate the reduction of lot width of certain lots to accommodate the six additional lots . Lot widths in the tract exceed zoning requirements by 9 to 10 feet . A reduction in lot width would necessitate the redesign of the architectural plans for the affected lots . Also, the Conditions of Approval of Tract No. 13569 would need to be amended to reflect reduced lot width. Because construction of the structures in Tract No . 13569 has not significantly advanced, this option is feasible. 2 . PARTIAL INCORPORATION WITH TRACT NO. 13569 LOCATION WEST OF LAKE STREET Another option is to incorporate a portion of the proposed project within the adjacent tract and relocate the remainder on the west side of Lake Street across from the historic structures . The parcel of land west of Lake Street was acquired by the City from the applicant through a land exchange associated with the creation of Tract No. 13569 . This land could be returned to the project proponent in exchange for some of the proposed project area. The remainder of the project site could be acquired by the City using redevelopment funds . 3 . PARTIAL RELOCATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT A third option is the partial relocation of the proposed project . This option includes the demolition of Buildings B and C and the construction of three single family residences on the project site. The City could purchase the parcel with the remaining historic structure (Building A) or exchange a portion of the land west of Lake Street for the parcel. If the land exchange was implemented, the project proponent would have the option to develop three single-family residences west of Lake Street as well as the three lots on the project site. Draft EIR No. 89-3 -29- The alternative of onsite retention of all or some of the historic structures with adaptive reuse and is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project . This alternative should remain under consideration. Full onsite retention of all historic structures will reduce project impacts to a level of insignificance. Partial onsite retention of the structures would necessitate demolition of one or two of the historic structures . Partial retention would reduce the project impacts to the historic structures but would not reduce these impacts to a level of insignificance. Although development and reuse of the structures by the applicant is infeasible, site acquisition, development, and reuse by the City/Redevelopment Agency is feasible. 4 . 3 RELOCATION AND REUSE OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES This alternative addresses the relocation of the three historic structures to another appropriate location. Relocation costs, appropriate sites, site acquisition, and partial relocation are discussed. 4 .3 . 1 RELOCATION COSTS The construction and reuse analysis (Appendix E) also evaluated the three structures for relocation. Structural analysis indicates the buildings would most likely need to be completely disassembled and reassembled on a new location. The buildings are generally single wall construction with corrugated tin exterior skin at the walls and roof . Flooring consists of concrete slabs . All the buildings have truss roof construction. Due to the size of the structures and the type of construction, the buildings appear to lack sufficient rigidity to be moved by conventional means . Disassembly, moving, and reassembly costs are estimated at approximately $20 per square foot plus costs for new foundations, and rehabilitation costs . Land costs are not included. Relocation costs estimates by building are listed below. Building Square Footage Relocation Estimate A 6, 500 $ 130 , 000 B 3, 600 72, 000 C 5 ,200 104 , 000 TOTAL 15,300 $ 306 , 000 4 .3 .2 . RELOCATION SITES Selection of the new location is important as one of the identified project impacts to the historic structures is the loss of potential National Register listing. Draft EIR No. 89-3 -30- ' f f As previously discussed, integrity of the historic resource is a necessary attribute for eligibility for listing on the National Register. The seven aspects of integrity are location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, setting, and association. The National Register imposes additional criteria considerations for structures that have been moved from the original location. According to National Register in a property can be eligible if it is a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant .primarily for architectural value or a structure which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event . The National Register criteria limit consideration of moved properties because the significance of the buildings is embodied in their locations and settings as well as in the structures themselves . The historic structures on the proposed project site have been identified as significant due to their architectural style and their association with a locally important person. The Guidelines for considering moved properties are listed below. 1 . A moved property significant for architectural value must retain sufficient historic features to retain integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, in order to convey its architectural significance. 2 . A moved property associated with a significant historic event or person must be demonstrated to be the surviving structure most importantly associated with that event or with an important aspect of that person' s life. 3 . The historic and present orientation, immediate setting, and general environment of a moved property are important factors to consider in determining whether the property is able to convey architectural qualities or historic associations at a new location. 4 . A property with design values or historical associations that are site dependent may loose integrity if they. are moved. Given the above guidelines, specific considerations need to be addressed should the historic structures be moved. In order to retain potential eligibility for listing on the National Register and thereby reducing those project impacts to a level of insignificance, the following conditions need to be met. 1 . The structures must retain their essential physical features or characteristics representative of metal-oil industry buildings . 2 . -The structures must be oriented as they were at their former historic location and they must be placed in a similar general environment . Draft EIR No. 89-3 -31- 3 . A similar general environment includes relocation to a general industrial, or an industrial energy production area . Appropriate reuses and necessary rehabilitation are speculative at this time as a specific location has not been identified. Possible reuses are dependent on existing zoning at the new location. 4 . 3 .3 SITE ACQUISITION An additional concern for relocation of the structures is the feasibility of site acquisition. Three possible options for obtaining a relocation site include moving the structures to land: 1) owned by the applicant, 2) owned by the City, .3) owned by a third party. The applicant has expressed no interest in retaining the structures onsite or moving them to another location for reuse. Consequently, this option for aquisition of a relocation site should be discarded from further consideration. The Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Plan specifies that under certain circumstances, the Agency is authorized to move structures (S. 2 . 3 . 2 and S.2 . 6) and acquire structures (S. 2 .4) . This suggests that some relocation funds may be available to move the structures offsite. The Plan does not specify that funds are available to purchase a site where the structures could be relocated. Funding sources for site acquisition would need to be investigated. A brief review of City-owned property indicates there is some City land in the vicinity of Gothard and Goldenwest where it is possible that the structures could be relocated for reuse. Some of the property in this area is designated for industrial use and may provide an appropriate location for the structure(s) . In addition, several parcels of City land are located in the vicinity of City park facilities and may be appropriate relocation sites . In order to determine an appropriate City-owned site for the structure(s) a study assessing the feasibility of selected sites must be conducted. However, the available sites may not satisfy the criteria of the National Register and allow the structures to retain their potential National Register eligibility. If City land is presently available, this option for site acquisition is feasible. Relocation of the structures to land owned by a third party is also an option. However, at present no interest has been expressed in obtaining and relocating the structures by a third party. The likelihood of this occurring in a timely manner is remote and this option should be discarded from further consideration as infeasible. The advantages of this alternative include: 1) the preservation of the historic structures at an offsite location, and 2) the construction of six single-family residences at the project location. Draft EIR No. 89-3 -32- • r r The project impacts to the structures are lessened if the structures retain their distinctive physical features and characteristics after reassembly at the new location. If these structures can be relocated to a site that meets National Register guidelines for moved properties, potential National Register eligibility may be retained and project impacts can be reduced to a level of insignificance. If the structures are relocated to a site that does not meet National Register guidelines, potential eligibility will be lost . However, the structures could be designated by a local landmark ordinance that would recognize their contribution to the history of the City. These efforts would lessen the project impacts, however, the impacts would not be reduced to a level of insignificance. The disadvantages of this alternative include: 1) the feasibility of structure relocation and, 2) the possible loss of National Register eligibility. This alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project and should remain under consideration. The economic feasibility of structure relocation, site acquisition, and rehabilitation is questionable. Implementation of this alternative would appear feasible if there is city-owned land available as a relocation site. If such land were available, it may not .meet National Register guidelines . 4 . 3 .4 PARTIAL RELOCATION AND REUSE OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES This is a variation of the previously discussed alternative. Under this alternative relocation costs would be reduced. Considerations for a new site pursuant to the National Register guidelines would remain. Project impacts would be lessened, however they would not be reduced to a level of insignificance because some of the structures would be demolished. This alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project and should remain under consideration. However, unless a relocation site can be identified or a city-owned parcel is made available, this alternative may be infeasible. 5 . 0 LONG TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5 . 1 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL AND SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY The implementation of the project will result in the demolition of all onsite historic structures . Also, the project represents an expansion of existing residential uses and it is reflective of growth and redevelopment occurring in the City. Draft EIR No. 89-3 -33- Short-term impacts of the project development include localized increases in noise, dust, and vehicular emissions associated with demolition and construction activities . Given the size of this project no significant impacts are anticipated in these areas . The approval of the proposed project represents the long-term commitment of the site to residential uses . Project implementation also represents the irreversible loss of three historic structures on the site. The proposed project level will utilize the site in a more efficient manner than it is presently being used. However, alternatives to the proposed project have been discussed that would result in the rehabilitation of one or more buildings rendering the structures habitable and more productive. The historic structures contribute to long-term productivity in terms of their role in providing an identity for the Community and a physical record of the heritage of the City. 5 . 2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTIONS SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED The implementation of the proposed project will result in the irreversible loss of three historic structures . These structures have been identified in three separate historical studies as important local historical resources . In addition, all of the studies identified the structures as potentially eligible for National Register listing . The destruction of these buildings will destroy the onsite historical resources as well as incrementally contribute to the cumulative loss of cultural resources within the City. Other irreversible commitments of limited resources would result from implementation of the proposed project . These resources include but are not limited to the following: lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, petrochemical construction materials, steel, copper, lead and other metals and water. 5 .3 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS The proposed project is reflective 'of residential development within the area . Although the proposed project, if implemented, will result in .a more intense use than what is currently existing onsite it is not anticipated that a project of this size will create significant growth including impacts . 6 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARIES The following sections summarize the impacts to environmental resources should the proposed project be implemented. Implementation of an alternative project may change the impacts to environmental resources . Draft EIR No. 89-3 -34- 6 . 1 IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT An Environmental Assessment and Initial Study were conducted for this project (Appendix A) . As a result of this assessment, some environmental areas were not considered significant . Those topics which were determined not to be significant are listed below. Explanations for the insignificance of these impacts are included in * Appendix A. Animal Life Utilities Housing Human Health Public Services Aesthetics Energy Recreation Earth/Disruptions Project Generated Air Quality Project Related Water Drainage Elimination of Onsite Plant Life Project Generated Noise Project Generated Glare Land Use Project Use of Natural Resources Risk of Upset Project Generated Increases in Population Project Generated Traffic 6 .2 IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE The following impacts are mitigated to a level of insignificance with the implementation of mitigation measures pursuant to Section Section 3 . 1. Earth/Seismicity 6 .3 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS The Environmental Assessment and Initial Study concluded that an EIR focusing on project impacts to historical resources and earth resources/seismicity must be prepared for the subject project. This EIR has identified significant adverse impacts to historic resources that will require mitigation measures . These impacts which are unmitigated or partially mitigated are identified below. The project proposes to demolish all onsite historic structures . These structures have been identified in several historical studies as important to the heritage of Huntington Beach and potentially eligible for listing on the National Register. Project specific and cumulative impacts on the history of Huntington Beach can be lessened by the proposed mitigation. However, these impacts can not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Draft EIR No. 89-3 -35- 6 . 4 MITIGATION MEASURES 1 . Comprehensive documentation of the project site, as it currently exists, shall be prepared prior to the issuance of any building, grading, or demolition permits . The documentation shall be in accordance with standards established by the Historical American Buildings Survey/Historical American Engineering Records (HABS/HAER) . The report shall be archivally .maintained with provisions for public access . 2 . A plaque describing the historical importance of the site shall be constructed and donated to the City. The plaque shall be located at the southeast corner of Yorktown Avenue and Lake Street . 3 . The preservation and salvage of significant component parts of the structures for interpretation, display, or adaptive reuse shall be offered. 4 . As an indirect mitigation measure a $2, 500 donation shall be made to the Huntington Beach Historical Society. These funds shall be used exclusively for the reproduction of the HABS documentation. Documents shall be deposited in the Society' s archives and collections with provisions for public access . Draft EIR No. . 89-3 -36- 7 . 0 REPORT PREPARATION RESOURCES 7 . 1 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Department of Community Development Hal Simmons Ruth Lambert Kelly Main AGENCIES Historic Resources Board Barbara Milkovich Huntington Beach Historical Society Guy Guzzardo State Office of Historic Preservation Hans Kreutzberg 7 .2 PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS TO THE REPORT City of Huntington Beach Ruth Lambert CONTRIBITORS Graphic Design Bob Sigmon Cover Bob Sigmon Draft EIR No. 89-3 -37- 7 . 3 REFERENCES Abrams , K.C. (ed) 1981 Bowen Tools, Inc. in Brine to Bonanza : The Story of the American Oil Industry. City of Huntington Beach, 1988, Environmental Assessment/Negative Declaration No . 88-20 . Ibid, 1982 . Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project Plan. Huntington Beach News September 16, 1976; August 10, 1944 ; January, 1924 ; November 25, 1921; and January 12, 1923 . Johnson Heuman Research Associates, Inc. , 1988 . City of Huntington Beach Historic Resources Survey Evaluations . The Thirtieth Street Architects, 1986 . Historic Resources Survey Report . Prepared for the City of Huntington Beach. Ibid, 1989 . Conceptual Estimates of Construction Costs For The Three Buildings Located At 1980 Lake Street . Prepared for the City of Huntington Beach. APPENDIX A PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND REVIEW Draft EIR No . 89-3 -43- PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND REVIEW The City of Huntington Beach notified all responsible agencies and all interested groups and individuals that a Draft EIR was being prepared for this project . In addition, the City utilized several strategies to solicit input during the preparation of the EIR. The following actions have been taken: 1. Initial Study was prepared on Jamuary 23, 1989 . Copy of Initial Study is attached. 2 . Notice of Preparation. was filed on January 23, 1989 . Copy of notice and distribution list is attached. 3 . The Office of Planning and Research signed State Clearinghouse Number 89-02-01-01 to the proposed project . Draft EIR No . 89-3 -44- •r;-.7 !�� • ,.ram 3 • City of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALI FORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Building Division 536-5241 Planning Division 536-5271 January 23, 1989 TO: Interested Parties SUBJECT: AMENDED NOTICE OF PREPARATION - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 89-3 Dear Interested Persons: The City of Huntington Beach will be the lead agency in preparing a focused EIR to analyze the potential impacts of the following project: Project Proponent: Pacific Coast Homes Project Location: The project site is bounded by Lake Street on the west, Yorktown Avenue on the north, an abandoned railroad right-of-way 170 feet east of Lake Street on the east and a lot line approximately 270 feet south of Yorktown on the south. Project Description: Remove three (3) existing historical structures from the subject area and subdivide the lot to construct six single family residences. These historic structures have been identified by an historical study as examples of Huntington Beach's early oil industry development. DEIR 89-3 project area was initially considered as a portion of a larger project reviewed under Environmental Assessment and Negative Declaration No. 88-20. Information obtained subsequent to issuance of the Negative Declaration indicated that an EIR focusing on the potential impacts of removing/demolishing the historic structures must be prepared. All other identified impacts of the project are mitigated pursuant to Negative Declaration No. 88-20. * Project description amended to include construction of six family residences. (1900d-4) 'NOP — DEIR 89-3 January 23, 1989 Page 2 of 2 In order for your concerns to be incorporated into the draft EIR, we will need your views as to the scope and content of the environmental information that you feel is relevant to the project. Please forward any concerns or comments that you may have to the attention of Ruth Lambert in the Department of Community Development at the following address: City of Huntington Beach Department of Community Development 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Due to the time limits mandated by state law, responses and comments regarding this notice of preparation must be forwarded to the City at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Also, if you are interested in receiving a copy of the draft EIR once it is available for public review and comment, please complete and return the attached request form. Sincerely, 9"Zik- Ruth Lambert Assistant Planner REL:gbm Attachments: 1. Area Map 2. Initial Study (1900d-5) PLANNING' ZONING DM 2 D DOO SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 2- 6- 11 T I ADOPTED MARCH 7,1960 NOTE CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE MO. 754 •wr TIOK aOAwM T v w• 'N w[rplDTO •+• C[+T(a ...cwoc:$Sa'�E 17, !�L Q E)K4lu 11�'�B. W t,/Cw M+T 0/ f•. i:' vli•ij n-as nl•: LEGEND: 1 _ A�1 ZZ13 1]•to UD•0-1 NE-SW-W DpT.KT i .a:4�nlrM r,./T, • --rs In,•,• tp00 © KDa/{OtNwh K)D[IITa•L paTarR 'HUNTINGTON BEACH [°�� �� :.11. :x ® OOf•.RRT•IACL TK,I[D IC•1ID.•IDn1.KT t a-T-ar TTI .14n-, too• © DI.q•,pC[/wy DpTRiCT . {-•-at y COUNTY, •rr["w-K�n0 . f a,i {M-O •'t)•,� ,l{t :T:•,N aa r1-,0•1{ rlOpMr0 d,T.Kr_ �E ° na qs)t ,•1-n 1." ') • •it OarT aNa/iwAt NI.KT rT � -ft) 1. ,1 nn•N rpa) wn ......ORAtiGE -CALIFORNIA [DwN,•.11 D.aT.KT •t yi-i-a, u•.t. zan r�•a] n] an a.N.n n•f e�m • wNw.w coN.c.cIA. .-!•O ar.a fa,a :• -u ]n Dn rt.n {R2 I•] L -U aw !]f1 D-f•a• ,] p0 :-,-11 1bN !.N) •, KW—'—D[VIiT KYD[.Ta•.p,T.KT l-••I! M-A 21•, ••,•af ]Oa Int R•{-1{ I{+ „:2 K.ONdwppO CO•.a[nplaU T-r.•M fa-.T ta]• rQ.•N a•a IiM •NaI 0.,,Ow+V,V til. ::•]-af IQ D•]-1. af••o R% f-r11 11•1 INO LR-1 ..Dt=.-[).Xwiva 06T.K1 D-,•a) �1�1 tap{ 1-�T-N AA•.a N10 {•rD.l .•.11~ rrW ® COwwV✓Tt I.0.1TKf 1:nK1 O.i1.KT }•1ya 4-!} N» w•O-r{ f-, t!r, at1{•[, LK .p•_1 ►}] ort fl )I �l CDV,KD riTw Oa.IpgCTgl DA-A ItI0 ..O{ O-n-11 '1-Y r}]o D-rDai i•N NY. ,•1.11 I}• p .►cq CLAZW. -w=R,.].w$-.XT -N•1 f••-1. 1.-]i 1 . 1 1.N 2n �--y ,� t.i)J2 Tf••alr. .1.0 ...Wm 1-1 r,t{ •CD• C.,c DNf..R I• n J IGARFIELD AVE.I L i— rz Ml 1: MH DR2.. MI s R #R MI-A I C2 i co 0 o RA-0 2 `R 2 .' [k.,pp, I co DA+�^ In—3 �tni'�1'.-�•=r'--� MI-A 0 R0 w R 1'C 4� R2 �Yf 2 PRDIJEC'T' ARC - R 2 i »� ? .R2 R2 Y R Q 0)R2-01 `� M I R2 R2 • LSPECIFIC A R2 i PLAN OI$TRICT.1.1 CL AT Q _ m;,1 -E 4","� e� ,•:.::........... o, ... . LRX D 1% R ! ooR3ez Ey �` R4DN`y' R2 D SS` R2 2 R2Ir}- IV¢ . ;,�� ij fL TR],! f —.— aVEC2-0-CD 5.:: : i RI c:e.ry•.:a ° o-;DFx)-R2.0•PD" g: .. 02 �„ a •l r� �.(• ... ..: R2-0 RI a RI F «•�w M ].,»] _ st' ... :si '. •�. D' n nap •.i.Av Av T :I ::tr,i -- (� •ti�j mac.n� "p a +J o! R2 R2 R2 OP-Q R2 0 PD�nz-o-cD o R 2 CNj ' ip e•a•to •�R2.O-CD-• q CF_C R2.0 �O C4 [ iI :,p ! I It: E47?.W C —E—CD y 2-0-cD � I RA OfJ[.:MOiCh 8-1ACN.JWIC4 ;6-uSChOcS.l , __ E R2 C21 o CF-E-CD ' I -CD-0 i b CF-E ` o� ~ q -cDO R2-0 R2 R2 "1 e� d CD 0 vE•Cz 9' Qom. V a -CD-0 i R 4 I c D a•D. UTICA -- — CO 01 0-1. R2-O R2-0 e•o � as -0 -0 i CO-O ..., LJLJ CF—R RI Rl RI Rl, RI R2 -CD-0 Jw�•To �= O o 0 -CD-O p ,0 -0 0 -0 ¢ 1 Rw jai -CD-O Y [� z z .w,.wi[Ol R2 C4�. lagINGFIkLD rm • + N N O O a�d E aP' N z RI RI RI RI Rl R2 -oMA -00 -0 -0 -0 -01 -01I RI-0 C]- 3-0 R3- RZ v HUR I aWm I R�O _ 1----� r — .I l RI ADAMS ( AVE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) I. Background 1. Name of Proponent Pacific Coast Homes 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 2120 Main Street, Suite 260 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2499 (714) 536-8917 3. Date of Checklist Submitted January 23, 1989 4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Huntington Beach Planning Division 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable DEIR #89-3 II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X Yes Maybe No g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X b. The creation of objectionable odors? X c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in— cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with— drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X —2— (1899d) Yes Maybe No 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X d. Reduction in acreage of an agricultural crop? X 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X —3— (1899d) Yes Maybe No b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable naturalresource? X 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? X 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor— tation systems? X d. Alterations to present patterns of circula— tion or movement of people and/or goods? X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? X —4— (1899d) Yes Maybe No c. Schools? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X f. Other governmental services? X IS. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- ing source of energy, or require the development of sources of energy? X 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? X b. Communication systems? X c. Water? X d. Sewer or septic tanks? X e. Storm water drainage? X f. Solid waste and disposal? X 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X -5- (1899d) Yes Maybe No 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? X b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? X c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? _ X d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sustain- ing levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, defini- tive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) X c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X -6- (1899d) III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ- ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. X January 23. 1989 Date Signature For Community Development � * An EIR focusing on the potential impacts of removing/demolishing historically significant buildings must be prepared. -7- (1899d) DISCUSSION OF YES AND MAYBE RESPONSES FOR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 89-3 20. Cultural Resources b. The project will involve the demolition of three existing structures, located at 1970, 1978, and 1980 Lake Street (Lake and Yorktown). Following removal of existing structures, the subject property will be subdivided and six residential units constructed. The existing structures are listed in the City of Huntington Beach Historic Resources Survey Report as the buildings are examples of Huntington Beach's early industrial history. A report to assess the historical significance of these structures was prepared as a mitigation measure of the Negative Declaration No. 88-20 associated with a residential development (Tentative Tract 13569), within which the historic structures are located. Information contained in this report indicates that an EIR focusing on the potential project impacts to the historical structures be prepared. 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance a. Project impacts must be analyzed relative to the removal/demolition of three historic structures that serve as examples of the early development of the Huntington Beach oil industry in Southern California. b. The future benefits of residential construction (six single family units) as permitted by the existing zoning must be weighed against the long—term impacts of removing historically significant buildings. C. The individual project impacts of the removal/demolition of the historic structures must be evaluated in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that will have a significant impact on the City's historic resources and recorded history. (1898d) REVIMNG AGENCIES ' Resources Agency r Caltrans District \' Boating/Waterways Dept. of Transportation Planning Conservation'-- Aeronautics w, Fish and Game California Highway Patrol Forestry Housing & Community Dev't. Colorado River Board Statewide Health Planning Dept. Water Resources — Health Reclamation Food & Agriculture Parks and Recreation Public Utilities r'.ommission S Office of Historic Preservation Public Works Native American Heritage Commission Corrections S.F. Bay Cons. & Dev't. Commission General Services Coastal Commission OLA Energy Commission Santa M- onica Mountains State Lands Commission TRPA S Air Resources Board OPR - OLGA Solid Waste Management Board OPR - Coastal SWRCB: Sacramento - Bureau of Land Management RWQCB: Region #.! _ Forest Service Orange County EMA Water Rights S Other: Orange County Historical Commiss Water Quality s Other: Calif. Preservation Foundation FOR SCH USE COY Date Received at SCH Catalog Number Date Review Starts Applicant Date to Agencies Consultant - Date to SCH Contact Phone Clearance Date Address — Notes: 270 Nail tam State Cleariarfuouse, 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121, Sacramento, Q 95914 - 914/KS-0613 son N7M below NCT=Or CCKPLNTXFA AM SIMIRCU OrML. DOCUMMUT TRAMOUTML Nail BCH 4 1. Project Title,_ Notice of Preparation - 2. Lead A smyu City of Huntington Beach 3. contact pares: Ruth Lambert 3a. street Address. 2000 Main Street 3b, City:_ Huntington Beach 3c. Csxntym Orange - 3d, _ip: 92648 3e. Pbone: (714) 536-5271 1 � 4. sty, Qrange 4a. at,/knit,: Huntington Beach 4b. Ansesaor's Paroal No: 023-040-13 4, Section . 2 TwP. 6 ftr�9e 11 sae Cross Streets Yorktown/Lake Street For Rural, Nearest Ccaumity: state Air- Rail- water- 6, within 2 miles: a. 39 b• ports -_ C. -_ d. wire _ 7. 1YXI3ZZM- 8. 9. EWMLNIIKNT TYPE gpa 01. _General Plan Update Ol. X Tasidentlal. U its 6 Ades 1 01. X JCP 06. •__)CE 02. ��ie✓ Element 02. _Office: Sq. Ft. - 02. Carly Cone 07. _-43C 03. _Gemral Plan Ami3oent Acres Ee leyees 03. _�ae9 Dec 08. ,__)CD 04. _Ywter Plan 03. _Stopping/Ocmnercial: Sq. Ft. 04. _Draft Elk 05. _Jvrne>aticn Acres acplcy- SLpplement/ 06. ----Specific Plan 04. Industrial: Sq. Ft. 05. . -Subsequent EIR (Prior SCB No.: 07. _Ocsmr:ity Plan Acres employees 1 08. __wx*velopment 05. _3iatxr Facilities: MGV Jim& 09. _R=one 06. ---Transportation. Ty pe Draf t 09. _M1 11. _EIS 10. X L nd Division 07. dining: Mirueral (Subdivision, Parcel 10. _pCi SI 12. __RYA Map, Tract Map, etc.) 08. _power: Tyne Mattel,._ *S� 11. _.Due Permit 09. _--}Porte Treatments Type 13. _,701nt Document 12. _30ate Mgat Plan 10. _OCS Related 14. _viral Doc meat 13. Cancel Ag Preserve 11. _Other: 15. OUner 14. Ottnez 10. stzM- hrTM: one (1) 31. N/A 12. is. __Septic Systems 23. _}Water Quality 01. 7uesthetic/Viatsal 08. CloodinglDrainpge 16. _Serer capacity 24. _-Water Spply 02. - _ gricultuual Lend 09. Geologic/Seimic 17. _Social 25. Gatlav�/RipariNua 03. _ltir Quality 10. Gebe/ftaing Balance 18. _Soil Erosion 26. -Wildlife 04. 11. _Glinera s 19. _Solid Matte 27. Growth Inducing 05. _Ooaetal Lane 12. _Boise 20. Tezic/Barardous 28. Tnoomatihle L.anduse 06. Gmnonic 13. relic Services 21. _Traffic/Circulation 29. Qmplative Effects 07. _lin Retard 14. __6cbools 22. ,,.._Vegetation 30. Gttwr 13. JUMM (appros) Federal ; State S Total S 14. Industrial - OTSP Old Town Specific Plan 15. Remove three (3) existing historic buildings and subdivide parcel to construct six (6) single family residences. 16. i OS LiAD,sue 1 a L»s C} ` XM: Clearingt:oune will assign identifieatlon numbers for all new projects. if a 9CA number alree� auiata for a projeux (e.g. from a Notice 0f Pnepar+_ion cc previous draft dnasmsst) pJpase fill it in. NOP DISTRIBUTION LIST Historic Resources Board Enrvironmental Board Barbara Milkovich Mark Conley - Chairperson 6032 Dundee Drive 21336 Baycrest Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Hunt . Bch. Historical Society Rob Selway Carolyn Landon, President Orange Company EMA 19820 Beach Boulevard 12 Civic Center Plaza Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Santa Ana, CA 92607-4048 Hans Kreutzberg Orange County Historical Comm. State Office Of Historic Pres . P.O. Box 4048 P.O. Box 942896 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048. Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 William Holman Susan Colby Pacific Coast Homes Archaeological Survey 2120 Main Street, Suite 260 University of California Huntington Beach, CA 92648 405 Hilgard Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90024 Alfred Fisher CalTrans District 12 John Merritt 2501 Pullman Street California Preservation Found. Santa Ana, CA 92705 1615 Broadway, Suite 4705 Oakland, CA 94612 George Hersh Public Utilities Commission Johnson Heuman Research Assoc. 505 Van Ness Avenue 321 N. Sierra Bonita San Franscisco, CA 94102 Los Angeles . CA 90063 South Coast AQMD Bob Fletcher 9150 Flair Drive Air Resources Board El Monte, CA 91731 1102 Q Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Gary L. Holloway California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street 4th Floor San Franscisco, CA 94105 _ Draft EIR No. 89-3 -45- STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEBAN, Governor D15PARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OISTRCT 12 2501 PULLMAN STREET SANTA ANA, CA 92705 RECEIV, Fib r u a r y 28, 19 9 {-� 1►n,4 Q 0 2 File: I:SP�,�E���A NOP Puts LamLberL 1989 Huntington Beach of Hunting'.,.. Eaaci? r !•. Free. L1( i1h ;r.tir7tc'n Seac,,. California 92-248 ;? r Ms. Lamber': .. .riy„-� �d ,he lc�.�ic� of Pr'er' r aiivn 0, dral'I : l EP TOi �h .ymienHim—nt . I tale :General 01an, EIP, rig-3, anc has the fo!'m•:inr- commenl�, io. '?re aft prii ai .i�' concerned i^i!th the effect that '-: P.-O;ect will ;h,a-ve �n State '. is:!;ties ,'Iii'in- H;' h•v;ay 39,fBeach Boulevard`. T i';e nv,i rc.r)m e r.,.all uc..t,!m e nt ShvUiu InC;uuc a traffic St'.,iG,; b`•'•.'?iCh eXamineS e.<.!S:: G an ��: .., %,"rac:a . -aTTiC :'C:iumeS �ArD traffic generati0� IrICIUdin%! peak t �ho :r, and an.Y resu. t_nt .,dverse impacts to our iaciiitles. `ha cur-r-Ulative ilmpactS .DT iS ,.n, :.the Planned for the area should also be addressed. CALTF._�%NS realizes that minimizing traffic congestion will require compreher•sive i'.:',d concerted e"Tort hY al` involved parties. Alleviating traffic problems ,-rill require in life styles and esponslble local de/el0Dr,;ent C! -1n-` inc-4. v'i!'h in s IiI ..'I; prop se that you in es.!ga e the enc,ose;i uti2ichrrie..nl tv il!t!�Gte traffic ;, Pacts. Corr d;n' tic,n Ste''s taken to inscz!re the imolementation Of pi'o—os^d i"'`_i ?mot! r, s":)uld I.-- d:c::'lvented in the environmenta! document. If rre can be of further assistance, piease Contact r:ene Huey oT-.Ty staff: on (714) =207Ei. 'Ae !c.,Jk for-ward :o reviev.,inG the draft environ.mr-ita! document. 72I--d-076 Sincere!- Alfred Fisher, Chief Environmental Analysis !?ranch Attachment cc: G. Smith, HO, Planning G. Ashely, Office OT Planning and Research A F,/GH i sm sr!-./noDhb6;/ ./2&/oQ1 H11 Historic Resources Board CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINCTON BEACH Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 March 2, 1989 SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 89-3 S.R. Bowen Buildings Dear Ruth: This project envisions a dramatic change in the streetscape of a familiar intersection in the historic city from an industrial/public use corner to a heavily built residential areas. It anticipates eliminating three major historic buildings which have been in use at the site for over sixty years and are remnants of a type of industrial building that was in the Huntington Beach Oil Field during the height of activity. The structures represent an entirely different style of construction than the surrounding area and present a unique vista. In recent months, the property owner has held the buildings vacant and allowed them to deteriorate. Never the less, they still represent an important segment of the city's history. This board recommends to City Council that every alternative to their demolition be explored during the review period prior to consideration of mitigation measures to lessen the loss of the cultural resource. In other areas, notably Irvine, similar buildings of corrugated metal have been incorporated successfully into modern income producing developments. We believe that creative alternatives can be found for these buildings which will better serve the social and cultural needs of the community as a whole. For example, they could be reconstructed as architecturally unique multiple family dwellings to compliment both the single family residences planned or the present multi—family units behind them and still retain the familiar look of history. If market analysis dictates a shopping complex, their open configuration lends itself to a village market area. Because they are located.near City Hall, these have the added potential of public use, either as a child care center, as meeting-space or as museum/ cultural space. We believe that the entire region would benefit from an interpretive center for the oil industry. There is no better location that in one of the important industrial complexes which served that industry. Off site use may be a feasible alternative if it is determined that the structures can be moved. A nearby location in or adjacent to an active oil field such as the site of the well, Huntington A-1, at Clay and Goldenwest, would be ideal for an interpretative center utilizing one or more of the threatened structures. If the buildings would not survive a move, they might be replicated in such a setting to retain their visual impact. Other measures do not really lessen the impact of the cultural loss, but could be used as educational tools to contribute to the historical knowledge of the city residents. These include descriptive plaques at the location, architectural drawings and photographs, or other interpretive documentation. We emphasize, however, that these are not to be thought of as alternatives to adaptive reuse of the structures, but only as means of mitigation of the loss of the cultural resource should no alternative use be feasible. March 2, 1989 Page 2 of 2 In the past few month, the historic cultural resources of this community have been ignored by new development plans. The future plans indicate a continued ruthless destruction of those rare remaining resources. Within the next decade it is likely that virtually all remaining historic structures will be demolished and replaced with dissimilar modern construction. This project adds greatly to the cumulative loss since it is in a well traveled area where people will feel the emotional loss of familiar structures. Therefore, it is important that more care be paid to lessening the impact of the development on this resource than it might warrant in another location. We urge you to consider carefully all alternatives to the loss of these structures. In a time period when the City is growing rapidly, it is important that it retain some of its historical presence as a counter-balance to new growth. These structures are among those few left that provide an architectural counterbalance and add a unique flavor to the area. Sincerely, Barbara Milkovich, Chairman BM:REL:gbm (2153d) City of Huntington gton Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA92648 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Building Division 536-5241 Planning Division 536-5271 March 15, 1989 Alfred Fisher, Chief Environmental Analysis Branch Department of Transportation District 12 2501 Pullman Street Santa Ana, CA 92607 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report 89-3 SCH #89020101 Dear Mr. Fisher: Thank you for your response of February 28, 1989, concerning the Notice of Preparation for Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 89-3. In your letter you express your concern with the project impacts on the state facilities including Highway 39 (Beach Boulevard). The proposed project is the demolition of three historic structures and the construction of six single—family residences. Traffic impacts from the construction of these residences is not anticipated to effect Beach Boulevard. Information obtained during the initial study review indicates the only significant project impacts are onsite historic structures. Consequently, no other . significant. impacts, including traffic, are anticipated as a result of this project. Thank you for your comments regarding Draft Environmental Impact Report 89-3. We anticipate sending out the Draft for your review around March 24, 1989. Sincerely, Ruth E. Lambert Assistant Planner REL:lb (2226d) City of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA92648 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Building Division 536-5241 Planning Division 536-5271 March 15, 1989 Ms. Barbara Milkovich, Chairman Historic Resources Board 6032 Dundee Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Dear Ms. Milkovich: Thank you for your response of March 2, 1989, concerning the Notice of Preparation for Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 89-3. Many of the concerns that you raise in your letter will be addressed in the Draft. Issues discussed in the Draft include the adaptive reuse of the structures for child care facilities, museum, and multi—family residences. Also included is a discussion of alternative locations for the historic structures and the project. The Draft Environmental Impact Report also presents comprehensive mitigation measures to reduce the project impacts. Thank you for your comments regarding Draft Environmental Impact Report 89-3. We anticipate sending out the Draft for you review around March 24, 1989. Sincerely, Ruth E. Lambert Assistant Planner REL:lb (2226d) APPENDIX B REPORT ON HISTORICAL STRUCTURES THIRTIETH STREET ARCHITECTS. INC. Draft EIR No. 89-3 -46- . REPORT ON HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE Prepared by Thirtieth Street Architects,Inc. 1980 A, 1980 B, 1980 C LAKE STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH Architectural Description The complex of industrial buildings, rn located at the comer of Lake Street and P g Yorktown Avenue, consists of three metal-clad industrial buildings. The largest of these is located at the north of the property and.closest to the intersection. This two- story industrial building and the side-facing gabled roof are clad in corrugated metal sheets. A row of one-over-one double hung windows occupy the second floor and are grouped in pairs and trios on the building ends. The same windows are used in singles on the front facade, with four smaller windows in the south half. All are trimmed with a wide wood surround, painted in a contrasting color. The first floor windows are metal-framed, 12-light and stationary. The north end and the northerly part of the main facade are dominated by these large windows and a freight door which is located on the north end of the building. The interior of this building includes industrial shop space on the first floor and office space on the second floor. The first floor consists primarily of a single large open space, except for employee restrooms and a small office with a built-in.slant top desk, possibly used for drafting. The second floor consists of a series of office spaces and includes a bathroom with shower and a kitchenette area. The walls are finished with railroad board wood paneling and the floors are covered with vinyl the flooring in the entry areas and carpeting in the office areas. At the rear of the main building, are two single-story gabled roof buildings clad in corrugated metal. The first of these is attached to the main building and linked by a freight door. The second is attached but unconnected and includes a high central bay. Both buildings are framed and unfinished inside and have elaborate exposed wood trussing supporting the roofs. Building B is the middle of the three buildings and is believed to have been the first of the three buildings to be built, in about 1922. (A newspaper article dated November, 1921, announces a "new industry" to be built by Samuel Bowen which will manufacture well-drilling tools). This building features a prominent stepped parapet on the front facade, with a band of wood trim at the top of the parapet. This building is also metal clad and also had double hung windows trimmed with wide wood surrounds. Rolled roofing has been added over the metal roof. The windows vary in size and in groupings, with mostly single windows on the first floor. A walk-in door and a freight door on a metal track are located on the front facade. The interior of Building B has been partitioned on the front one-fourth of the space to create offices at both the first and second floor levels. The remainder of the interior consists of a single large industrial workspace. The walls are framed, but finished only by the exterior corrugated metal. The extensive wood trusswork supporting the roof is visible from the interior. Building C consists of two sections, each with front-facing gabled roofs topped with long narrow cupolas. The rear section of the building is taller than the one in front, but both are clad with corrugated metal siding. The corrugated metal roofs have been covered by rolled roofing. Both cupolas have front-facing gabled roofs and louvered sides. The front facade is dominated by a centered sliding freight door, suspended from a metal track, and flanked by a pair of 18-light stationary windows. Windows of the same size and style are used on the sides of the building. A gabled roof, which is open beneath, is attached to the north side of the building, at the second story level. This building, believed to have been building in the early 1920s, expanded the company's machine operations and included a welding shop and forge. A newspaper article dated 1923,_ describes the addition of a blacksmith shop to the S.R. Bowen Company. The article describes a "traveling crane", which possibly operated on the curved iron I-beam supported at the base of the roof trusses still found in the front section of this building. The interior of the building is divided only into the two main sections, each having a high central bay, provided by the cupola. As with the other buildings, the interior is framed and the exterior metal is exposed, as are the wooden trusses supporting the roof. Architectural Significance These buildings are among the the last remaining early industrial buildings in the City. Within the area covered by the Historical Survey, only six industrial buildings (including these three) from this era were found to be still in existence. Since so few of these buildings remain, these are considered potentially significant at the local level, since they represent the type of construction typical for early industrial buildings in the City. They are unlikely to be considered architecturally significant at a national level, since their architecture and method of construction is not unusual. f I I Biographical Significance i Samuel Redman Bowen was born in Martinez, a descendent of a pioneer California Family, and spent his early life in the San Francisco area. He came to Huntington Beach in 1920 from Coalinga, where he was identified with the oil industry. He rapidly developed the successful industry which bears his name and became well known in the community. In 1928, he was electedmayor of the City and served one term. He was a veteran of World War I and was a member of the Huntington Beach IAmerican Legion Post and a past president of both the Huntington Beach Rotary Club and the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce. He also served on the I advisory board of the Automobile Club of Southern California for many years. With his wife, Victoria, Mr. Bowen had five children, Emily, Whittier, Paul George Walter, and Ysabel. IThe importance of Samuel Bowen, and the respect in which he was held by the City of Huntington Beach, is indicated by the resolution passed by the City Council upon I his death on August 6, 1944. The Council took the unusual step of closing City Hall for a half day period on August 9th to allow officials and employees of the City to I "render respect and tribute" Samuel Bowen, who was "a highly respected citizen, a just and upright man and a faithful and efficient officer and servant of the people." . Historical Significance - 4 The three buildings at 1980 Lake Street were operated by Samuel R. Bowen and his partner, Sisti Siracusa, as the S.R; Bowen Company and the Bowen Fishing Tool Company, servicing the flourishing Southern California oil industry. The Bowen firm is credited with numerous developments of tools used in oil production and was widely known. One of their most famous products was the "Bowen Jar". This I product, invented by Bowen's son, Walter; was used to retrieve drillers machinery which became stuck in a drill hole,by jarring loose the stuck equipment. (The slang term for this lost equipment is the "fish"). Newspaper accounts of the Bowen Jar, as recently as 1976, indicated that this method remained the most efficient method of retrieving the "fish" for many years after its invention. ' Additional information about the history of the S. R, Bowen Company was obtained in a phone conversation with Mr. Dante Siracusa, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Bowen Tools, Inc., based in Houston Texas. (Mr. Siracusa is one of the sons of Sisti Siracusa, Samuel Bowen's partner.) The S.R. Bowen Company was founded in 1920 and fulfilled a crucial need in the infant oil industry. ' During the early years of oil production, there were no standardized tools for "fishing" lost materials from the drill hole. Drillers simply fashioned their own makeshift tool out of whatever was available and, generally, discarded the "tool" after one use. The S.R Bowen Company began to invent, standardize, and produce specific tools needed to make the drilling process more effective. The Company was highly successful with a eventual employment level of 70 to 80 persons and gross sales of $1:5 to $2 million per year by the 1950s; Some of the outstanding tools produced by the S.R. Bowen Company include the Bowen L & L Spear (used to retrieve pipe from oil wells), the Bowen Mechanical Jar.(also a "fishing" tool), and the Power Swivel (used for rotating pipe and repairing a depleted well to active production). These products were used world wide in the oil industry and were unsurpassed for many years. The S.R. Bowen Company remained in Huntington Beach until the mid 1950's when they moved their base of operations to Santa Fe Springs. Shortly thereafter, they merged with the Bowen Company of Texas to form Bowen Tools, Inc. Both companies have a common origin. G. Walter Bowen (Samuel's son), and Mr. Osborne and Mr. Coleman, who started the Bowen Company of Texas in 1934 all were employees of the S.R. Bowen Company. The Bowen Company of Texas was particularly successful due to Walter Bowen's invention of the Bowen Overshot, which dominated the overshot market for many years. ' The merger of the two companies in 1958 allowed Bowen Tools, Inc. to become a leader in the world in the production of "fishing" tools for the oil industry. Mr. ' Siracusa indicated that virtually all of the over 100 companies in the U.S. providing fishing services use Bowen tools predominantly. At its peak in 1981 and 1982, the company earned $150 million in sales. Subsequent reversals in the overall oil- , industry have reduced sales to about $50 million annually. The. company still controls the largest share of the world market for the oil production tools that they ' produce. Individual Listing on the National Register The building complex at Lake and Yorktown (1980 A, B, C Lake Street) is believed to be-nominatable for the National Register of Historic Places based on the world- ' wide significance of the S.R. Bowen Company and its successor, Bowen Tools, Inc., to the oil industry. The importance of this company to the industry at large is a direct reflection of the importance of Huntington Beach to the early development of the oil industry in Southern California. I Contributor to a National Register Historic District The three buildings in this complex could, themselves, be considered a district, but are not geographically part of any surrounding district. Generally, a small grouping of buildings such at these - particularly when related by a common function - would be considered an historic site, rather than a district. Regardless of whether these are called a site, district, or landmark, all three buildings are important contributors to the significance of the whole. Local Landmark or Contributor to a Local Historic District Regardless of whether or not a National Register designation is obtained, the building complex is considered to be nominatable as a local landmark. r • .Sources Reviewed: Armor, Samuel, History of Orange County and Biographical Sketches, 1911 and 1922, (no data found). Historic Resources Survey Report, City of Huntington Beach, September, 1986. Huntington Beach News, September 16, 1976; August 10, 1944; January 25, 1924; November 25, 1921; and January 12, 1923. Pleasant's History of Orange County. 1932. (no data found). Siracusa, Dante. Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer. of Bowen ' Tool, Inc. (Phone conversation with Jill Sterrett, 10-25-88). Survey forms for 1980, 1978, and 1970 Lake Street, prepared 1986. r Talbert, History of Orange County, 1963. (no data found). r T-EFF I I l I _ r -- ,.,, - -- --- ■ 1980 Al B., & C FROM INJERSFCTIO\ OF LAKE ST. AND YORKTOWN AVE. #, 1 K tq- ,5yf 8 N X w •.�kxCa _ �b`� ,Ei � §,mot 1 � I�f� e.� _ _ ____ ��� no BUILDING A - INTERIOR . TRUSSWORK (REAR BUILDING) i {6t f I i y Y I BUILDINGS ATTACHED TO i THE REAR OF BUILDING A lam I rim, - � %���»\\� BUILDING A- DRAFTING TABLE . ON FIRST FLOOR . . 7 BUILDING A - CABINETRY AND WALL FINISHER, SECOND FLOOR rI o F Mt' i i { 4 tyi S u wF �•�'it "`� :i R ` � ��t�'� ` 4•y �`Ail ^,�� JI_ !.9k^�A'- � },4ryR y� n R� i � �, P u'�'Z-�-...-..s•. III-- '• . r ^'�...i .,: •. • i.RO �J t 4 ,1 R sii i f �, w i i,t�fl'es ji'�i E 13 is If >Etlx I 1 3 �, a � ,� tl F �Si•t rlt%; ` �rr� a 3� �,.� } � '.♦ a, nA�`7j'M1},II� .. Q ° I �u.�"�"�'"' I j"7 "`'-'r � .i�. x ..: q Y 1'x• A �I�drib+}_-, �...7 ewzL a s, r fi; 7w -emsAa Amp �s low t r sy> e h7 tti r Jxy „ k3S � 1 yh�t K ' f _� t r•. t r� ! f '" �✓I lra�'�v��IgClt�l,•t'�'��fi{�+>•7! r , ...�„. 1. � .I M _ - �t^�` r"� �y4liii i r ¢fv 45y\ i' u FFF 11 t _ _ _�' - _ r� ..4m ,'{ r i �Rry.�a h'y��Ps e�L. i=u t� �•'L Ir � �"�� 6 �.. } �"* x -• �1 w1y$r!im rK �'+ I� r�q:.. ..,.��r '�:F^',-:^r^-• 1 'saJ�t! ,��r}a ���Y7'�i,4�y� ¢FY ` 1V,i: v � t'Y-`J) ":�` ._ ! � � '�'" c 't ':� _ - I !i�.`la,,',6}At��Y1Jr✓r��h 1 x�a 77.�.. 1 - C 3 RAY � .� �4 � � .='?" h �.�S�µ 1�'- yi4}i• !'}A k•�Y�!„,"•'f)4�(�p'r )�'y IEN RHR % • i ,ap,i,_ �u "". (' �r �'� :; � ,- � � �•�r 1 � � ��i r y7 �rr�.j ;�9+� �{rL��:�,� r•r',—t� a r 'Rr r�tW�iW:w,{arwr„rw.,,• g.�"'� ks a, -.f*t,J .ii 5f: � �rl a i�f�4�'<�'�L �i�r.t{. yr i F •u ��i:r tYr ' �'^ �;� t '=z;. .l,.i r'..�??rF�l+'?+'rtt F+�+' °.•�3cr�i!.t:� APPENDIX C CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS THIRTIETH STREET ARCHITECTS. INC. Draft EIR No . 89-3 -47- CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATES OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE THREE BUILDINGS LOCATED AT 1980 LAKE STREET Prepared by Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. INTRODUCTION _ The purpose of this study is to prepare conceptual estimates of construction costs for adaptive reuse for three alternative uses of three existing buildings on an ap- proximately one acre site located at the southeast corner of Lake Street and Yorktown Ave. in Huntington Beach, California. The buildings were constructed in the early 1920's for the oil exploration industry and must be fully rehabilitated to accommodate new uses. Three alternative uses have been identified which work within current zoning (Oldtown District): 1. Child Care/ Museum 2. Senior Hotel 3. Multi-Family Apartments METHODOLOGY The buildings have been identified as being historically significant on a local level with the potential of being nominated to the National Register of Historic Places. The approach to an adaptive reuse would include steps to preserve the buildings' historic character by following the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabil- itation. Generally, this calls for retaining as much of the original building char- acter and materials while rehabilitating them for the new uses and providing for life and safety requirements. It is assumed the rehabilitation will be under the ju- risdiction of the State of California's State Historic Building Code. The existing buildings were field surveyed by Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. and Robert Lawson, Structural Engineer to examine existing conditions. Draw- ings were supplied by the Pacific Coast Homes (current owner) which showed building sizes and location on the site. Conceptual estimates of construction cost are based on the experience of the architect and engineer in working on over 50 historical adaptive reuse projects, including tin-clad industrial buildings. Lake Street Buildings•Page I YORKTOWN AVE. PROPOSED PARKING AREA :,Ytiti.Y.•Y','•#..Y:;?:�. •v;t•+>.•'t:,;>}vc�la�;:..:a ,;�..•.:Y•...,?Fiiti}k:s�: :°ikkk,{':':•';?•,:Y.<,:;..,trk`•::..'.'•r•'.�•y: :•:: {�f:'iTMf :�:v:h:,N.t::4i:vT \..:..:,{Y:: C—' :;tY;Y.;•.,•::#y,:2.t•;,`•"?;s::r+••:t:Y.}:. "2',:'t•.t.�i,Y PROPOSED PARKING AREA :�:;R.SY,•YY: t:;}::k:S'tk};.};);h;{>.;:;n.:#:;?::::<::#<::>:#»:{;#•>;? f W ik?ji':iskti'fi'k\ti!ti$:GSv'n{f;;kvk::<k::\{•;}:?i::#::;}:}oF:}::}}?t•',+tic;:','a;{: :::j{:Y\?.ivt.i v,:;?$•}ti•Y:j'Y:?i¢:^:;:c:kk;#>;�}f•Y'Y%}vv„?ti;.•.i::;::y,?n :r: {ii ji\+k??:k#r..:y.fT :•.iC:::::i#ii /� S,#:,{•'.::{•i:ti{i+::#:Yv:::::.;•:.: ...::{:tiiii: aY{:Y::. w •?•}{:k}�Yi::}vn,a:i;J}�:%ii'.'•t{};C;\;i\Y} �::ti;:tia:\k:Y:k�:ti•:iti�tiv j.{.}v.+: ::.{'Y:+i�i\':#Y'yY:tkv:v::'•\Q.:;.•4:v:ik.;�#:j�:Y::::iYi:•:::v•::•iii:Y :tiffkk::k:.kiki}:i:titi4 ::kviay.}•Y:;•'??y<}.v':k;:;.+>ti kvF':k}#:t:' :.:{:::•ti;Y}:t ri:•Y}::::::.{ +v.Yh.,{.;.,y:Y,}:Y:{v:•: }Y:.r•{:•:.:::::..•; v:r}Y::;;;+Y:::ti:Y:•Y:•Y:a::• ��//�� i'•Yi;::{•i{kY':•,{r„':.ti:.: .tin tih ii>i'Y.j• . VJ .{Y;C•{:'Y:'.:••+t}' •: ';n4:{>{':Y:•YF:•YY:;k:'y is}'t#j#:::•.:i;;:iiii}:kk:Y }Yti}?:y;rhy ?:<#; #:;,£:. �ii: •+•.YC•:i.{y tk{O+.;aP'�'fY,.'{.{,r{: ��^{tw}t'.��',,�<r�?;;�Yx;kfr',r'❖,,x;59�q;+'_�:;�; k' akit s#V> PROPOSED PARKING AREA .v;.+Y}\v+PY "'}• �• Y}F+,•..i•.\ }• }}• Y a Y.4Y.•.v••;..Y:,. !. ?'C ;,C�t{3 '+r"'O.ti{�3 `2i : $,'R �: k�+�F;\C k.<•. ," •i k�Y:^'a`..k: . %:,F:hY.,+.. ,•i}$,+`h'• koa:• r.^ :'% r a.•.'•{; w Y{h:}o:•ipp o C• :5..• {;.Yt,•:,;.:fi}k'i SY..:•'•.x S }. +..::::Yha �...'.. }:' �+,�, G \ {k \•...< vfYY % �••kt,.J.+:3\.Y:a.^. F.• �•;i sYY.^,:> ••{f h'.'.f.'';!••:•{ti<,}�.Y k"r�:.i{}:�•C�Y �?'r+x^ k,•,:•:•<+L�tfi•t•,:.,••.ka;•f'•"•i *��5:r,'..ai.;:.}::•�`+i I:YS•.. R h: :{{�Y}.{•hx : �.. � 6k�:}kCch k}t}+Y}••\', Y r `a ��yb'a} :�i.r{.�<z;?i�'Y;,wt;�\�f?�'y,.;�i•..':{.� }`:;kY..}r,:h�;,���i} £�{.yi•::.{,y:FYk•.: :} •f"'� i 9}\�.}[?•i��}�.��'{4 Yh\Ytk..?f?•.\.: �Y.�9ha�••.•:•:v��{.v., +:,:Sr$t�;.}+•hik:{�.k}i}k; ILLUSTRATIVE TIVE SITE PLAN NOSCALE N Lake Street Buildings•Page 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS The buildings are generally of single wall construction with a corrugated tin ex- terior skin at the walls and roof. Some of the buildings have portions comprised of composition roof over the original tin. The buildings are all single story except for a portion of building A. The floors are all severely stained and damaged concrete slabs. The windows are all steel industrial, multi-light which can be re-cycled. Structurally, the buildings all have truss roof construction, with varying degrees of existing stability. Building C seems to be in the best condition, Building A in a worse condition, and Building B trusses are failing in many areas. All of the buildings need seismic upgrading. None of the buildings have reusable mechanical, plumbing or electrical systems. BUILDING RELOCATION The buildings were evaluated for possible relocation to a new site. The buildings would most likely be completely disassembled and reconstructed to be moved for there is little rigidity to the buildings and their size is too large to move easily down adjacent streets. Disassembly moving costs are estimated to be ±$20.00 per square foot with a resulting cost of approximately $300,000, plus new foundations, plus rehabilitation costs. (Note: Land costs are not included) SCOPE OF CONSTRUCTION The evaluation of construction cost is prepared based on costs found in similar projects. A description of the anticipated work can best be described by identify-* ing improvements necessary for all uses, and then identifying special provisions anticipated for each alternative use to be evaluated. Shell Construction All of the alternatives studied need to have similar basic improvements made to the buildings and site for adaptive reuse. The following is a brief description of the types of work that need to be completed for every alternative use studied. Site Work Grading Utilities Lake Street Buildings-Page 3 Ij Parking Landscaping Lighting Hardscape Architectural Work Creation of insulated exterior wall • orig. tin o/plywood/insulation/drywall Repair/Replacement/Creation of new - windows and doors New tin roof assembly • new tin over plywood over nailer w/insulation over orig. tin (exposed at interior) Exterior and interior painting Addition of exiting stairs Fire sprinklering Structural Work Augmentation of footings New slab Addition of shear walls Addition of brace frames New floor to wall connections New roof to wall connections New plywood diaphragms at 2nd floors and roofs Repair/Augmentation/Replacement of roof trusses Mechanical Work New Heating/Air conditioning units New Ventilation units as required (bathrooms) Plumbing New meter and building hook-ups Lines to mechanical units Basic plumbing lines Electrical New meters and building hook-ups New panel boards and telephone Exterior lighting (including building and site) Lake Street Buildings•Page 4 Specific Use Construction Items The three alternative uses each have differing requirements for construction, such as number of new interior walls, number of bathrooms required and amount of electrical fixture needed as shown below: 1..Child CarelMuseum — has few new interior walls, central HVAC per build- ing, one pair of bathrooms per building, and medium high lighting costs for dis- play purposes. 2. Senior Hotel — has many new interior walls to create the rooms, has a high requirement for windows to the exterior, has individual HVAC units per room, has one bathroom plus kitchen per room, plus one pair of bathrooms in a common area, has average lighting and electrical requirements. 3. Multi-Family Apartments — has many new interior walls to create the units,has a high requirement for windows to the exterior, has individual HVAC units per apartment, has one bathroom and full kitchen per apartment, plus one pair of bathrooms in a common area, has average lighting and electrical requirements. I Lake Street Buildings-Page 5 CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATES OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS ITEMIBUILDING A B C TOTAL S UARE FOOTAGE 6 500 3 600 5,200 15,30 1. CHILD CAREIMUSEUM Parking Requirement: Museum=1/220 s.f. 8,000 S.F. @ MUSEUM= 36 SPACES Child Care= 1/ea.staff+ 1/class 7700 @ CHILD CARE-- 27 SPACES SITE $90 540 LANDSCAPE/PARKING $90 540 ARCHITECTURAL $162 500 $162 500 $162 500 $487 500 STRUCTURAL $125 900 $100 800 $83 200 $309 900 MECHANICAL $39 000 $21 600 $31 200 $91 800 PLUMBING $18 525 $10 260 $14 82 $$43 605 ELECTRICAL $48 750 $27 000 $39 000 $114 750 SUBTOTAL $394 675 $322 160 $330 720 $1228 635 PROFIT OVERHEAD $118 403 $96 648 $99 216 $368 591 CONTINGENCY TOTAL COST $513 078 $418 808 $429 936 $1 597 226 2. SENIOR HOTEL Parldng Requirement: l/bach.or 1-bed 425 s.f.@ lbed X 17 Units= 17 SPACES 2/2-bed 650 s.f. 2 bed X 18 Units 36 SPACES SITE $90 540 LANDSCAPE/PARKING $90 540 ARCHITECTURAL $227 500 $227 500 $227 500 $682 500 STRUCTURAL $125 900 $100 800 $83 200 $309 900 MECHANICAL $32 500 $18 000 $26 000 $76 500 PLUMBING $61750 $34 200 $49 400 $145 350 ELECTRICAL $39 000 $21600 $31200 $91 800 SUBTOTAL $486 650 $402 100 $417 300 $1 487 130 PROFIT OVERHEAD $145 995 $120 630 $125 190 $446 139 CONTINGENCY TOTAL COST $632,6451 $522,7301 $542 490 1 $1 933 269 CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATES OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS ITEM/BUILDING A B C TOTAL S UARE FOOTAGE 6 500 3,600 5,200 15,300 3. MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENTS Parldng Requirement: 2/2-bed 650 s.f. 2-bed X 23 units 46 SPACES SITE $90 540 LANDSCAPE/PARKING $90 540 ARCHITECTURAL $247 000 $247 000 $247 000 $741000 STRUCTURAL $125 900 $100 800 $83 200 $309 900 MECHANICAL $42 250 $23 400 $33 800 $99 450 PLUMBING $55 250 $30 600 $44 200 $130 050 ELECTRICAL $39 000 $21600 $31 200 $91 800 SUBTOTAL $509 400 $423 400 $439 400 $1 553 280 PROFIT OVERHEAD $152 820 $127 020 $131 820 $465 984 CONTINGENCY TOTAL COST $662,220 $550,4201 $571,220 1 $2,019,264